Obama About to Plunge Us into Another War w/o Congressional Approval, UN Approval, or Consent of the American People

Obama is considering a face-saving strike on Syria without the authorization of Congress, UN approval, or the consent of the American people.

Via Red State:

The plans being floated by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry for a wildly unpopular military intervention in Syria are incoherent on any number of levels. Rather than identify an enemy and seek the enemy’s defeat, the essential requirement for using military force, the Administration is unwilling to declare the toppling of the Assad regime as a goal – despite Obama’s own proclamation two years ago this month that “[f]or the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Instead, according to one unnamed “U.S. official” quoted by the LA Times, the Administration wants a military strike “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Churchillian, this is not.

116 Members of Congress signed a letter to Obama warning him about striking Syria without their consent.

 House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to President Barack Obama Wednesday asserting that striking Syria without prior Congressional authorization would be unconstitutional.

As we reported Tuesday, the letter penned by Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., pushes the president to “receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

While the letter lacks signatures from top leaders — Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote his own letter to Obama Wednesday afternoon — it now has 98 Republican and 18 Democratic supporters.

The letter was sent to the president after 5 p.m. on Wednesday. Among the Republicans on the letter are Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul of Texas, House Republican Policy Committee Chairman James Lankford of Oklahoma and some close Boehner allies, including Tom Latham of Iowa, Mike Simpson of Idaho, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, and Tom Price of Georgia.

Democrats include Rep. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

A GOP Congressman is telling Boehner: Call House Back Now to Deal With Syria

Rep. Scott Rigell (R.-Va.)–who served six years in the Marine Corps Reserves, sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and represents the congressional district with the largest concentration of military personnel of any in the nation–said today he is calling on House Speaker John Boehner to call the House back into session to prevent President Barack Obama from usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to authorize—or not authorize—the use of military force in Syria.

“He should be calling the House back right now,” Rigell said of Boehner. “I will be clear on this.”

“I do have a call scheduled with one of our senior leaders this afternoon and I will be making that case,” said Rigell. “I think we’re at this point, and I regret that we’re at this point. But that is where we are.”

He would be acting without the UN’s approval:

The State Department made clear Wednesday that the Obama administration plans to bypass the United Nations Security Council as it prepares for a possible strike on Syria, after having failed to win support from Russia.

In blunt terms, department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last-ditch efforts to win support for an anti-Assad resolution at the U.N. were unsuccessful, and the U.S. would proceed anyway.

“We see no avenue forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action on Syria,” she said. “Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead.”

And without the consent of the American people:

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

Obviously aware of how unpopular the move is with the American people, President “Daddy Issues”, is avoiding talking to us about it.

With military action against Syria set to begin within hours, according to reports, President Barack Obama and his administration are determining what legal route to take in order to justify the attack. According to NBC News White House reporter Chuck Todd, the administration is leery of seeking Congressional support for a mission in Syria because Congress many decline to bless such an operation. Now, according to reports from POLITICO’s Glenn Thrush, Obama may seek to avoid the American people as well.

Thrush reported on Wednesday that, based on his conversations with aides to the president, Obama will not address the American people about the mission in Syria before hostilities commence. Thrush reports that Obama’s advisors believe addressing Americans from the gravity of the Oval Office or the East Room is “passé.” Furthermore, most Americans who care about the mission in Syria will learn the logic behind it from cable news.

All so he can save face over his stupid “red line” ultimatum which he gave in the heat of a presidential campaign to make himself look strong on foreign policy. We are about to align ourselves with al friggin’ Qaeda so Obama doesn’t look weak and ridiculous.  But he is weak and ridiculous, and the country already embarrassed itself when we reelected him – so who cares if the world laughs at us one more time at Obama’s expense?

Need I even need to mention how the Democrat media complex would be reacting if a Republican President were doing the same thing?

It’s OK When I Do It

The lesson of both Obama’s and Kerry’s history of criticism of the Iraq War (Kerry, you will recall, voted for the war after voting against the original Persian Gulf War on the theory that the first President Bush hadn’t assembled a large enough coalition) is that it was primarily driven by partisan opposition to George W. Bush, rather than any particular principled view of how to run American foreign policy. In that light, it is perhaps unsurprising that the arguments made against Bush have been discarded and forgotten, just as all but a tiny minority of the anti-war movement has been silent on Obama’s Libyan and Syrian adventures (and the internet chorus that branded Bush and Cheney as “chickenhawks” has been silent on Obama’s and Biden’s lack of military service). But being in charge requires more than just blind partisanship, and five years into his presidency, Obama seems lost in formulating an approach to the use of military force that makes any sort of coherent sense.

 

By the way, I’m not even convinced that it was the Syrian regime and not the rebels who used the chemical weapons.

Exhibit 1: Panetta, Sept. 28, 2012: WE LOST TRACK OF SYRIAN WMDS:

Today, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the US no longer had knowledge of the whereabouts of some Syrian chemical weapons, and admitted that those weapons may have been funneled to rebels or Iranian proxies. “There has been intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place,” said Panetta. “Where exactly that’s taken place, we don’t know.”

Panetta maintained that the most dangerous weapons were the ones still in possession of the Syrian government. But “with regards to the movement of some of this and whether or not they’ve been able to locate some of it, we just don’t know.”

Exhibit Two: Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad)

…even before Assad’s forces gained the momentum, a UN official reportedly found evidence of rebels using chemical weapons but no evidence Assad’s regime did. This, from a Washington Times article by Shaun Waterman dated May 6, 2013:

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}

Today, while the rebels are more desperate than they were at the time of that article, evidence of rebels using chemical weapons is available; evidence Assad’s regime has used them is not.

Waterman wrote…

Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons.

That doesn’t square with a video uploaded on August 23, 2013, in which Free Syrian operatives threatened to launch chemical weapons:

Exhibit Three: John Brennan, the CIA, and Chemical weapons Propaganda:

It’s important to consider where this information is coming from – the CIA. This past February, in an article written by Steven Emerson that appeared on the Fox News website, the terrorism expert wrote about why John Brennan was the wrong man for the job of directing the intelligence agency:

Brennan’s White House tenure shows a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have any one group represent its concerns.

A Feb. 13, 2010 speech Brennan gave at the New York University School of Law serves as an example.

It was organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” {emphasis ours}

Exhibit Four: (The most solid evidence as far as I’m concerned…) Jay Carney says it’s “preposterous to suggest anyone but Assad Regime used the chemical weapons:

I’m not aware of any doubt,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in response if there was a question if the Assad regime used chemical weapons last week in a heinous attack on Syrian civilians. “Suggestions that there is any doubt about who is responsible about this are as preposterous as suggestions that the attack itself didn’t occur,” Carney said.

That proves it.. The Assad Regime didn’t do the chemical weapons attack because as we know, every day is opposite day with Jay Carney.

Give me one reason why I should believe a single thing that comes out of that man’s mouth.

John Bolton slams Obama – President needs a character transplant to work effectively on Syria:

Col. Ralph Peters On Syria: Let  Our Enemies Kill Each Other!: 

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Obama About to Plunge Us into Another War w/o Congressional Approval, UN Approval, or Consent of the American People

  1. At least, when GWB took on Iraq, he managed to get a few dozen countries behind him – and won the harsh rebuke of every left-wing liberal in the country.

    Now Obama Rex wants to attack Syria – which so far is no threat to us – without bothering to ask anyone (especially Congress) – and the Left is unsurprisingly silent.

    I guess he’s still working on earning that Nobel Peace Prize.

    Like

  2. The United States does not need the “approval” of the U.N. to enter into a war. President Obama needs to have either a Declaration of War from Congress or to follow the War Powers Act. The United Nations has no authority nor any power to require the U.S. to seek the approval of that organization. And don’t give me some nonsense about “the international law of war”, because there isn’t any such thing. There are a number of legal articles, some learned and some just propaganda or wishful thinking on the author’s part, that claim that an international law of war exists; unfortunately for their ideas, in order to have a legally binding requirement on the U.S. to seek U.N. approval for anything our federal government does is that there be a binding treaty, legally signed by the President and – let me say that with emphasis – AND the ratification of that treaty by the U.S. Senate. No foreign governments, organizations or other groups has any legal say-so in our government’s conduct of the public’s business. Period. And if President Obama does not get either a Declaration of War or the legislative enactments required under the War Powers Act, he ought to be impeached and removed from office. This will be the second time he has embarked on a military adventure without Congressional approval, which is — IS — legally required by our Constitution. Enough already with exceeding his authority; enough already with claims that some collection of foreign idiots have anything to do with the U.S. and its laws and actions.

    Like

  3. Very ironic, several months ago obama drew a line in the sand, would not act without all the facts. Now I suppose he has the facts. The facts now are murkier than ever before. With Brennan The muslim hrotherhood supporter leading the charge is patthetic. Jay Carneys statements in exhibit 4 are certainly convinencing enough for me. What a joke. Even Panetta does not know where all the weapons are. My thought , obama wants retailiation against Israel I feel that is the agenda he has tried to hide all along..

    Another stupid move for obama leaking info to the world all the info on the attack How outrageous..Wish we could tell who the enemy really is All in his administration should wear game jerseys identifing which side they are on.

    Like

  4. We don’t need the approval of anybody to do what we feel is necessary, least of all the Turtle Bay. But we can all thank George H. Bush for that precedent when he listened to the dopey libs back with Gulf War and went to the U.N. and got a resolution. So he we go, any thing after that, that is what we need “always” according to dopey libs.

    The War Power Act was past in 1973 when the Congress wanted to flex some muscle, after the dimoCrap controlled Congress “pulled” funding for the continuation of the Vietnam War. I believe the law is unconstitutional. It was a flat out power grab by the dimoCraps to seize control and limit the power of the Presidency.

    The power to “declare” war rest totally with the U.S. Congress. Yet that does not prohibit [IMO] the President from taking any Military Action, as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces under the Constitution and he doesn’t need a declaration of war in order to take action he deems necessary. Congress’ only option is to “control the purse strings” and pull funding if they don’t agree with the Presidents action [take note repubic’s . . . .obozoKare funding].

    The Congress hasn’t “declared war” since World War II. Not in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia, Gulf War I, or Iraq/Afghanistan. For Iraq/Afghanistan they issued a “Use of Force resolution”. Every single President has pushed this issue to the max and the Congress has never tried to completely exert it’s “declared” {War Powers Act} authority. Why? IMO because it’s illegitimate and unconstitutional and they know it. Everyone on both sides [e.g. Congress and the President] has just allowed the status quo go on and on, without having a showdown on the issue.

    Like

  5. Pingback: NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria | pundit from another planet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s