As I was riding with my non-political bride to work yesterday, I was telling her about the goings on in Washington, concerning inserting us into a Civil War in Syrian, just so the Manchurian Candidate can save face, and at the same time, possibly fulfill promises made to the Muslim Brotherhood during their visits to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as the guy who promised to “stand with the Muslims should the political winds blow in an ugly direction”.
Honey, Obama and Congress are going to get us involved in Syria, even when 80% of the country does not want us there.
My bride replied,
Since when have the people ever had a choice, when we went to war?
She had a point. Usually, such decisions are made in the Halls of Power. However, the President and Congress usually seek the consent of the people before they send our Brightest and Best off to battle.
Not this time. And, as nationalreview.com reports, the backlash shows why.
Arizona congressman Matt Salmon’s constituents have called his office 500 times about Syria, he tells National Review Online in an interview, but only two callers have expressed support for intervening there. “This is not hyperbole!” he says emphatically.
And Salmon himself is firmly against authorizing a strike. “I don’t see any national-security imperative for our country at all. Both sides in this equation are bad actors.” He also notes that Obama has been unable to form an international coalition and hasn’t laid out an overall objective for a missile strike. “Other than saving face for the president, I don’t understand what we would be doing,” he says.
Further, Salmon doubts the intervention will be brief. “Nobody believes this is going to be a couple surgical strikes,” he says.
Salmon agrees the dynamics of the vote are likely to mirror the July vote on an amendment from Representative Justin Amash to reign in the NSA’s broad surveillance powers, except the vote against authorizing Syrian intervention is likely to have more support. The authorization “will fail by 20 votes,” he predicts.
Salmon praised President Obama for coming to Congress for authorization, but he fears whether the president will abide by the will of the legislature. It would be a constitutional crisis if Obama overrode the will of Congress on Syria, he says, describing that scenario as the “most significant flouting of separation of powers in this nation, if this happens.”
Salmon is part of the right flank of the GOP conference, someone who is deeply frustrated with Speaker John Boehner’s unwillingness to use the upcoming continuing-resolution fight to draw a line in the sand over Obamacare funding.
He also sees the Syria fight as part of a larger battle for the heart of the GOP’s foreign-policy soul. The lessons of Iraq, but also the “past 30 or 40 years” are that “we should be a lot more cautious.” Of the Iraq War, launched by Republican president George W. Bush, he says “We’ve spent countless lives and dollars, and for what?” Salmon says that his fellow Republicans who weren’t in office during the Bush years were more likely to have learned those lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than those who were in D.C. to authorize them.
Yesterday, the Senate Committee rammed through their resolution on a 10 – 7 vote, allowing Dinghy Harry Reid to bring it up for a floor vote as early as next Wednesday. The Senate Resolution has plenty of loopholes in it for Obama, including the authorization to put “boots on the ground”.
Sen. Ted Cruz was interviewed earlier yesterday on The Blaze Radio. He remarked,
“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”
…“It appears what the president is pressing for is essentially protecting his public relations because he drew a red line, and, essentially, the bluff was called,” Cruz said.
Cruz said of nine major groups of rebels fighting in Syria, at least seven had ties to Al Qaeda, and a strategy from Obama that would arm those groups “makes no sense whatsoever.”
“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you,” Cruz said.
About that “Red Line”…
“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”
On Monday, August 20, 2012, at an impromptu press conference, speaking about Assad and Syria, the Prevaricator-in-Chief said,
We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.”
Pantalones en fuego.
Lt. Col. Allen West said the following about this situation on his Facebook Page, yesterday,
Listening to President Obama in Sweden saying he never set a red line and that his credibility isn’t on the line, but rather the credibility of America, Congress, and the International community. It never ceases to amaze me how Obama never takes any responsibility for his actions. He is the leader of the United States of America and he sets the tone, not Joe and Jane. As a leader, he did nothing for all these months and now wants to enjoin everyone in his abject failure and abdication of accountability. I am not buying into Obama’s weak attempt of guilt-tripping us. Mr. President, you have not earned anyone’s respect to follow you, May I remind you of the result of your unilateral actions in Libya? Also, is it not perplexing that within the last 6 years, Pelosi, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all sat with and praised Assad, but now they want to blow him up?
To summarize, the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States, have become, in essence, Breznev and the old Soviet Politboro.
It does not matter what Americans, the people whom they are supposed to be serving, want. It is all about them.
If the actual Conservatives in Congress don’t stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama, and the Democrats and the Vichy Republicans in Congress, NO, we will be intervening in a Civil War on the other side of the world on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.
And, this is all happening less than a week before September 11th.
The actions of this President and this Congress, by attempting to go to war on behalf of the MB and al Qaeda, dishonors the memories of the 3,000 Americans who died that horrible day, now almost 12 years ago.
They should all be ashamed.
Until He Comes, KJ