Obama about to start another illegal war

Not content with handing Libya over to radical Islamic, Der Fubar is getting to once again ignore the constitution and start a war, this time in Syria.

The pretext for this one is the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. There was an apparent incident of poison gas being used on the rebels in the Syrian civil war. The only problem is, the evidence is lacking.

Pictures of the “victims” don’t appear to show people who were actually exposed to a gas attack. There doesn’t appear to be any residue in the area, at least I haven’t seen any. This is one of the major problems with this whole mess. King Putt isn’t bothering with little things like consulting with congress, or showing people what the proof is. Considering Obama’s utter contempt for the Constitution or the rule of law, this isn’t surprising at all.

Now members of congress, on BOTH sides of the aisle are starting to demand that Obama come to them and, as laid out in the Constitution, ask for the authority to launch a war on Syria. Here are some of the details from Fox News:

As the Obama administration moves ever-closer to a possible military strike on Syria, members of Congress are demanding they at least have a say in the decision — with some pressuring President Obama to first seek their approval.

And the SCoaMF doesn’t give a damn what Congress thinks. He is “The One!” He was elected to rule and he won’t let little things like the overwhelming majority of Americans being opposed to his next planned murder spree stand in his way.

It’s unclear whether the demands would slow down the administration, as it begins to build the public case for a military strike. One Defense official told Fox News that a U.S. strike is “not a matter of if, but when.”

If we had an actual competent Speaker of the House and an honest Senate leader, they would deny funds for this, and if Obama did it anyway, impeach his tyrannical ass.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval first for any military action.

Other lawmakers are stopping short of demanding a vote, but still want the administration to bring them into the process before moving ahead.

“I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him,” Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, R-Calif., said in a statement, while urging the administration to “act decisively.”

And here we have another issue. To many Republicans are ready to waste resources and lives on something that IS NOT IMPORTANT TO US! Where is the threat to the United States? In fact, where is the threat to Israel? If anyone is concerned about Assad’s chemical warfare capability, it’s them. While Israel has no problem with the United States dropping a few rounds on Assad, the fact it, all it will do is…nothing.

Then there is the problem of Obama telegraphing his punches. This idiot has no conception of operational security. In another story from Fox News:

The impending U.S. military action in Syria is likely to extend beyond the capital city of Damascus, and would be focused on the delivery systems for the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons arsenal, sources told Fox News.

These systems, and the U.S. military strikes against them, would accordingly include both command-and-control facilities located in the capital but also Syria’s short-range missile launchers and artillery positions, which are said to be located in mountainous areas outside of the city.

Now there is a few problems that aren’t being talked about. Syria has a first rate antiaircraft defense system, and we haven’t gone up against one since Iraq. Then there is the problem that NOTHING WILL BE WHERE YOU THINK IT IS! Without a doubt, anything that the Syrians consider important, they have already moved.

One of the questions I wondered about was what sort of anti-ship capability Syria has? Might they start firing missiles at our fleet? And then there is the problem of what happens if we lose planes and pilots? Israel has been dealing with Syrian defenses for some time, and I have no doubt that we are talking to them…I hope! Considering how much of an anti-Semite Obama and his cronies are, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they have ignored them. (I’m sure personal contacts between the military’s are being used, “Under the radar.”)

This has the makings of a total disaster. Under the worst case scenario, the Syrians manage to shoot down a number of our planes and even stick a missile into a carrier. There is nothing that would finish Obama and all those in Congress who want to attack then a carrier going into a drydock with a hole in it’s side. (We haven’t lost a carrier since the Essex Class ((Essex-class aircraft carrier)) was launched in WW2 and they are very hard to sink)

Across the pond, (The Atlantic for you ignoramuses), the British and French. Who were pushing for a strike on Syria, (Just not by them of course), are now starting to back away from this. According to Reuters:

French President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that Syria needed a political solution, but that could only happen if the international community could halt killings like last week’s chemical attack and better support the opposition. Hollande sounded a more cautious note than earlier in the week, when he said France stood ready to punish those behind the apparent poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in Damascus.

In other words, “Hey Obama! Have fun bombing Syria! Call us when you’re finished so we can claim credit…if it works” The French have always been there when they needed us. As for the British, their parliament is having a very vigorous debate. According to the Christian Science Monitor:

This week’s drumbeat toward Western action in response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons is slowing its tempo as politicians in Britain and the US demand a say in how the countries respond.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who earlier this week seemed on track to call for military action, guaranteed legislators two rounds of voting on the topic. The first vote will be on the “principle” of military intervention, and the second will come after the United Nations inspectors release their chemical weapons report, according to the BBC.

The United Kingdom isn’t very united on this matter, and frankly, they showed just how bad their military has degraded with their attempt to bomb Libya into submission. The ministers are asking, in their wonderfully sarcastic way, why this matters to them?

The Associated Press reports that Britain’s “Labour leader Ed Miliband said Thursday he is unwilling to give Prime Minister David Cameron a ‘blank check’ for conducting possible future military operations against Syria.”

Parliament is talking about whether or not Great Britain should be involved in military action against Syria. In the United States? Not so much. Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas is asking where the debate is in Congress. According to the Daily Caller:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says it’s “unacceptable” that members of the British House of Commons are having a vigorous debate about that country’s policy towards Syria but Congress is staying home.

Lawmakers are currently out of session for their summer recess. But some are arguing that before the Obama administration launches strikes on Syria, Congress should vote on it.

“We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday. “The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President.”

The answer to why Congress isn’t coming back is simple. In the house, Crybaby Boehner can’t be bothered and in the Senate, Harry Reid won’t do anything that might in any way hurt the Democrat Party. Ted Cruz is having none of this. He has released the following statement:

Today, the legislative bodies of two of our closest allies are engaged in emergency meetings on the prospect of military engagement in Syria. In Great Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called the House of Commons home from vacation to deliberate over the use of force in Syria. In Israel, the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is reviewing potential responses should Israel be attacked in the fallout over action in Syria.

In Washington, DC, crickets are chirping.

It may be that there is a compelling case to be made that intervention in Syria is necessary to defend U.S. interests. But to date no such case has been made by President Obama, leaving those of us in Congress with some serious questions.

The President has in the past insisted that Assad must go, but this week his press secretary insisted that regime change is not part of any planned action in Syria. Given this lack of strategic consistency, Congress has every right to ask what the basic purpose of this action would be? On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry expressed certainty that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack, but today we are learning there are outstanding questions about who actually ordered it and who controls the weapons. Given this confusion, Congress has every right to ask what the basis is for action at this time? In a press interview yesterday, the President said that the “very limited” action he is considering “may have a positive impact on our national security.” Given this modest mandate and uncertain outcome, Congress has every right to ask why we are considering this action at all?

According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. While the Commander in Chief must have the flexibility to act in the event of an imminent threat, the President’s comments suggest this does not currently exist in Syria. There is time for debate, and no more important subject for Congress to consider. Deploying our armed forces is a serious commitment of the highest order, and we should only consider it in cases where our vital national security interests are at stake. Our allies have demonstrated a willingness to do proper due diligence on this issue. We owe it to the men and women in our armed forces, who would execute this mission, to do no less. When and if President Obama makes a decision on Syria, he must immediately call a special session of Congress and persuade the American people that what he proposes is critical to the defense of our nation. I am confident all members of Congress would willingly return to Washington to work with him on this issue.

Don’t hold your breath Senator. King Putt rules by decree, Congress has only one duty, rubber stamp his decisions. An overwhelming majority of Americans are against bombing Syria, unless it’s nuking them. Both sides hate us. We should just stay out of this and let them kill each other. It isn’t any of our business. We can deal with whoever wins.

***Update***

Just after I completed this post news came out that the UK is not going to be joining us at the party. According to the Associated Press:

British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat that will almost guarantee that Britain plays no direct role in any U.S. attack on Bashar Assad’s government. A grim-faced Cameron conceded after the vote that “the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.”

The defeat was as dramatic as it was unexpected. At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed poised to join Washington in possible military action against Assad. The suspected chemical weapons attacks took place Aug. 21 in suburbs east and west of Damascus. The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has said the strikes killed 355 people.

So, France is backing out and Britain won’t be joining us. Now, if those utter morons in Congress can, for one in their miserable existence, actually listen to the people, then they will shut Obama down now. I’m still not holding my breath.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)

Loading...