Obama might ask congress to let him bomb Syria

However, if Congress says no, he might just do it anyway. In a classic “Wag the Dog” moment ((Wag the Dog)) it has, to some extent, diverted the attention of America away from the massive scandals now rocking his administration.

Last week, King Putt had several setbacks in attempting to make himself relevant on the World Stage. Fist, the British House of Commons, (Parliament), told Prime Minister Cameron that he was not going to be allowed to attack Syria. Then the French, forever being Fwench, said “Umm, we might not be going in either.” Now there is some serious questions on the intelligence that Obama is using to justify a new war. The “Proof” being offered is intercepted phone calls allegedly of Assad ordering the attack. According to Foreign Policy’s The Cable:

Last Wednesday, (August 21, 2013) in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime — and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

However, there appears to be a few issues.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? “It’s unclear where control lies,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?”

Since this mess started, even more rumors have been coming out. One major one is that the attack was initiated by the rebels on Syrian troops. Granted, this rumor is coming from the Russian Times, but with the complete lack of information available, who can say? What we can say, with certainty is that the majority of Americans are opposed to attacking Syria. According to ABC News:

Americans say they don’t want the U.S. to strike Syria, but that they could support a limited action that did not risk the lives of American soldiers, according to recent polls.

In a new survey from NBC, 50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take “military action” in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should. But opinions changed when participants were asked about airstrikes launched from U.S. ships, without involving ground troops or U.S. planes flying over Syria.

Asked their opinion about a mission “limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks,” 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not.

Basically, the poll states that if we send in a few drones are toss in a few missiles, that would be fine. I’ve been looking at the questions though and I’m not to sure about them. One big thing to remember, is that there is no way that a few cruise missiles will be of any use. Any sort of attack will require bombers and the air defense system in Syria is quite good. We will lose planes.

Now as to Der Fubar just doing another Libya and launching an attack without congress’s approval, things become a lot more certain.

A full 79 percent, meanwhile, said President Obama should be required to gain approval from Congress for any kind of strike against Syria.

And it is questionable that Generalisimo Baracko Obamo will get it. According to the Washington Post:

The Obama administration’s request for U.S. military intervention in Syria would not pass the Congress as written because it is too broad, a senior senator said Sunday after a classified briefing on the situation.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Senate, told reporters after the meeting that the resolution seeking military force is “too open ended” as written. “I know it will be amended in the Senate,” he said.

Leahy’s comments echoed the views of dozens of lawmakers who left the briefing and said they want to see the resolution more closely resemble President Obama’s own pledge that any strike be limited in scope.

And, knowing how Obama operates, if he has an open ended authorization, we will be seeing U.S. troops on the ground in a couple of months. Obama and his thugs are desperate to keep Obama from looking like what he is. A dismal, utter and complete failure and a total wimp. If it takes dead soldiers, marines and air force personnel, then so be it. There’s just one problem with this. Money. Thanks to Il Douche, the Pentagon is being gutted. We don’t have the money or the forces to go into Syria. Here are some details from the Free Beacon:

The U.S. military, struggling after defense cuts of tens of billions of dollars, will be unable to pay for attacks on Syria from current operating funds and must seek additional money from Congress, according to congressional aides.

Obama has been gutting the military since day one, using the money to take care of his cronies and expanding the welfare state. If they don’t have the money to pay for fuel and munitions, then all the could do is throw potatoes at the Syrians.

A future military operation would not involve troops on the ground as part of a long-term campaign, Obama said. “But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria but others around the world understands that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm,” he said.

And, as we all know, Obama’s promises have the shelf life of milk…in the hot sun…in Death Valley. Before we know it, the 82^nd Airborne division will be dropped into Syria. It will be “To rescue downed American pilots” of course, but it was something like this that got us Vietnam.

The costs of planned Syria strikes using cruise missile ships currently deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean were not disclosed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several other high-ranking administration officials during a telephone briefing Thursday night for congressional leaders. However, estimates of the limited-duration strike are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is no way Congress can appropriate this money. If they did, on top of everything else, the budget, (Budget? What budget), will be blown out of the water. Could we pay for this attack? Sure, but we would have to cut other things that Progressive Liberals like to waste money on. With a majority opposed to any actions on our part, I think it unlikely that the money will be forthcoming.

On the other hand, if the Progressive Liberal Democrats and their pals; the RINO’s go ahead and pay for this, the 2014 midterm election will be a bloodbath that will make 2010 seem like a minor change in the seating arrangements in the House cafeteria.

The one big question the public is asking, and Obama isn’t answering, is “What is our strategic reason for doing this?” It’s the same question that was asked when Bill Clinton decided to go into Yugoslavia and turn the troop ships around as they were leaving Somalia after Bush Sr. Left office.

For those of you who don’t remember, the Europeans sucked us into Yugoslavia after they utterly botched things, and the original mission of the troops into Somalia under Bush Sr. was food aid and food relief. (Protecting the food convoys. They were pretty much finished when “Bubba,” after his most recent Lewinsky ((The Lewinsky)), decided to ramp things up. The result of that fiasco has come to be known as “Black Hawk Down.”

We have no reason to go into Syria. None. They are not a threat to Israel, (No more then normal, and probably a lot less), and they certainly are no threat to us. When I talk to people, one response has been, “Why don’t we build a wall around the country and let them fight it out? If things start to quiet down, airdrop a few hundred cases of AK47’s and plenty of ammo.) We do not have a dog in this hunt.

Of course, Obama has managed to paint himself into yet another corner. If he can’t bomb Syria, he will be utterly humiliated. As is his wont, he will blame everyone else for his failures. If he does manage to attack, well, the Russians have been making their own threats. They’ve just been a lot more subtle then that brain dead moron in the White House. He could actually manage to trigger a full blown war between us and the Russians. (Frankly, neither side is in great shape right now) If you think the Europeans would help us then, think again. They have no military to speak of any longer, (Which is why they begged us to bail them out over Libya), and would probably just stand aside, quaking in their boots that the Red Horde will finally make a dash for the Channel.

Obama needs to be stopped, and if the hacks in Congress back him on this, they need to be removed from office, no matter which party they are. (Do you hear that Ayotte? A vote in favor guarantees a primary challenger) Call your member of congress, house and senate and tell them we don’t need to get involved. It isn’t our fight.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)

Loading...