In Larry Elder's new Townhall editorial, he asks: "Under the New Trump Standard, Why Wasn't Obama Impeached?"
Elder states in the opening: "In the era of President Donald Trump, Democrats think presidents should be impeached over policy differences."
The best-selling author then describes the Left's obsession with Trump's supposed collusion with Russia, and their inability to accept the result of endless investigation. Despite a complete lack of any evidence to support the notion, many Blue State representatives still call for the President's impeachment.
But Elder points out the Left's staunch hypocrisy:
"One of Trump's major campaign promises was to build a 'wall' to protect our southern border. Never mind that, in 2006, 26 Democratic senators -- including Hillary Clinton, then-Senator Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer -- voted for hundreds of miles of barriers and fencing. And every Senate Democrat voted for 2013's Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which again called for hundreds of miles of barriers."
Spotlighting goofy Al Green, Elder notes that the Left's rules for Republicans differ from those for their own:
"But Trump is 'racist' and 'xenophobic.' Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, calls Trump a 'bigot in the White House who incites hatred and hostility,' which, says Green, is a 'high misdemeanor' that constitutes an impeachable offense."
The nationally-syndicated radio host then turns toward left-wing Savior Barack Obama, applying the same standard to his handling of Iraq:
"Let's apply the Democrats' new standard for impeachment to President Obama and his decision in 2011 to pull all the troops from Iraq against the advice of his national security team. President George W. Bush warned his successor. Bush turned around the Iraq War with his controversial 'surge,' a troop increase of about 21,500 in 2007. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in October 2011, two months before Obama pulled out all the troops in Iraq, said that Bush's 2007 agreement envisioned a negotiation for a stay-behind force: 'There was another provision in [Bush's status-of-forces agreement] that's very important, seems to have been ignored, which was that we would also reserve the right to negotiate with the Iraqis on some stay-behind forces. ... They're a new democracy; they're not very well-organized yet. I worry that in the rush for the exit here, that we may in fact make it very difficult for them to succeed.'"
As Elder indicates, Congressman Obama didn't agree:
"But then-Sen. Barack Obama, who called the Iraq War 'dumb,' not only opposed Bush's surge but also predicted it would make things worse: 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. ... So I am going to actively oppose the President's proposal.'"
Obama was wrong: the surge worked. By 2008, American soldiers were able to peruse the streets of Iraq without need of helmets, a luxury provided by the quelling of violence in the region. War correspondent Dexter Filkins observed at the time:
"The progress here is remarkable...The park out in front of the house where I live -- on the Tigris River -- was a dead, dying, spooky place. It's now filled with people -- families with children, women walking alone, even at night. That was inconceivable in 2006...It's a wonderful thing to see."
When Obama took power, he extracted the troops against the recommendation of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the secretary of defense, the national security advisor, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The consensus was that a power vacuum would open the area to threat of terroristic control.
Obama didn't listen, and instead enacted what is known as the "Iraq bug-out."
Lamenting the effects of Obama's move, retired Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno has stated:
"I go back to the work we did in 2007 (through) 2010, and we got into a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction. ... We thought we had it going exactly in the right direction, but now we watch it fall apart. It's frustrating. ... I think, maybe, if we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have prevented it."
Elder summarizes: "If policy disagreement is the new standard for impeachment in the Trump era, wouldn't Obama's Iraq bug-out qualify?"