One can only wonder what Senator Obama would be saying if a President decided to take military action against another country without Congressional approval. On other hand, we already know. He said it in 2007. He would not approve in the least.
To make matters worse, he is going to go alone into Syria. This is a fools errand for a couple reasons. First, he has no authority and second the blow back will be tremendous from the Arab Street.
His authority he granted to himself. He did not agree with Bush during the run up to Iraq. Now that things are different and he is making the decisions, it is OK to kill, maim, injure and destroy as long as the President thinks it is right. We think that any legislator on the "let's not get involved" side of the argument, should be playing those words of Senator Obama over and over.
Additionally, for the US to get involved in a civil war when we do not have incontrovertibly evidence that it was the Assad regime that used the chemical weapons is a travesty. The UN inspectors have not completed their investigation so it appears the only evidence is coming from the rebels who claim it was Assad. We don't think that the source of this information is reliable enough to risk personnel and treasure.
Should the US attack Syria, it will be played around the Muslim world that once again, we are destroying an Arab country just like we tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be calls for Jihad against anything American which will make even us, who live in the States, less safe. This is a very dangerous move that Obama is thinking about doing.
We wrote earlier this week that the US should play a "back bench" role in Syria and allow the Arab League and others to be on the front lines. Obviously, Obama has different plans.
President Obama has no authority to "go it alone" and from where we sit, it will become a disaster with many unforeseen and unconsidered outcomes. It will endanger the US and its citizens, it will put the US in direct conflict with China and Russia and could lead to an explosion of violence across the Middle East and beyond. This is a total losing proposition.
So why is Obama doing it? He is either blood thirsty or so desperate to prove that he is not a wimp. Or he feels a war will solve his economic problems. Or he wants the US to be taken down several notches. We don't know. Whatever the reason, it is imperative that Congress stop him and stop him soon.
Otherwise, the dangers to our economy, our nation and our people far outweigh the rewards we could receive if the Assad regime were removed.
Conservative Tom
Obama Ready to Go It Alone on Syria
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 07:53 PM
Aides said Obama believes that Syria must pay a price for breaking taboos on the use of chemical weapons, action which he sees as posing a grave threat to US national security.
US plans to build an international coalition for a "limited" strike on Syria suffered a devastating blow when the House of Commons in London voted against the use of force to punish a chemical weapons attack last week outside Damascus.
US officials signaled earlier Thursday that Obama would take unilateral action if necessary, but the possibility became a reality with the vote, which reverberated immediately across the Atlantic.
"We have seen the result of the parliament vote in the UK tonight," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government -- one of our closest allies and friends.
"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.
"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Thursday's 272-285 nonbinding vote in the U.K. was a major blow to the president's efforts to build an international coalition in advance of a strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad afer its suspected use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week.
The vote was also a sharp rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron.
“It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said in a statement.
Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country would remain on the sidelines of any military action as well.
“This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this,” Haper said, according to The Daily Star, in Toronto.
“That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission.”
And Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday her country wouldn't join the military action without a United Nations mandate, The Hill reported.
Russia has said it'll block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.
“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The New York Times.“The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”
The Times reported the White House intelligence that will be presented to congressional leaders Thursday night doesn't tie Assad directly to the deadly attack outside Damascus.
But the administration believes the information is compelling enough to justify a limited strike, the newspaper said.
Only hours before the British Parliament's stunning rejection, White House spokesman Josh Earnest had thanks top politicians there for their “strong words” following the alleged chemical weapons attack, The Hill reported.
“You've heard both the prime minister and the foreign secretary articulate their strong objection and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons,” Earnest said. “We've heard them talk about their desire to see the Assad regime be held accountable for its actions in carrying out this chemical weapons attack.”
But British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a cautious note Wednesday, saying the U.Sl would "make their own decisions” about intervention, The Hill reported.
“We will remain closely coordinated with them and in close in touch with them, as we are every day,” Hague said. “I speak to my counterpart Secretary Kerry every day and have done so this evening.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.