While President Obama continues to maintain that only he decides what constitutes a war and requires consultation (let alone a declaration) from Congress, there remains a modicum of democratic process in England. The Obama Administration was surprised to learn that British Prime Minister David Cameron could not simply plunge his nation into another military conflict and that Parliament did not want to blindly follow the United States into attacking Syria. They would like to wait for all of the facts to be established by the United Nations before deciding how to act. It is of course a ridiculous notion that was long ago discarded in this country. If that was the approach in the United States, we would never have been able to invade Iraq on false pretenses and spend hundreds of billions in a war that has cost us tens of thousands of dead and wounded service members. Indeed, such knowledge is steadfastly avoided by our own politicians. By simply giving Bush a blank approval, politicians like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry could later deny that they really approved of the Iraq war and insist that they were misled by Bush.
What the English fail to understand is that our President stated publicly that he had a “red line” in Syria. Some say it was an off-the-cuff comment but he still said it. Now, either we go to war or Obama looks bad. For some reason, the Parliament does not see that choice as clearly as the White House. Of course, we have to go to war and spend a billion or so dollars to show that Obama means what he says. The White House has even promised to make the attack “limited and brief” — further conveying that this is just a face saving measure. For my part, I would rather keep the billion dollars for environmental and scientific programs being cut and have us all affirm that Obama is a leader not to be trifled with.
In the meantime, while insisting that we are only defending international law, the Obama administration has insisted that it would not allow Syria to “hide behind a U.N. investigation into the use of chemical weapons to prevent any response from the United States.” In other words, we need to support the United Nations and international law by ignoring the United Nations and international law. I fail to see what those English parliamentarians find so confusing.
I think we’re missing the opportunity in Syria to look like the Good Guys, for a change. Were it me, I would be sending the rebels food, medicine, first aid, potable water, baby formula, blankets, tents, sleeping bags, etc. Everything they need short of bullets. Let them get the bullets elsewhere. And if they can’t topple Assad, then it just doesn’t happen for now.
Obama is against poison gas. Yet three states still authorize the execution of prisoners by poison gas if lethal injection is not available. It is difficult to lethally inject all the people in a given neighborhood, so I say that Missouri, Maryland and Wyoming all three stand up there with Syria on the poison gas thing. I say invade or bomb Missouri first Obama. Then Maryland and then Wyoming. Lethal gas: a human rights crime. While Great Britain debates this war thing the legislatures in Maryland, Mizzoura and Wyoming should hold special sessions to outlaw poison gas in the killing of inmates. I am in Den Haag with my half blind guy at the International Court researching some issues and I hear a lot about Obama’s next war. He is not popular in Europe anymore.
Obama is killing the Democratic Party’s chances in the next Presidential Election. A huge number of Democrats will sit home or vote for some Third Party anti war gal or guy. Hillary ain’t got a prayer in China. The RepubliCons have some lady with first name Monica whom they are going to put up in some primaries in order to humiliate Bill and Hillary. She lives in Palm Beach and is said to be a itchBay. She owns a golf course. When we go to war in Syria some of us will take to the streets and occupy Washington next May Day.
What military action is Obama and company going to do? Bomb the warehouses full of poison gas? Bomb the troops who sprayed the gas? Bomb the neighborhoods across the way from whence the gas was launched? Bomb Assad’s Palace? Bomb the Bank of America in Damascus?
Why not go ahead, while you are at it, and bomb Iran?
Remember the song on Saturday Night Live back in 1979 when the students held our embassy folks hostage in that territory known as Iran? Here are the opening lyrics:
[music]
Bomb, bomb, bomb!
Bomb bomb Iran!
Oh, Bomb Iraaan!
I’ll take my staaand!
Rockin and a rollin, rockin and a reeling
Bomb Iran!
The original resolution that Kerry and Clinton voted for vis a vis Iraq was to support the US putting troops in position to enforce the UN sanctions and to force UN inspectors back into Iraq. There is no question that the US and UN had every right to do that. There is also no question that absent those troops Hussein would not have lived up to the cease fire agreement that he signed. Both Kerry and Clinton were correct to note that they were assured that it would not be used as a blank check to invade Iraq. If I were in their position, I too would have voted the same way since it was early in Bush’s term, and I would be hard pressed to say that Bush is/was a liar and a cheat at that early point. With hindsight, we can now say that the assurances were bogus, and that Bush lied. It became evident later that Bush was moving the goal posts to justify his invading Iraq.
Any person with any knowledge of US history knows that the founders who wrote our Constitution, allowed US military attacks on foreign countries with no declaration of war by Congress. The most blatant example are the Barbary Wars. Then of course, we have all the Indian wars that had no declaration of war either. So to assert that Obama is violating the Constitution is absurd. If Congress feels it has been slighted in this regard, they have the option of impeachment.
This also overlooks the fact that in the era of nuclear missiles we have given the President the power to act to go to war without Congress’ declaring it. This is for an obvious reason. The same is true for a military strike against Syria which does NOT mean we will go to a long term war with Syria. That is still to be seen and decided. STOP playing Chicken Little please.
I got a brother who is a dog up in Oriental, North Carolina. They do not have leash laws in that town and dogs are relatively free. He is in favor of a war in Syria and Iran. BrowntailDog says that over one third of the economy of NC is dependent upon the military or “Defense” spending. He calls it “Offense Spending”. He says that it is better to be on the offense than defense. But we put it to a vote down here in Florida at the dogpac and not one dog voted for war in Syria.
Today in the WAPO David Ignatius attempts to make the administration’s case. His reasoning ought to frighten anyone who thinks foreign policy should proceed according to facts and reasoned analysis.
He seems to think that war is appropriate because “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad overrode a clear American warning “.
Apparently Ignatius believes that foreign policy proceeds much as in middle school were if you violate the word of the toughest mug in the class then you get your ears boxed – except in foreign policy the boxing involves more than ears. .
Ignatius continues “What did Assad and his generals think would happen in response to this blatant violation of international norms?”. Ummm…is it possible that maybe Assad assumed that the United Nations would present proof and ask for a resolution before any single nation decided to take vigil ante action??? – I mean I am just guessing here.
Ignatius doesn’t seem much troubled by issues like proof or even evidence that Assad and his generals actually launched the attack. If we want an analysis of the administration’s proof that orders for the attack came form Assad’s administration then you will have to read a different journalist.
In one small part Ignatius tells us: ” The strike should be limited and focused… But it should be potent enough to degrade Assad’s command-and-control structure so he can’t conduct similar actions in the future.”
Has Ignatius even thought about what he is saying or is he just stringing words together? If we degrade Assad’s command and control structure doesn’t that by definition imply the weapons will then be in the hands of division and brigade and maybe even battalion commanders.
Doesn’t it occur to Ignatius that military commander cut off from the chain of command might find reason to fire their chemical weapons to protect the regime? Does it occur to Ignatius that commanders cut off form the chain of command might fall under the influence of radical elements and take strong measures to assure the survival of what they consider the best elements of Syrian society?
Does it occur to Ignatius that if we don’t like the quality of decisions made by those who are presumably the best and brightest of Syrian society we might be even more troubled by decisions made by Generals, Colonels, and maybe even Majors who are cut off from their superiors, and their intelligence and support staffs?
What could Ignatius possibly be thinking. The demonstrated answer to that question would seem to be not very much, not very much at all.
I do not justify killing all the people in a neighborhood with poison gas any more than I would with napalm, a conventional bomb, or machine guns. But, I would not sanction the napalm, conventional bombing or machine guns over poison gas. Gas is quieter, cheaper and less painful. We use it in executions in America because it is human. When Texas forsakes it, I will condemn these Muslims who kill Muslims in the name of Allah. Remember the Sixth Commandment and remember that their ain;t no exception which states that Y’all can. Halliburton, Blackwater, the Kochcaine brothers, Boeing, McDonalds, are all in favor of another war. It is coming soon to a theatre near year.
Paul, Many here and elsewhere no longer praise his name, they just don’t say it and avoid the topic.
Linda: I wouldn’t believe anything written by that Clinton bootlicker that never met a military intervention she didn’t like. Try reading a history of Yugoslavia that’s not published by the commercial press sometime.
Was the North committing genocide against the South during the Civil War? No, then how can one Cambodian killing another in a Civil War meet anybody’s definition of genocide?
If you want to look at real patterns of genocide study the overt & covert military campaigns Uncle Sam has orchestrated against various brown peoples over the last 30 years.
“Highly Likely” is not a basis for war. The US and UK governments still will not say they have complete certainty of who did this. They will not produce evidence, in fact, they are keeping independent evidence from reaching the people of all nations. I’m glad MPs are standing up.
This a war of aggression. No person of intellect should simply “believe” anyone on a matter of war. Shopping around for war partners and “legal” justifications? What does this tell us? If there was a clear legal basis for war, they would already have made it.
There are clearly alternatives to war. That Obama is willing to use war without definitive evidence is itself criminal. I hope Congress will draw up articles of impeachment. They should have done that several “kinetic actions” back.
That a man who has definitely used drones and cluster bombs on civilians is willing to go to war should surprise no one. What is surprising is that he is given credence to act as a moral guardian of the world. The emperor is naked, as naked as his aggression.
From ABC news:
“A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad’s forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the US intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, US officials and congressional aides said.
The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the 21 August attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later.”
Linda, Obama is going to kill Syrian people. wouldn’t you rather be on the side of action to help the Syrian people? There are ways to do this through the ICC and/or UN weapons inspections. Many people are calling for a peaceful diplomatic solution pointing out that there will be further deaths resulting from the war Obama wants.
You gotta love how this charlatan got so many to believe in his lies. And it isn’t just 2008 when people bought his lies, they still buy them today when his lies are becoming even more bold face.
What is it about this man that the same people that thought GWB was so evil will stand behind Mr O and praise his name? I don’t get it.
Hope and change, you gotta love it.
With the NSA spying on us @ least there is clarity as to whom the DC establishment sees as the enemy.
Good morning Blouise,
You brought a heartily smile to me this morning…. That was classic….
Coincidentally, I happen to be reading Samantha Power’s Pulitzer prize-winning analysis of why the US allowed genocide to take place in Armenia, the Third reich, Cambodia, Rwanda Iraq, and Kosovo – “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. The identical arguments for doing nothing are being made today. Shame. I’m with Obama on this one, and history will be too.
Good points professor.
The Arab league is not buying the package either:
(NY Times).
Makes one pine for the good ol’ Bush days when one could buy a “Coalition of the Willing” and happily march off to invade.
Thanks to Wall Street and the Banks ruining the world’s economy, those days are just a fond memory.
But not to fear, NSA is now invading your privacy on a daily basis and Congress is their “Coalition of the Willing” so balance has been restored.
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
Why not…. Hopefully this is not the court of exchequer …. Just sayin….
Tough talking pols don’t just come from Texas.