Despite
the fact that both houses of Congress and the U.N. passed resolutions in
favor of going to war with Iraq, liberals have been trying to convince us ever
since that George W. Bush started the war illegally. But now that President
Obama needs to save face (thanks to his “red line in the sand” threat last year
regarding Syria) he is in the process of committing the US to unilateral
military action in Syria without consent from Congress or the UN. Of course,
liberals are cheering him all the way.
They conveniently forget (or assume we will forget) that in 2007, then Senator Obama said to a Boston Globe reporter, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
And also in 2007, Vice President Joe Biden said, “the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”
They conveniently forget (or assume we will forget) that in 2007, then Senator Obama said to a Boston Globe reporter, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
And also in 2007, Vice President Joe Biden said, “the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”
Secretary
of State John Kerry says there is “undeniable evidence” that Syria’s Bashar
al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. But no evidence of
this has been found. In fact, the U.N. doesn’t know who did what to whom and is
now pleading with Obama to hold off on taking any action for now. But it seems
Obama is willing to make the situation worse just for the sake of showing some
mishapen form of a backbone. As of now, he is just waiting for U.N. teams to leave Syria to make his move - without Congress, without ally support (e.g. Britain just backed out) and without even talking to the American people about it.
Obama is saying that, on grounds of humanity, he has a moral imperative for taking action against Syria. If that's the case, then he'd have even more reason to support our having gone into Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had killed hundreds of thousands of people, including his own brother-in-law, whom he personally ordered to have killed in a wood chipper...feet first.
But beyond any moral reasons, Syria is embroiled in a civil war, which has no bearing on our national security whatsoever. And unlike Hussein, who was removed from power by our actions, Syria's Assad would remain in power and the rebels most likely behind the gas attacks in Syria would be emboldened further.
In all of this, Obama is hoping we won’t notice one other obvious thing (in addition to the clear un-constitutionality of this should he try to act without permission): that by taking military action against Syria, Obama would be joining forces with al-Qaeda - who is a bitter enemy of Syria. In other words, the very people who murdered so many thousands of Americans on 9/11 will be receiving our help to attack one of their other enemies.
Obama is saying that, on grounds of humanity, he has a moral imperative for taking action against Syria. If that's the case, then he'd have even more reason to support our having gone into Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had killed hundreds of thousands of people, including his own brother-in-law, whom he personally ordered to have killed in a wood chipper...feet first.
But beyond any moral reasons, Syria is embroiled in a civil war, which has no bearing on our national security whatsoever. And unlike Hussein, who was removed from power by our actions, Syria's Assad would remain in power and the rebels most likely behind the gas attacks in Syria would be emboldened further.
In all of this, Obama is hoping we won’t notice one other obvious thing (in addition to the clear un-constitutionality of this should he try to act without permission): that by taking military action against Syria, Obama would be joining forces with al-Qaeda - who is a bitter enemy of Syria. In other words, the very people who murdered so many thousands of Americans on 9/11 will be receiving our help to attack one of their other enemies.
Of
course the mainstream media will not point out these things. They also won’t
have the intellectual honesty to ask a key question: if attacking Iraq
was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? We had congressional support -including Hilary Clinton's, John Kerry's and Joe Biden's "yes" votes -- to go into Iraq. Obama is now courting Congress to get support for his desire to attack Syria. If he does not receive this approval - and he shouldn't - the question remains whether he will act anyway.
Whether Obama receives permission or not, I wonder if Obama supporters will stop excoriating Bush for going into Iraq. We'll see. And if Obama does strike against Syria --without approval from Congress -- then, in Biden's own words, we should "move to impeach him."
Regardless of what happens, all of this illuminates the pressing need for our own country to gain energy independence. The fewer reasons we have to be embroiled in the Middle East, the better. For some reason though, Obama seems a bit too interested in being involved and for all the wrong reasons.
Read:
Did the White House help plan the Syrian chemical attack?
Whether Obama receives permission or not, I wonder if Obama supporters will stop excoriating Bush for going into Iraq. We'll see. And if Obama does strike against Syria --without approval from Congress -- then, in Biden's own words, we should "move to impeach him."
Regardless of what happens, all of this illuminates the pressing need for our own country to gain energy independence. The fewer reasons we have to be embroiled in the Middle East, the better. For some reason though, Obama seems a bit too interested in being involved and for all the wrong reasons.
Read:
Did the White House help plan the Syrian chemical attack?
What do you
think? Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your
thoughts. No registration necessary.
the LAST thing we need is this freaking RODEO CLOWN getting us in the middle of a Civil War in Syria that is NONE OF OUR CONCERN, and could possibly land us in a World War with Russia and China arrayed against us.
ReplyDeleteHe is an INCOMPETENT CLOWN when it comes to foreign policy (and most everything else), and needs to stop deluding himself that he is equipped to play with the "big kids" (Russia and China) in the sandbox. He is NOT--and we and Israel are going to pay a HEAVY price for his egotism and narcissism if he is not reined in.
So he needs to stop the macho posturing, sit down and SHUT UP.. He has ALREADY made a complete FOOL of himself drawing lines in the sand and daring people to cross them, then when they do, he backpedals and stammers--and NOW is trying to make up for THAT sorry performance with this MADNESS?
If he insists on going to Syria on his own authority, then Congress needs to IMPEACH HIM NOW.