Today The United Kingdom and France toned down their rhetoric supporting the need of escalating war in Syria. In an emergency meeting of Parliament one member exclaimed “this pending military action has nothing to do with a chemical weapons attack, it has everything to do with the American President taking action to avoid humiliation…” Truer words could not have been spoken. I applaud members of Parliament who had the sense to say no to David Cameron and his knee jerk response to put British troops into the fray.
Barack Obama, imperial president, now stands alone. If there was some way we could have it sink into this man’s brain that as chief executive he doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally bring war to another nation. Article I Section 8 of The Constitution, you know the document that according to the federal government right-wing extremists cling to, clearly states that this power lies solely with Congress. It would appear that whole checks and balances thing the founding fathers dreamed up was done so for good reason. They realized that the chief executive should not have the power to both declare and execute war on behalf of the American People.
Before you say it, the war powers resolution, which funny enough liberal “war hawks” are now screaming about, does not provide Obama justification of war in this case. This act gives the President authority to bring war abroad if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. You got to hand it to the progressive nut jobs, the same people condemning Bush for war in Iraq and Afghanistan (which received congressional approval) now support Obama in his unilateral effort to potentially start World War III.
As news organizations drone on and on about future missile strikes with a gleam in their eye, reporting hours upon hours on Obama’s decision, none of them care to report that the decision is not his to make in the first place!
The question to ask is why must America get involved in another Middle East conflict where there are no good guys to side with? On one hand you have a brutal dictator Bashar al Assad, responsible for ordering the deaths of his own people. Sounds bad yes but when you compare it to the “rebel opposition” is Assad any worse? The Syrian rebel opposition, as reported in The Economist, consist of nine different factions. Of the nine groups seven are hard-core Islamists who believe in Sharia Law. Furthermore, some of the groups are linked to Al-Qaeda!!!
For God sake haven’t we learned our lesson in Egypt and Libya? Who can forget all the fanfare from interventionist like The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, who hailed the Arab Spring and it’s ushering in of democracy? In reality the regime change in both countries led to Islamist groups like The Muslim Brotherhood taking control and ushering in their form of “democracy”. Refer to my previous expose on The Brotherhood who are an intolerant, dangerous organization that aided Adolf Hitler and looks to the return of the good ol’ days of when an Islamic Caliphate dominated.
Who can forget the sheer exuberance Hillary Clinton (the greatest Secretary of State according to leftists) displayed when Moammar Gadhafi was executed by Libyan opposition rebels? The execution was performed by Al-Qaeda backed rebels directly supported by the Obama administration. How on Earth could the administration provide military aid to such individuals? Need I remind you what those same folks did in Benghazi?
Further question to ask is why would Obama support The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who barbarically eliminated the rights of the people? The Brotherhood moved so quickly to establish an Islamist theocracy the Egyptian military staged a coup to remove them from power a year after they were “democratically” elected. Now MB Islamist supporters are attacking Coptic Christians, killing and setting their churches ablaze as Obama remains silent.
Why is Obama looking to add fuel to the fire in Syria when they vow to attack Israel if America gets involved in their internal affairs? Can it be because his friend and advisor in the Middle East is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey? Erdogan, who ruthlessly dealt his opposition with force and imprisonment. Erdogan, who believes in a Muslim Caliphate and has turned Turkey from a secular nation to an Islamic Republic. It is widely reported that they two are good friends and Erdogan is the world leader Obama talks most with after David Cameron.
I don’t know what the future holds but is it prudent for America to continue this perpetual state of involvement in war across the globe? Does it make sense to attack Syria, who has backing from Russia, China, and Iran? Is the pending military strike choreographed by Obama going to increase or decrease tension in the region? In The World?
I pray America wakes up and calls its representatives to hold them to account and demand Obama brings any military action against Syria to a vote in Congress. He is constitutionally bound to do just that. Today NBC News reported that 116 House representatives (98 Republicans, 18 Democrats)signed a letter demanding a vote in Congress before any assault is taken against Syria.
In my humble opinion, and I believe in the hearts of many failure to do so is an impeachable offense.