Read this and guess who said it:

Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

… After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Back in the day, this politician said that deposing Saddam militarily was not necessary, because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United States. He also used Iraq’s weakened economy as a reason to leave Saddam alone.

He stated that we could still handle the militaristic despot and claimed that the Bush administration’s statement that Saddam posed too great a threat to American interests and his own people to be left in power was a bunch of political hyperbole.

That was the current President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, serving as an Illinois State Senator in 2002.

Scooter was giving his politically correct opinion concerning President George W. Bush’s planned invasion of Iraq. The murderous dictator that he was speaking of was Saddam Hussein. Obama was speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.  Back then, his stance was, that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that alone was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power.

My, how his opinion has changed in 9 short years.

On March 28, 2011, in a speech to the American people, desperately attempting to justify attacking the government of Libyan leader Moammar Kadhafi, Obama brought up Kadhafi’s record of atrocities. But in this instance, our flip-flopping president tried to make the case that letting Kadhafi continue his genocide was not an option:

Kadhafi declared he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people. “He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day.

Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited, if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

According to Scooter, Kadhafi had to be stopped because he would slaughter his own people in order to keep his throne. Per the president, this somehow constituted a threat to America’s “interests and values:

But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Back in 2002, Illinois Senator Scooter proclaimed that, America should fight Saddam Hussein through Democratic reforms in neighboring countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia instead of force. He also called for stronger international nuclear safeguards and nuclear independence:

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join – the battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

But now, the worm has turned (Oops. Can I say that?).

Obama is endorsing his Kinetic Military Action in order to enforce America’s “responsibility as a [global] leader”. He proclaimed that the United States was “different” from other countries and therefore had no other choice but to attack Libya:

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.

There goes Barack Hussein Obama Antoinette again.  Wanting to have his cake and eat it, too.