Obama Embraces Bush Doctrine
Sep 10, 2013 Political
The Bush Doctrine of preemption is one that has given liberals like Barack Obama fits. They are opposed to military action but generally only when Republicans want to take it. Liberals, even those who really are opposed to violence, are mostly silent when one of their own is proposing military force.
Barack Obama, the alleged Constitutional Law professor, seems to have a few problems. First, when he was a candidate, he stated that the president does not have the Constitutional authority to attack another nation unless the US has been attacked or there is an imminent threat.
Now the Constitutional Law Professor is saying he has the authority to do just that. He is working on plans to attack Syria even though that nation has not attacked us and there is no imminent threat to us from Syria.
It would seem that a liberal Constitutional Law Professor is one who believes the Constitution authorizes whatever a liberal wants to do. Simply put, it is a flexible document that can be interpreted as a liberal sees fit.
Before John Kerry said that Syria could hand over its chemical weapons to avoid a strike Barack Obama was working on getting authorization to strike Syria. Obama believes he can strike without Congressional approval but is seeking it anyway. It is rough going as many oppose a strike. Obama was on several news shows to make his case and this is what he had to say when trying to justify the strike:
“But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria. Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our national security.” [emphasis mine] UPI.com
So, in this long drawn out roundabout way, the chemicals in Syria might end up in the hands of bad people who would use them against us so that is an imminent threat and we can strike Syria. This is a stretch by any measure but if this is the path Obama wants to follow the question becomes how is this any different than the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike that liberals violently opposed? I see the difference in that there is no actual threat the chemicals could be used against us. It would be different if Syria threatened to use them on our troops in the area. This is a threat and could justify a preemptive strike but saying that some third party might get them and then use them on us is several layers removed from being a threat.
But if this is how Obama is playing it then he is trying to claim the right to a preemptive use of force. The very use of force liberals decried when Bush used it.
The reality is that if we allow Obama to use this contorted view we could basically justify preemptive force against anyone. North Korea or Iran might lose control of their nuclear materials and a terrorist group might get it and use it on us so let’s bomb North Korea and Iran.
Someone might steal Russia’s smallpox virus and sell it to terrorists who might use it on us so let’s attack Russia.
This is the theater of the absurd.
Not to mention the reality that if we attack Syria and destabilize things (even more than they are) there is a greater risk that Syria will lose track of chemical weapons which then could end up in the wrong hands.
In other words, the act Obama wants to prevent (or that he is using to justify force) might be aided by the very attack designed to prevent it.
Yep, it is still amateur hour at the White House.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bush doctrine, chemical agents, kerry gaffe, lies, Obama, preemptive strike, putin, Syria
Was Bush Right After All?
Aug 26, 2013 Political
And if he was will he get an apology from the left?
When the authority to use force in Iraq was granted there were about 19 items in the resolution and only three or so dealt with WMD. There was plenty of credible evidence that Iraq had WMD and used them. In fact we know he used nerve agent on his own people. Despite this evidence and despite a number of Democrats alleging that Saddam Hussein had WMD (when Clinton was president) many Democrats claimed they were lied to.
Yes, when we went into Iraq we failed to find chemical agents. This, the left told us, was proof that Bush lied just to get into a war. They conveniently ignored the Iraq General, Georges Sada, who said the WMD was moved to Syrian planes that had their seats removed. Hussein was able to use the aircraft under the guise of humanitarian aid to Syria.
There were people from the region who claimed the chemical agents were stored in several locations throughout Syria but this fell on deaf ears as liberals who voted for the use of force claimed that Bush lied about WMD. Even though WMD was only 3/19 of the items in the resolution the die was cast and Bush was a liar.
I wrote a number of times about the chemical agents being moved to Syria. I knew Hussein had them and there was no intelligence showing that he had destroyed them but plenty of evidence that he had moved them. His general confirmed they went to Syria.
Liberals took me to task as they bought into the claims that Bush lied.
Well my friends, chemical agents have been used in Syria. There are accusations flowing from the government and from the rebels with each side blaming the other. That will all be sorted out but one thing is clear, nerve agents were used to kill innocent civilians. To be specific Sarin was used.
Hmm, Sarin. Isn’t that what Saddam Hussein had?
If chemical agents are being used in Syria then where did they come from? I would like the inspectors who are there investigating to have access to all the places where the Syrian government might be storing chemical agents (particularly the places claimed in the information provided years ago) so we can see what kind of markings are on them. My bet is that they will show that those agents came from Iraq.
I also bet they will show that they originated in Russia. I have written in the past that the Russians provided the agents to Iraq and that Russian trucks were the ones seen at the storage sites. The Russians were interested in helping get them out of country before we invaded so they would not be caught. Now the Russians are blocking efforts in the recent investigation into the Sarin use in Syria. The UN is helping block efforts as well.
It would be very interesting to see how this plays out if chemical agents are found and they came from Iraq (if the UN would even report the truth). It would be very interesting to see how many on the left who called George W. Bush a liar would apologize.
Hell, who am I kidding? Barack Obama and his liberal gang of thieves would use the revelations to blame Bush for what happened.
They will do anything to deflect attention from the mess they started in Syria.
That entire mess belongs to Barack Obama. He is responsible for it and he is culpable in the deaths of those who were gassed with Sarin.
Not that you will ever hear it from the Obama media.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, chemical agents, Iraq, lies, Obama, sarin, Syria, WMD