Krauthammer: Bumbling Obama’s War Plan “incoherent” – Can He Be Trusted To Respond Adequately If Syria Retaliates?

Charles Krauthammer analyzed Obama’s Syrian war plan, which he said is being resisted because it has no clear objective.

Given the bumbling, the hesitation, the zig-zags of Obama’s policy up until now which is entirely incoherent, do you trust him to be the one to respond adequately, wisely if and when a response happens? Because once you sign on to this, no matter what’s in the resolution, you sign on to Obama conducting the operation and the follow-up, which could happen. The assumption is we do it – we go home – nothing happens… Could be true – but is unlikely to be true.

On the O’Reilly Factor he debated a delusional Bill O’Reilly who has apparently been asleep for the past five years. He has no idea why some conservatives would oppose Obama on Syria except for partisan reasons. Krauthammer sets him straight.

Ann Coulter on Fox and Friends Tuesday morning, said “you can’t trust Democrats to be Commander in Chief’:

And expanded on what that on Hannity, Tuesday night:

After first noting how much more Saddam Hussein had gassed the Kurds, Coulter showed a healthy degree of skepticism, asking, “what is our proof by the way?” She quipped that “we need to check with Hillary here to make sure the chemical gas was not released by a Syrian upset by a YouTube video – um – you cannot trust these people on national security, they are Democrats…”

See Also: 

Gateway Pundit: U.N. Secretary Says U.S. Can’t Act Against Syria Without Security Council Permission: 

When he was a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama made it clear that, as he told the German people, he was a “citizen of the world.” During his first four years in the White House, as the Obama team boasted, this meant his management style consisted of “leading from behind.” A significant part of “leading from behind,” of course, was making American foreign policy subordinate to the United Nations.

Now, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wants to hold Obama to that promise. He issued a general warning that any strikes against Syria to punish it for chemical weapons would be illegal without UN Security Council approval:

As I have repeatedly said, the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security,” Ban said at a news conference. “The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.

He also warned that a military strike against Syria could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed in a crisis that has already killed more than 100,000 people.

Twitchy: ‘So ronery’! Obama’s terrible relationship with Congress sparks snark:

Reporters are starting to notice that the president has pretty much no relationship with members of Congress, on either side of the aisle.

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 3, 2013

Weasel Zippers: Senate Crafts Resolution Authorizing Military Force In Syria, Gives Obama 90-Days To Take Action…

An outright ban on ground troops sought by Republicans was left out of the resolution.

Via Politico:

A new use-of-force resolution for Syria sets a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible, for President Barack Obama to launch military strikes against the regime of Syria President Bashar Assad — and it will also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria.

The revised resolution was crafted by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, following several days of negotiations. The panel could vote on the proposal by Wednesday.

Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were also involved in the discussions over the revised resolution.

The Blaze: ‘IT’S EXPLICIT’: RAND PAUL BATTLES JOHN KERRY OVER THE CONSTITUTION, SYRIA IN TENSE SENATE SHOWDOWN:

During a Tuesday Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had a tense exchange with Secretary of State John Kerry over the finer points of the Constitution.

“Make me proud today, Secretary Kerry,” the Kentucky senator began after voicing his concerns over reports President Barack Obama may act on Syria even if Congress disapproves. “Stand up for us and say you’re going to obey the Constitution and if we vote you down — which is unlikely, by the way — you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn’t go forward with a war that your Congress votes against.”

Sen. Paul then asked Secretary Kerry to be more specific on what the White House plans to do if Congress votes against intervening in Syria.

“I don’t know what the decision is,” Kerry answered, “but I’ll tell you this … [President Obama] still has the Constitutional authority and he would be in keeping with the Constitution.”

Paul disagreed, saying he doesn’t believe the president has the authority to order military action in a foreign country — especially after Congress votes against it:

Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote

Washington Post:  Rand Paul: Filibuster a possibility on Syria vote:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate.

“I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” Paul told reporters on an afternoon conference call. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.”