Democrats: Victims of Their Own Success

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, Erdoğan, 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:

'Our pressing on those issues (human rights) can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.'

- 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:

Democrats: Victims of Their Own Success

America Has No National Interests In Syria & There's No Guarantee That Our Intervention Will Make Things Any Better...For Anyone.

Declaring War Is One Power That The President Absolutely Does Not Have

'We Must Attack Syria, 'Cuz, Like, Um, Ya Know, Because...'

Syria, 'Red-Lines,' and Obama's Feckless Foreign Policy

Postcards From Syria (Photo Essay)

http://tinyurl.com/kc6ves9