Our 'side' in Syria
The meme du semaine is 'Americans aren't backing President Obama on Syria
because George W Bush, Iraq, and Afghanistan 'poisoned the well.'
Might I suggest that they were not alone in committing the poisoning?
Look, it is undeniable that the
spectre of long, bloody wars like Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely hanging
over this debate and is to blame in great part, but have you ever
considered:
1) Being 'for 'em before you were
against 'em,' with regard to Bush's wars might have just revealed you as acting
like partisan hacks and/or worked too well (See: Hypocrisy Alert! Clinton, Kerry, Gore & Other Democrats
Talk About Saddam'sWMD BEFOREAND AFTER Bush Is President and Call for War
Against Iraq); and,
2) Bush wasn't as stupid nor is
Obama as smart as you've claimed; and,
3) The Left's past projection was
wrong: 'Hey, the Islamists don't hate us. Some, like Assad, are
actually 'reformers.' The Middle East just hates George W Bush and world
will change completely when we take over because we so 'smart'; and,
4) The claim that Republicans loved
bombing brown people and were racists, bigots, and Islamophobes might have been
wrong and a complete misunderstanding of the members of a misogynistic, racist,
homophobic, bigoted, child-abusing, xenophobic, tribalistic, antisemitic,
Christophobic, maniacal, thin-skinned, homicidal, suicidal, totalitarian, 7th
century death cult that hate us; and,
5) Unilateralism is only bad when
Republican Presidents DON'T DO IT,
but is great when Democratic Presidents DO
is pretty despicably hypocritical; and,
6) Yelling 'Bush didn't get enough
UN resolutions!' looks particularly rich now that your excuse for ignoring the
UN is 'Russia and China are obstructionistic, intransigence, and out for their
own political interests (imagine that!)!!!' At least, Bush was able to
get Russia and China to abstain from voting at the Security Council; and,
7) The UK is our oldest ally, but
that was not enough even when it is part of a coalition; and,
8) Screaming that Bush's coalition
of more than 40 countries and organisations, including NATO, the United Nations,
the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Spain, Australia, Denmark, the
Czech Republic, Italy, Canada, Hungary, Georgia, Poland, Romania, the
Philippines, Bulgaria, Colombia, El Salvador, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Nicaragua, Albania, etc, was 'tiny' smarts when your coalition consists
of...the incredibly reliable, France (snark), is a bloody riotous flashback;
and,
9) Arguing that NATO is
meaningless was precious considering you don't have its approval for your military
adventurism; and,
10) Arguing that Arab League
is meaningless was precious considering you don't have its approval for your
military adventurism; and,
11) Arguing that Pope is meaningless
was precious considering you don't have his approval for your military
adventurism; and,
12) In hindsight, screaming that
Congress didn't pass enough AUMFs for Afghanistan and Iraq when it is highly
possible that you will not get its approval for your militarism is hypocrisy,
at its absolute best; and,
13) Shouting that Bush didn't have
the approval of the American people when he had over 70% APPROVAL for Iraq and a higher rating
for Afghanistan while Obama has no more than about 29% support in ANY poll for his Syrian misadventure
is pure schadenfreude; and,
14) Perchance, 'Bush lied, people died!' wasn't such a
great long-term strategy since he was relying on the same intelligence agencies
you now demand that we trust; and,
15) Playing politics with foreign
policy and war (see John Kerry's campaign manager, the 0-7 Bob Shrum, who
admitted that a political/campaign decision was made by the Kerry campaign to
turn Iraq into 'Bush's bad war') probably wasn't as smart and forward-thinking
as it appeared back in late 2003 and 2004; and,
16) Setting out to purposefully
humiliate and cripple an American President on the international stage
when he is a Republican might have been a mistake because elephants have long
memories; and,
17) Declaring 'This war is lost!' when American troops
are on the battlefield and actually winning might give people the idea that ALL military interventions will be
lost so they might as well just avoid them altogether; and,
18) Claiming that a Republican POTUS
went to 'war for oil' doesn't play too well now that a natural gas pipeline in
Syria for Qatar and the Saudis is involved; and,
19) Playing on the emotions of
Americans has a way of biting back because this:
'He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took
America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops!'
- Former Vice-President Al Gore, 2004
...has a funny way of becoming this:
'He's playing this country! He's playing on our guilt! He wants
to take American into another ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our
troops!'
and,
20) Arguing that Bush was a
'dumb cowboy' and Obama was 'smart, pragmatic and disciplined' when the latter
has denied that he even drew his own red line. HE DID...and even his own Secretary of
State, John 'I served in Vietnam' Kerry and
would-have-been partner, Muffin Cameron, agree. This obvious
prevarication and refusal to take responsibility make it hard for Americans to
believe anything that he says and even more difficult to see him as 'smart,
pragmatic, disciplined man that you can trust to always do the right thing'
that you sold him as; and,
21) Maybe, just maybe, there
was more than a wee bit of arrogance and ignorance in statements like this
considering the fact that Russia has become an enormous headache for the Obama
administration and has said that it will come to the aid of Syria, if the US
attacks:
'Governor Romney, I’m glad you recognise al-Qaida is a threat,
because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical
group facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia. And
the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the
Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign
policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like
the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.'
- President Barack Obama, 22 October 2012
22) Strawmen have a nasty habit of
turning and immolating those that build them; and,
23) Claiming that you know more than
the occupant of the Oval Office while serving, firstly, as a Illinois State Senator,
and, secondly, as the JUNIOR
Senator from the State of Illinois exposes your hubris and sets you up for a
fall when you take over from the 'chump' you claimed wasn't very bright; and,
24) Denouncing your
predecessor for, allegedly, fighting a 'dumb
war' by 'go[ing] around air
raiding villages' looks foolhardy in hindsight when that's
exactly what you are calling for now; and,
25) Smearing the
'apartheid, oppressive, warmongering, greedy Nazis' in Israel for years and
then claiming that we have to attack Syria to protect our 'strongest and most
reliable ally in the Middle East' looks convenient, hypocritical, and cynical,
at best; and,
26) Yakking about a 'Darth Vader'
Vice-President having received 5 deferrments in Vietnam might not have been
such a great idea when the current Vice-President received the same and also
makes statements like this:
‘I’ll bet you my Vice-Presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA!!!’
- Vice-President Joe Biden
Especially when Oops!
He didn't.
And, then mocks a Presidential
candidate for that which he is now demanding...
'[Romney] said it was a mistake to end the war in Iraq and bring
all of our warriors home. He said it was a mistake to set an end date for
our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He implies by the speech that
he’s ready to go to war in Syria and Iran.'
- Vice-President Joe Biden, 2 September 2012
and,
27) Remember when you were
barking about 'exit strategies'? Where are you now that there is no
strategy period? A mission without a defined purpose, strategy, means,
and goal is a clusterfark waiting to happen; and,
28) If it was 'unpatriotic and
unAmerican' of George W Bush to put two wars on a credit card from the Bank of China
when his highest deficit was less than $500 billion, how is it patriotic and
American to do the same when you've run 5 years of $1 trillion-plus
deficits? Oh, and before you even bring it up: There was NO Bush FY2009 Budget; and,
29) Remember when you claimed
that Assad was a 'reformer' and celebrated the election of a so-called
'moderate' President of Iran recently? If you were so colossally wrong on
those, why should Americans believe that you - and Insane McVain - will be able
to tell the difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' amongst the
Syrian Rebels, especially after Abu Osama al Tunisi, the Commander of the Syrian Free
Army, pledged allegiance to and said that SFA members were joining
al Qaeda; Colonel Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, the head of the United States-backed
opposition's Syrian Free Army, appeared in a video alongside Abu Jandal, a leader of the
Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; 4 out of 5 Syrian Free Army commanders have demanded that they be
able to work with al Qaeda; Syrian rebels have admitted (and the UN has agreed) that they
have used chemical weapons; the rebels are into cannibalism; have attacked the
predominantly Christian village of Ma'aloula, which is home to some of the most
ancient Orthodox Christian relics, a major pilgrimage destination, and is on
the UNESCO list of tentative world heritage sites - all of which has caused the community of Trappistine nuns to condemn Obama
for his silence on the atrocities being committed upon Christians 'despite all
justice, all common sense, all mercy, all humility, all wisdom;' etc?
‘Israel is an enemy country. I say this loud and clear. It occupies
Syrian lands. The FSA will not change its position regarding that country
before it withdraws from the Syrian lands, and recognises the legitimate rights
of the Arab Palestinian people.’
- Brigadier General Salim Idris, Chief of Staff of the US-backed
Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army
Those would be the same ‘moderate’
Syrian rebels that idiots like Kerry, McCain, and AIPAC want us to aid, assist,
and arm. So, tell us, why should we believe them?
30) At one time, human rights were considered to be the most paramount
amongst your priorities. What happened? When peaceful protestors in
Iran begged Obama for help during the Green Revolution, he took the side of the
Regime. When the Qatari government – backed by the Saudis – brutally
cracked down on protestors, Obama said nothing. When Obama's friend,
ErdoÄŸan, brutally cracked down on peaceful protestors, he said nothing.
Even though it is one of the most authoritarian countries on the planet, Obama
hasn’t wanted to force Saudi Arabia to do anything. Obama forced out Mubarak,
who was a despotic tyrant but kept control of the MoFoBros, and let loose the
hounds, which then claimed dictatorial powers and was hell-bent on imposing
Shari'ah law despite the will of the people. His administration told the
Coptic Christians not to protest and ‘work with’ their oppressors, torturers,
rapists, and murderers, Morsi’s MoFoBros government. Even after 33
million people took to the streets in Egypt to demand that President Mohammed
Morsi step down, Obama continuously said that the legitimate government in
Egypt was the ‘democratically-elected’ Morsi (Hey, Hitler was
democratically-elected, too, but whatevs!). When Obama forced out
Qaddafi, who was a despotic tyrant but kept control of the Islamists, for the
most part, he left behind a failed state that has slaughtered, en masse, black
Africans and Christians. Now, Obama wants to force out Assad, who is a
despotic tyrant but has protected Christians and other minorities, for the most
part, but can't guarantee what will replace him.
Oh, and one last parting shot on the
whole 'human rights' thingy:
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 20 February 2009
Evidently, all oppressed peoples are equal, but some are more equal than
others, especially when they are Muslims.
So, maybe, you can understand why
Americans aren't buying your R2P argument; and,
31) In a similar vein, why are
the deaths of 1,600 Syrians, who were possibly killed by Assad's government and
WMD, a reason to rush in because of R2P, but the deaths of tens of thousands of
Kurds and Iranians, who were also gassed to death, were not America's
responsibility in the past?; and,
32) Recall when Bush's
'Democracy Project' in Muslim countries was a joke? It was. It
is. So, why are you continuing it? We aren't laughing; and,
Isn't it ironic that Obama is now
using fear, urgency, and sirens about Iran when he called it a 'tiny country'
when he was running for President?; and,
33) Remember when you argued
that Bush's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq led to failed states? How aren't
Libya and a post-Assad Syria not also 'failed states'?; and,
34) During the Bush
administration, statements like this were made by Democratic statesmen:
'Iraq is George W Bush's Vietnam.'
- Senator Edward Kennedy, 6 April 2004
Back then, it was de rigueur to warn
about 'mission creep, Vietnam, and World War III,' but today, we've learned
that the Pentagon has revised military plans 50 times in the last two
weeks. Sure, we've kinda, sorta been assured that there will never be any
boots on the ground in Syria, but if the plans keep changing, how can we be
certain that they will not be included in the 60th reiteration?
77th? 89th? How can you assure us that striking Syria will not
result in 'mission creep, Vietnam, and World War III'?; and,
35) I remember when Bush was
considered rash and was accused of not thinking about the consequences of his
actions. What happens to Assad's WMD if he is toppled and the better
armed, trained, and equipped rebels that are affiliated with al Qaeda,
Hezbollah, and Iran get their hands on them? Last year, the Pentagon estimated that it would take 75,000 boots on
the ground to secure Assad's WMD cache. Are you willing to
commit boots on the ground or will you just abandon the mission and leave the
people to the will of Islamists? If not, why should Americans follow you
into this folly, especially when they do NOT support another long engagement in
a Middle Eastern country where their troops are being killed and maimed?; and,
36) If Iran is the real 'bad
actor' in the region, then why attack its satellite rather than it? Do
you honestly believe that, had the United States intervened on behalf of the
people of Hungarian during the revolution of 1956, we would have brought down
the Soviet Union?; and,
37) Perhaps, mocking Reagan's
'Peace Through Strength' policy wasn't such a good idea in hindsight because
Americans have gotten 'Chaos Through Weakness' from Obama. They
understand...and want no part of it; and,
38) There was a time that you
argued that the United States had no 'national interest' in either Afghanistan
or Iraq. If that was true then, how does it have one in Syria now?
Hint: It doesn't. (See: America Has No National Interests In Syria & There's
No Guarantee That Our Intervention Will Make Things Any Better...For Anyone.);
and,
39) Remember when President
Obama argued this in May, 2012, before the United Nations:
He hasn't succeeded in lowering the
sea levels nor is the tide of war is ebbing.
40) If Bush was a cowboy and
hothead, how come he was able to work with Russia, China, and Congress, but
Obama is incapable of it?; and,
41) Remember when you argued
that Bush should be impeached for acting in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the
scope of the AUMF? Isn't it rich now that Obama is claiming to have
authority to act in Syria even if Congress REFUSES TO AUTHORISE the
attack? (See: Declaring War Is One Power That The President Absolutely
Does Not Have) And, no, Syria does not meet the
requirements of the War Resolution Powers Act either. It
must be strange for you to see a hawk like Senator Insane McVain agree with a
dove like Dennis Kucinich that it would be an impeachable offence for Obama to
act in Syria if Congress refuses to give him that authority. Further, it
must make your head explode that Representative Alan Grayson agrees with - SHOCKA!
- Sarah Palin on Syria.
42) I remember how you
claimed that Bush was the reason that the Muslim World - and everyone else, for
that matter - hated us. Obama was going to change that by just being
himself because, well, 'He's not Bush!' Remember when he said:
‘The day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself
differently, but the world looks at America differently … If I’m reaching out
to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I
may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view … My sister is
half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so
I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures
and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be
able to reach out to the world … then I think the world will have confidence
that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up
with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately
makes us safer.’
- Barack Obama, 21 November 2007
It's a FACT that the United States has a lower approval rating
in the ‘Muslim World’ than it did under George W Bush. Sorry, but Obama’s past conduct,
positions, and delusional belief in his Power Of Just Being There™ are no
confidence builders. As George W Bush probably told him, Presidenting is hard; and,
43) All of the old
sniping about the competency of the Bush administration when your Secretary of
State is out there making statements like these:
'Everybody, 100% of Americans will say no, we say no. We don’t
want to go to war in Syria either. It is not what we are here to ask. The
President it is not asking you to go to war. He is not asking you to declare
war. He is not asking you to send one American troop to war.'
- Secretary of State John Kerry, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 3 September 2013
'Cuz, like, um, ya know, war is only
what we say it is. If we drop bombs on other countries, it's not war even
if those being bombed think otherwise. If we only send Tomahawk missiles
and not 'boots on the ground,' that's not war. If we only send ships full
of guys in the Navy to a 'kinetic military action' theatre, they aren't
'troops.'
And, engages is soliloquies and
debates where he muses aloud one minute with regard to 'boots on the ground':
'Mr. Chairman, it would be preferable not to, not because there
is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the
ground. But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event
there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of
al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and
all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass
destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don't want to take
off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of
the United States to secure our country.'
- Secretary of State John Kerry, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 3 September 2013
Then, says this the next after
Senator Menendez states 'If we said that there'd be no troops on the ground
for combat purposes, that clearly would, I assume ....':
'Well, assuming that, in the going to protect those weapons --
whether or not they had to, you know, answer a shot in order to be secure, I don't
want to speak to that. The bottom line is this -- can I give you the bottom
line? The bottom line is, the president has no intention and will not, and we
do not want to, put American troops on the ground to fight this -- or be
involved in the fighting of this civil war, period.'
- Secretary of State John Kerry, The Atlantic, American 'Boots on the Ground' in Syria? John Kerry's
Facepalm Moment, 3 September 2013
Because he's 'confident,' you
see. Of course, he was also 'confident' that Bashar al-Assad was rational
and could be dealt with diplomatically only two years ago. He continued
in response to a bailout from Senator Bob Corker, who said 'I will say that
-- in response to your answer to Senator Menendez, I didn't find that a very appropriate
response regarding boots on the ground. And I do hope as we move through
this, the administration can be very clear in that regard':
'Well, let me be very clear now because I don't want anything
coming out of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibility. So
let's shut that door now as tight as we can. All I did was raise a
hypothetical question about some possibility -- and I'm thinking out loud --
about how to protect America's interests. But if you want to know whether
there's any -- you know, the answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to
Congress and the American people, there will not be American boots on the
ground with respect to the civil war.'
- Secretary of State John Kerry, The Atlantic, American 'Boots on the Ground' in Syria? John Kerry's
Facepalm Moment, 3 September 2013
But, how can he be certain? If
Assad fell and boots on the ground was the only way to prevent al-Qaeda from
getting its hands on Assad's chemical weapons - and the military has estimated
that it would take 75,000 boots on the ground, is he
claiming that we'd do nothing? We'd let al-Qaeda take control of Assad's
enormous chemical weapons cache? Really? And, if we have a R2P
Syrians from chemical weapons, wouldn't we HAVE to use troops?
Also, if Islamists took control of the country, would we not have a R2P the
minority Alawites and Christians or does that responsibility only attach to
Sunni Muslims in Syria, who are backed by the MoFoBros and affiliated with
al-Qaeda?
And, then, we have him not only
telling Assad where and what we'll be attacking, but that such will be...
'We’re not going to war. We will be able to hold
[Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging troops on the
ground or any other prolonged kind of effort, in a very limited, very targeted,
very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons
without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we
are talking about doing; AN UNBELIEVABLY SMALL, LIMITED KIND OF EFFORT.'
- Secretary of State John Kerry,
London, 9 September 2013
What difference, at this point, will
an 'unbelievably small, limited kind of effort' have? Hell, even
the 'moderate' Syrian rebels have said such will only make matters worse and to
'either go big or go home.'
Then, our bumbling, blowhardy
Secretary of State issues a one week ultimatum, a/k/a Red Line II, only to
have the White House issue a statement hours later claiming that Red Line II
was only a 'rhetorical argument.'
So, obviously, you can't fault the
American people for questioning the administration's competency. I
mean, you called them 'sheeple' for not doing the same of the Bush
administration; and,
44) You also shouldn't be
surprised that the American people are wondering if the inmates are now running
the asylums after comments such as these by the United States' Ambassador to
the United Nations, Samantha 'Smart' Power:
'We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then
worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic
that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter
future attacks. Or, IF NOT, AT A MINIMUM, WE THOUGHT PERHAPS A SHARED
EVIDENTIARY BASE COULD CONVINCE Russia or IRAN — ITSELF A VICTIM OF
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S MONSTROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACKS IN 1987-1988 — TO CAST
LOOSE A REGIME THAT WAS GASSING IT'S PEOPLE.'
- Ambassador Samantha Power, at the Centre for American Progress
Because a country run by a bunch of
nutters that want a nuclear weapons to 'wipe Israel, a country of 6 million
people, off of the map' for starters is going to abandon its strategic
partner in the region because he may have killed 1,600 of his own people with
sarin gas.
Because, that was gonna
happen. C'mon. From what planet does Ambassador Power hail?
And, if cluelessness of the nature
of the Iranian regime is not enough, she gives us this on the rule of law in
response to this question from NPR: 'Let me ask a central question for
you, because you're representing the U.S. at the United Nations, which has not
authorised a strike. Would an American strike on Syria be legal?':
'If we take military action in this context, it will be a
legitimate, necessary, and proportionate response to this large scale and
indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by the regime. Nobody has tried
harder than this administration to work through the security council over two
and a half years. As you're well aware of, of course, even modest humanitarian
and political measures have been rejected by Russia in New York. We've had
three vetoes put forward--three resolutions put forward, all of which have been
vetoed by Russia. And on chemical weapons, specifically, and perhaps most
heartbreakingly, even on the day of August 21, when those ghastly images were
broadcast all around the world, we couldn't even get a press release out of the
security council condemning generically use of chemical weapons.'
- Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, NPR, 9
September 2013
And, just to clarify, NPR asked
her: 'So let me make sure that I'm
clear on this: YOU'RE SAYING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE AND IT IS TIME
TO GO OUTSIDE THE LEGAL SYSTEM, OUTSIDE THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK. YOU BELIEVE IT IS
RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT LEGAL.'
She replied:
'In the cases of--we've seen in the past--there are times when
there is a patron like Syria backed by Russia, we saw this in Kosovo as well,
where it was just structurally impossible to get meaningful international
action through the security council, and yet in this case you have the grave
breach of such a critical international norm in terms of the ban on chemical
weapons use, it is very important that the international community act so as to
prevent further use.'
- Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, NPR, 9
September 2013
Imagine that coming from a
Republican administration. The Left would FREAK.
Now, to Mrs Cass Sunstein and the rest of Obama’s backers, the ends justify
the means even if the latter are illegal and the former both unclear and
unlikely to be achieved.
Even Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General
of the United Nations, has warned that a strike against Syria without a mandate from the UN
Security Council would be illegal. His Special Envoy
on Syria stated:
'Syria is in very, very serious trouble, and we have been asked
from time to time, ‘What about use of force by members of the international
community? We say what international law says. And international law says
that no country is allowed to take the law into their hands; they have to go to
the Security Council.'
- Lakhdar Brahimi, United Nations Special Envoy on Syria
So, yeah, Americans are perfectly
sane to wonder if some insanity is running through the
administration. You taught them well during your years of screaming
'Bush's illegal wars!'
45) What does it say
that, after years of denouncing the part of the Bush Doctrine that argued 'we
have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here,' when you
send out Obama's political brain, David Axelrod, to sell Syria intervention
with this:
'[We have to] tak[e] the war to Syria so we don't have to fight
it on our shores.'
- David Axelrod, Meet the Press, 8 September 2013
Seriously, do you think that the
rest of the country has fallen down the rabbit hole with you? If so, lay
off the White Rabbit, dude.
46) Having a leader, who has
constantly reminded the world that was once a constitutional law professor
(actually, just a lecturer), as if that means everything he has done is
constitutional and he knows more than everyone else:
'I’m
not concerned about [members of Congress'] opinions. Very few of them, by
the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.'
- President Barack Obama, New York Times, 24 July 2013
Who once claimed...
'The president does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorise a military attack in a situation that does not involve
stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'
- Senator Barack Obama,
The Boston Globe,
20 December 2007
Then, simultaneously, takes these
fundamentally incoherent and inconsistent positions:
a) He claims that he doesn't need Congress to strike
Syria; but,
b) He claims that he wants Congressional authorisation
to strike Syria; but,
c) Yet, refuses to answer whether he would strike
Syria even if Congress voted NOT
to give him authority when he argued it was illegal for a President to
authorise a military attack where there is no actual or imminent threat to the
United States without Congressional authorisation, which makes acting
militarily AFTER
Congress has refused such far worse.
Destroys the faith that even many of
his supporters have in him and gives tremendous pause to those that might be
inclined to go along with him on intervention in Syria. Further, as I've
indicated above in other situations, it reveals Obama to be incompetent,
narcissistic, arrogant, and spineless - none of which is what we want in a
Commander-in-Chief, who is asking us to trust him.
Thus, you see, while Iraq and
Afghanistan are absolutely affecting public sentiment, so are all of the
allegations and words that were made and screamed by Democrats during Bush's
Presidency. So, perhaps, the antiwar Left convinced the public to say 'No
way!' to 'preemptive, unilateral, imperialistic military interventions in the
Middle East' and 'the Imperial Presidency' just as it wanted to during the term
of Obama's predecessor. Of course, it should be remembered that the
accomplishment of all of this was greatly helped by the arrogant, boastful,
contemptuous, and asinine statements made by and actions of one
Senator/President Barack Obama.
As Victor Davis Hanson, rightly, points out:
'How did Obama get himself into this mess? It was bound to
happen, given his past habits. All we are seeing now is the melodramatic fulfillment
of vero possumus, lowering the rising seas, faux Corinthian columns, hope and
change, the bows, the Cairo speech, and the audacity of hope. Hubris does
earn Nemesis.'
Of course, you could substitute most
Democrats for Obama and arrive at the same destination.
Just maybe, you are the victim of
your own success.
Enjoy it because the price of this
particular long-fought war is likely to be extremely expensive.
RELATED:
http://tinyurl.com/kc6ves9
4 comments:
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything?
I think the Syrian rebels gassed those kids and blamed Assad in order to get the west involved in this civil war mess. Worse than that I think Obama and Kerry suspect this aswell.
Putin should be awarded the noble peace prize for keeping Obama from bombing Syria which would cause WWIII.
Obama gives lame speech while someone who looks like his son shoots a bunch of people 2 miles away at the navel shipyard.
Post a Comment