What Is The Threat To The US?
Sep 4, 2013 Military, Political
Some entity in Syria used the nerve agent Sarin in the ongoing civil war. The United States claims that the government used the nerve agent and the UN says the rebels used it. The US report on the issue is full of caveats including one that we do not have assets on the ground. There is even some doubt as to whether Sarin was used or if chlorine was the gas that killed all those people (some report smelling chlorine). The Obama regime wants to attack Syria as a punishment for using the chemical weapons.
Is our military supposed to be used to punish other nations?
Regardless of the reason for the use of force the US Congress is the body given the power to authorize the use of force. There is a law (50 USC Chapter 33, ss 1541) called the War Powers Resolution. The purpose of this was to give presidents the ability to respond to an emergency requiring military force when the response was needed before Congress could act to authorize it. There are three items listed that allow the use of force and they are:
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
There has been no declaration of war and there is no statutory authorization (such as a treaty or UN Resolution), and there is no national emergency created by an attack upon our country, its territories or possessions or our armed forces.
Given these facts there is no authority for the use of force under the War Powers Act. Barack Obama and his sock puppet John Kerry claim Obama has the authority but he clearly does not.
The US Congress must authorize the use of force and that is being debated at this time. Keep in mind during the debates that saving face for an American president is NOT one of the reasons that use of force is allowed.
The UN is unlikely to authorize the use of force as that body contends the rebels used the nerve agent and given that Russia has a veto vote and is a strong supporter of the Syrian government they will likely veto. This leaves it to the US Congress (unless, of course, Obama decides to strike no matter what) to allow or disallow the use of force. That body should think long and hard before it commits the use of our nation’s military and it should look at what threat is posed by the use of chemical weapons in Syria as well as the likely ramifications of the use of force.
If we attack Syria what will happen? Syria and Iran will attack Israel as punishment for the attack. We will condemn such acts but is their use of force for punishment any worse than ours?
The attacks on Israel will draw a huge military response form that nation and many other countries will be drawn into the conflict. World War Three will begin.
What happens if we attack Syria and hit the chemical weapons storage sites and those agents end up killing untold numbers of people? We claim we will not attack the storage sites but how do we know where they are and what is to say that Assad (or the Rebels) will not move the agents to places we are likely to hit in order to have such a release? How will we be viewed if our acts cause death by chemical agent?
What happens if we attack the Syrian Government and it turns out the Rebels used the nerve agents? If Obama thinks he needs to save face now what will he do if he attacks and was wrong all along? There will be no face saving measure in the world if he attacks and is wrong about it.
As far as I am concerned the nerve agent attacks in Syria took place in a civil war and their use did not affect us in any way whatsoever. Our property, our nation and our people were NOT attacked so there is no reason to shoot at anyone involved in that conflict.
If we decide to use force against the Syrian Government we will be helping al Qaeda (the Rebels) and these people are our enemy. These Rebels have been filmed murdering children at a firing squad and cutting out the heart and liver of a soldier and eating them. Are these the people we want to help?
Why in the name of all that is good would we want to help either side in this conflict? Both sides have animals in them but right now those animals are fighting each other. We should sit back and watch the fight and not get involved unless we are attacked.
Obama is foolish and inexperienced. It was his mouth that backed him into this corner and that is his problem. We should not use our military to help him save face.
We will end up looking like fools.
Any member of Congress on the left who screamed all those years about Bush lying to get us into war should remember all the things they said about Iraq not attacking us before they vote on Syria. Obama should remember he said he would not have voted to authorize force (yes Bush went to Congress and got approval regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasons) and John Kerry should remember what he said about Vietnam not posing any threat to the US when he was an anti war protestor oh so many years ago.
Republicans, you better sack up or you will face backlash on election day.
As for Democrats, who knows what they will face. Their party has mind numbed drones with short memories who follow the collective.
Say no to attacking Syria…
Related:
Will Rand Paul Filibuster?
Syria hiding weapons and moving troops
France now wavering
Putin warns US
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: assad, constitution, john kerry, Obama, rebels, Syria
Between Barack And A Hard Place In Syria
Aug 29, 2013 Political
Barack Obama discussed the movement or use of chemical weapons in Syria as a red line that would be crossed and require action. The red line was crossed and now something has to be done or Obama will look like all talk and no action. He will lose face if he does not do something and this is of his own doing.
Obama is weighing options with regard to a military strike in Syria. He has not recalled Congress to get its approval for such an action and it appears as if he might not do so. The use of chemical weapons in Syria is not an attack on the US and there is not an imminent threat to this country so he is required to get Congressional approval for any military action.
Whether you agree with George Bush’s decision to go into Iraq or not he did get Congressional approval for the use of military force. No matter what the outcome or how one feels about it Bush did what he was supposed to do.
The reality is that if Obama strikes Syria then Syria and Iran will strike Israel. This will draw in players like Russia and China as well as the UK, France and the US. In other words, this situation is a powder keg with a short fuse that could result in World War III.
Obama is in a tight spot because of his mouth.
His Democrats are in a tight spot because after years of bashing Bush for actions in Iraq they are now faced with a nearly identical situation (and the WMD in Syria likely came from Iraq). These Democrats will have to rationalize any yes vote on military action because they all eventually expressed their disapproval.
When there was talk about going into Iran Joe Biden said he would push for impeachment of Bush if he did so without Congressional approval. Barack Obama said that the president could not use military force without congressional approval unless there was an attack on our country or a threat of imminent attack. Now he is pushing to do that which he said was illegal and that which his VP (who was a Senator at the time) said would cause him to push for impeachment.
How will Democrats reconcile the conflict between doing the exact opposite of what they railed about and their desire to keep Obama from looking weaker than he already looks to the rest of the world?
If Barack Obama orders military force be used in Syria without Congressional approval then the military has an obligation not to carry out the orders and Obama should be impeached. If anyone in the military carries out those orders they should be prosecuted for obeying unlawful orders.
If Obama calls on Congress and Congress gives the approval then we have to live with the consequences though Democrats will still have to explain how their change of heart was for national security and not to cover Obama’s rear end.
If Obama goes to Congress and does not get approval then he is stuck with his foot in his mouth looking like a paper tiger.
In addition, all the anti war, anti Bush protesters will have to show the same reaction to Obama as they did to Bush. To do otherwise would show their blatant anti American hypocrisy.
Keep in mind, Bush got approval from Congress.
Now it is time for the alleged Constitutional law professor to follow the Constitution.
I know why should he start now?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, chemical weapons, constitution, Iran, Iraq, lies, Obama, 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
Why Are the Democrats So Touchy?
May 15, 2008 Political
The Democrats are up in arms over remarks that President Bush made while in Israel celebrating that country’s 60th anniversary. The President was speaking about terrorists, an appropriate subject given who surrounds Israel, when he made remarks that got the Democrat’s panties in a wad:
In his speech, Bush said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” The Crypt
Immediately the Democrats assumed that Bush was taking a veiled swipe at Obama who has advocated talking to terrorists. In fact, many people and countries have held this particular belief. France and Germany believed that talking was in order as did many Democrats as they moved to distance themselves from their vote to go to war. I would be remiss if I did not mention Jimmy Carter (who would be a more likely target) and his terrorist ties. But it was Obama, they say, who was attacked.
Why are the Democrats so touchy? Is it because they know that Obama lacks foreign policy experience? Why did they assume that Bush was talking about him when there are so many to whom the statement applies? Obama immediately went on the defensive and was supported by Joe Biden (a man with a great deal of foreign policy experience), Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel who all criticized the President. I think they are a bit touchy because they know that Bush was right and Obama is wrong. They took it to heart because that is what Obama believes and has said.
Two other interesting pieces from the article:
The White House insists that Bush was “referring to a wide range of people, not any single person.” But Obama’s campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.
~snip~
As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”
The President was completely correct and Speaker Pelosi’s reaction only confirms my suspicion that she knows Obama is weak in that area and that he is wrong on the subject. They know he is weak and they are trying to protect him. Emanuel is way out of line. Pelosi and an endless line of Democrats have gone to exotic places like Syria and talked badly about President Bush’s policies. Pelosi broke the law by performing the job of the State Department, an Executive Branch department.
I would let Adam down if I did not take my obligatory swipe at Bill Clinton. He did his protesting in a foreign nation as a college student and has not been shy in his criticisms of our current president regardless of where Bill happens to be at the time.
There was a story earlier that indicated the Republicans would attack Obama on his lack of foreign policy experience. From the visceral reaction to the President’s statement I’d say they might be on to something.
Related story:
My Way News
Syria OK with Turkey Trot to War
Oct 18, 2007 Uncategorized
Turkey is lining up for an attack into Iraq against Kurds with whom they have been having trouble. The US is asking for Turkey not to attack and the President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, is asking for more time to resolve the issue. What I find interesting in this situation is what President Bashar Assad of Syria had to say:
However Syrian President Bashar Assad, visiting Turkey, said he supported the country’s right to take the action “against terrorism and terrorist activities”. BBC News
Hamas and Hezbollah are both terrorist organizations and they continually launch rockets into Israel. Israeli soldiers have been abducted and are still held captive (some believe in Iran) and Israel’s neighbors salivate at the chance to attack or wipe out that country. Launching missiles across the border into areas populated with non combatants is an act of terrorism and yet, when Israel defends itself by sending in its military Syria is quick to point the finger of condemnation.
Why is it that Syria would have two standards with regard to this subject? The obvious answer is that Turkey is an Islamic country and Israel is not. In fact, Israel is full of Jewish people and the Muslims cannot stand Jews and do not think they should be allowed to exist. It is also ironic that Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism, would describe someone else’s acts as terrorism.
The UN and the rest of the world should remember Assad’s words so the next time Israel responds to acts of terror there will not be a rush to condemn that country. Syria’s president is nothing more than a two bit terrorist who supports killing people, especially Jews.
No wonder Pelosi and her ilk like visiting the guy.
Tags: Commentary, Iraq, Israel, Syria, terror, Terrorism, Turkey