After numerous days of leaked imminent attack plans , public commentary of limited kinetic actions , a two or three day bombing strike which the President and Secretary of State averred rested with the President to launch in his full discretion - after the Uk was dissed for actually seeing the Prime Minister take his case unsuccessfully to Parliament , after dissing the UN as essentially a worthless waste of time ..... we saw quite the flip flop today from the President !
Who comes out ahead ? For one , clearlyAssad and the Syria Government looks like they stood tall. Second , Putin and Russia came out of this looking strong - have made reasoned arguments in support of their ally but without making wildly hysterical statements and relying on flimsy youtube videos as a basis for rock solid " evidence " . Third , the UN came out of this as principled , certainly not the lapdog of the US anymore. Fourth , the UK will be seen in time as demonstrating that a democracy does require the consent of the governed , not just the whim of the wild eyed leader on an ego trip or guided by ulterior motives. Fifth , Nato and the other countries ( do they value the US asa leader anymore ) - tired of mindless war mongering , signaling the wild west years are coming to an end - or is it a change of the guard ?
Who came out behind? Clearly , Obama + White House Team ( including John Kerry ) and Cameron run neck and neck ( 1 and 2 ) as the grand losers here ! Cameron notably lost a weak preliminary vote ( the second vote was supposed to be the tough one ) on his request for war authorization. Obama painted himself in a corner , was isolated as virtually all of his supposed allies got either cold feet , failed to participate or support military action and / or saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to cut and run from Obama. Third , Syrian Rebels - after being told ( by the UK and US ) to expect military action maybe Thursday , perhaps Friday , surely by Saturday , definitely over the weekend...... now they see no military action from the UK , any military action from the US at least ten days to two weeks in the future , if at all. Fourth , neo-cons left at the altar. Fifth , CNN and msm now don't have a war to hype for maybe two weeks , if at all .
As a recap , here's what jumped off at today White House rose Garden speech.....
Backing down.......
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-changed-his-mind-on-syria-at-the-last-minute-2013-8
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior administration officials say President Barack Obama planned to take military action against Syria without congressional authorization, but told aides Friday night that he changed his mind.
Obama announced to the public Saturday that he wanted to launch a military strike, but that he first would seek approval from lawmakers.
The administration officials described a president overriding all his top national security advisers, who believed Obama had the authority to act on his own.
But these officials say the president spent much of the week wrestling with Congress' role in authorizing force and made the decision Friday night after a lengthy discussion with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.
The administration officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Obama's decision-making by name.
http://twitchy.com/2013/08/31/like-whenever-ok-obama-says-military-action-in-syria-not-time-sensitive/
( No reason not to wait for complete UN inspections , review and analysis and detailed final report . After all , the military mission is not time sensitive after all. )
Like, whenever, OK? Obama says military action in Syria ‘not time sensitive’
http://www.debka.com/article/23243/Obama-delays-Syria-strike-indefinitely-by-turning-decision-over-to-Congress-
Confounding tense expectations worldwide, US President Barack Obama again dodged a decision for a US strike on Syria by referring it to Congress. In a speech to the American people, Saturday, Aug. 31, he said the use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad must be “confronted not just investigated.” But then went on to say, “We are ready to strike whenever we choose. This operation is not time-sensitive. It could take place tomorrow, next week, or next month.
The US House Speaker meanwhile set Sept. 9 as the date for the debate to start.
By these words, the US president chipped away once again at US military plans for Syria - only this time, they looked like vanishing into the blue yonder, leaving Assad and his partners all the time in the world to line up their counter moves, and putting Israel in a tight spot on three counts:
1. The hostile Iran-Syrian-Hizballah bloc comes out strengthened;
2. Tehran can feel free to develop a nuclear bomb without fear of resolute US interference;
3. Hizballah can celebrate its backing for the winning horse in Damascus.
4. Binyamin Netanyahu’s six-year old policy, which was oriented on engendering understanding with Barack Obama, is in ruins, although it was endorsed by Israel’s defense ministers on the assumption that it was in the interests of national security.
As we reported earlier, President Obama confirmed Friday night that the forthcoming US military attack on Syria would be “limited” and “narrow” and not open-ended, in a bid to avoid the risk of America being mired in the Syrian civil war.
Obama's "Next Steps" (On The Ground) Briefing - To Seek Congressional Approval
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 - 13:09
*OBAMA SAYS USERS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT
*OBAMA SAYS `MENACE' OF SYRIA MUST BE CONFRONTED
*OBAMA SAYS U.S. MUST TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS `MENACE' OF SYRIA MUST BE CONFRONTED
*OBAMA SAYS U.S. MUST TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA
*OBAMA SAYS HE WILL SEEK AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS ON SYRIA
While Andrea Mitchell reports that the President will not be announcing airstrikes from the Rose Garden at 115ET, his press briefing this afternoon will update the American people on his decisions about how to proceed... so with no report due from the UN on Syrian chemical arms until lab tests are done, we wait with bated breath for Obama's next steps (but not on the ground...)
"I look forward to the debate"...
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/31/breaking-obama-says-he-will-seek-congressional-authorization-for-strikes/
What does seem clear is that Obama won’t summon Congress back to town earlier than expected, according to senior administration officials. Under the Constitution, the president has the ability to convene Congress under “extraordinary occasions.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/31/breaking-obama-says-he-will-seek-congressional-authorization-for-strikes/
Breaking: Obama says he will seek Congressional authorization for strikes
POSTED AT 2:22 PM ON AUGUST 31, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
The White House suddenly shifted direction on the necessity of Congressional authorization for a strike against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. For the last two or three days, various officials have insisted that Barack Obama has the authority to order military action in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, but today Obama himself committed to seeking approval from Capitol Hill first:
President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.Obama’s remarks came as senior administration officials were making a fresh round of calls to congressional leaders on Saturday in an effort to bolster support for a potential military strike on Syria, officials said.
The change is certainly abrupt, but hardly surprising. When the UK’s David Cameron was forced to withdraw from the coalition, that left Obama politically exposed both at home and abroad. With only France enthusiastic about taking part in military action, it became a lot more important for Obama to get a vote of confidence at home. Plus, Obama’s rhetoric against George W. Bush during the 2007-8 presidential campaign made his hypocrisy on executive power painfully obvious, with even his own party insisting that he needed to get a Congressional blessing first.
That creates more headaches for Obama, however. First, Congress isn’t back until September 9th, which means this will take a couple of weeks to accomplish — if it can be accomplished at all. Capitol Hill might be inclined to defer to the executive, but only a handful of House and Senate members are enthusiastic about striking Syria, even after more than a week of beating the war drums. The opposition to another engagement will be fierce, and so far the White House has given a very ambiguous and diffident picture about the goals of a military action and the ability to contain the consequences afterward. On the other hand, this point from NPR’s Frank James will be on the minds of Capitol Hill denizens, too:
Now that Obama has given the keys to Congress , look at how they are signaling the game will be played moving forward..... The " I " word was put on the table - and Obama clearly blinked !
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Impeachment%3A_Congress_Fires_Opening_Shot_Across_Obama%E2%80%99s_Bow./28548/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Signed by 140 Reps, including 21 Democrats
“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
With these perhaps historic words the Congress has begun to claw back its Constitutional right to decide issues of war and peace. Significantly the letter comes from a Republican lawmaker, and it is clearly a tribute to the leadership of the libertarians in the Republican Party, most notably Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Rand Paul.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Impeachment%3A_Congress_Fires_Opening_Shot_Across_Obama%E2%80%99s_Bow./28548/0/38/38/Y/M.html
“Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:…”President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.’”
“We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional.”
“We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional.”
Text from letter of Rep. Scott Regall (R, VA) to Pres. Obama
Signed by 140 Reps, including 21 Democrats
The letter of Scott Regall (1) to Barak Obama has exploded on the scene with its opening words:
“We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
“We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
With these perhaps historic words the Congress has begun to claw back its Constitutional right to decide issues of war and peace. Significantly the letter comes from a Republican lawmaker, and it is clearly a tribute to the leadership of the libertarians in the Republican Party, most notably Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Rand Paul.
But the situation is grave enough, possibly leading on to a World War, that 21 Democrats have challenged the President and their Party bosses to sign the statement. They are moving beyond partisanship as Ron Paul did in challenging George W. Bush on the war on Iraq.
If that were all that the letter said, it would be momentous enough. But the statement goes further and labels Obama’s cruel war on Libya as “unconstitutional,” because it was done without so much as a nod to Congress. In the end no lawyer and no court, not even the Supreme Court, can overrule Congress when it decides what to do when it considers a serious presidential action as “unconstitutional.” In Libya Obama usurped the powers of Congress. If Congress takes the next step and determines that such an action rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” then it is an impeachable offense.
It is not hard to see the implications of the warning to Obama that the Representatives are issuing in raising Libya. If Obama attacks Syria, that will be the second offense, greatly strengthening the case for impeachment.
The implied threat of impeachment is of utmost importance because the President, long become an Emperor, will heed no warning unless it is backed by threat of punishment.
So far so good. But unfortunately Rep. Barbara Lee did not sign Rigell’s letter but instead drafted another and circulated it (2). Crucially this letter carried no mention of the Libyan war and the violation of the Constitution it represented. It garnered an additional 22 signatures, all Democrats, over and above those who signed onto Rigell’s letter. (At least one Republican Congressman’s office stated that they received no Dear Colleague letter from Lee on her letter so perhaps it went only to Dems.) This is very disturbing since back in the day of the Iraq war, Barbara Lee led resistance to Bush and backed John Conyers’s promise of a impeachment hearings for Bush in 2006, a promise Conyers promptly broke on getting re-elected. Now in the age of Obama, is Lee changing from an opponent of war into a partisan hack? This writer contacted Lee’s Washington and California offices seeking clarification. But the staff was unwilling to comment and the communications staffer did not return either an email or phone call.
In one way Obama’s assault on Libya and now on Syria is worse than George W. Bush’s war on Iraq. Bush at least took the time to lie to Congress. But such a lie to Congress is an indictable offense, and the lie is easily demonstrable if Congress marshals the likes of a Watergate hearing. So an impeachment move against Obama is also an opening for a move to indict Bush. And perhaps the unconstitutional assaults of Clinton on Sudan and Yugoslavia will be revisited. One can only hope.
It is time for all antiwarriors to champion the idea of impeachment and push for it now. The slogan might well be, “Impeach Obama. Indict Bush.” It will not happen unless we demand it. And if we do not, we are acquiescing to endless war and possible disaster for the world.
John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com
opposition to the Syrian intervention can be seen at the web site just cited.
Having set the tone as to who is the boss , look at the positioning going forward !
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/31/Turner-No-Syria-strike-funding-for-Obama-until-he-lifts-sequester-s-military-effects
GOP REP: NO FUNDING FOR SYRIA
STRIKE UNTIL OBAMA REVERSES
SEQUESTER CUTS TO MILITARY
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land forces, said on Saturday that he will block any efforts by President Barack Obama to procure funding to attack Syria until he reverses sequestration cuts to the military.
"The President has failed to make the case to the American people,” Turner said in a statement on Saturday. “There are significant risks to launching an attack on Syria and we don't know who we are fighting for."
"The President has mishandled this situation from the very beginning and shown a complete lack of leadership with his imaginary redline," he explained. "I will not support any funding request for an attack until the President acts to remove the burdens of sequestration from our military.”
On Saturday, Obama said he thinks he has the authority to attack Syria on his own but will seek Congressional approval before taking any military action.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/31/syria-usforeignpolicy
Barack Obama has taken a potentially huge political gamble by putting the decision over whether to attack Syria in the hands of Congress, writes the Guardian's Washington correspondent Paul Lewis:
Republican and Democratic leaders may be expected to back the president’s call for military action, but support among lawmakers, who have become increasingly restive in recent months, is by no means guaranteed.
With a vote not scheduled to take place until the week beginning September 9, when Congress returns from recess, Obama faces days of intense political debate over the evidence of a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government and the rationale for military strikes with limited international support.
In a sign of the battle ahead, US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both hawks who have advocated aggressive strikes on Syria, said they would use the vote to push for a more significant intervention than the one proposed by Obama, who said on Saturday it should be “limited in duration and scope”.
“We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," they said in a statement.
Democrats control the Senate, but Obama could face the toughest battle in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, which is staunchly opposing the president on a range of issues from healthcare to immigration reform and tax and spend policies.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-debate-heads-to-congress-96124.html
President Barack Obama’s surprise announcement on Saturday afternoon to seek congressional authorization for a military strike in Syria sparked confusion in Washington.
Congress is currently on a five-week recess, and the GOP-controlled House immediately announced that it would not convene the chamber before it was scheduled to do so Sept. 9. But the Democratic-led Senate said it was thinking about an early return from vacation.
What does seem clear is that Obama won’t summon Congress back to town earlier than expected, according to senior administration officials. Under the Constitution, the president has the ability to convene Congress under “extraordinary occasions.”
The timing of an authorization vote is now up in the air, as well as its outcome. Though many lawmakers praised the fact that the president would now seek their backing for military intervention in another Middle Eastern country, some speculated that the vote might fail — and still others said Obama seemed weak for seeking their stamp of approval.
For instance, influential Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — who have urged the U.S. to become more involved in the Syrian conflict — said they can’t “in good conscience” support isolated military strikes not part of a broader strategy that would “change the momentum” on the ground and remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power.
“Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing,” McCain and Graham said. “And it would send the wrong signal to America’s friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world — all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.”
Senate leaders said on Saturday that they are considering coming back to Washington early, according to senior aides. But House Republican leaders said in a joint statement that they expect their chamber to consider an authorization measure the week of Sept. 9, a timeline that would give Obama time to “make his case to Congress and the American people.”
“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress,” said Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised.”
Senate leaders have made no decision about returning to Washington yet, according to aides. The second-ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, has called for senators to return early to Washington to vote on an authorization measure. One top Senate aide said the White House will send the authorization proposal to Congress later Saturday.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also thought Congress should return immediately to vote.
“I agree with the decision to seek Congressional approval before taking military action in Syria. And I believe Congress should return to Washington immediately and begin to debate this issue,” Rubio said.
“The United States should only engage militarily when it is pursuing a clear and attainable national security goal. Military action taken simply to send a message or save face does not meet that standard.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who said he was briefed by White House chief of staff Denis McDonough earlier Saturday afternoon, said he planned to work with Senate leaders for an authorization of use of force in Syria as “expeditiously as possible.”
But the bigger question is whether any authorization measure would pass Congress. A senior House Democratic aide said “it’s not clear at all” whether such a measure would pass. Because lawmakers are scattered away from Washington during the annual summer recess, it’s difficult to do a whip count.
And given the sensitivity of the issue, is highly unlikely Boehner’s leadership team will weigh in and pressure people to vote a certain way — meaning the White House will have to whip the vote themselves.
The House faced a similar vote in June 2011 when it rejected a one-year authorization of the use of U.S. forces in Libya, but then immediately voted against cutting off funding for U.S. intervention there, essentially rendering a split verdict for U.S. involvement against the regime of then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
That same month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under now-Secretary of State John Kerry, passed with a bipartisan vote a resolution that would authorize the limited use of force in Libya. But the resolution was not brought up on the floor.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said if a vote on Syria were held today, it would fail.
“I don’t think it passes,” Johnson told POLITICO. “Right now there are far too many questions unanswered.”
Johnson, who received a classified briefing on Syria in the White House Situation Room Thursday, said he is convinced of the White House argument that Assad used chemical weapons on his citizens. The administration released unclassified intelligence on Friday that it said shows “high confidence” Assad used chemical weapons in an attack that killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.
But Johnson said Obama must make “a much stronger case” that attacking Syria is in the national interest of the United States before he would support a use of force authorization.
“If all this is about because President Obama drew a red line and he’s concerned about his credibility and restoring his credibility, that’s not enough justification for me,” Johnson said.
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said in a CNN interview Saturday that “there’s absolutely no question I would vote no” if an authorization vote was held today.
Still, several other senators made it clear Saturday that they would back military force. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said he supports military action and that Obama should have called Congress back into session right away so lawmakers could vote.
And Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports Obama’s decision, but “as far as I’m concerned, we should strike in Syria today.”
“The use of chemical weapons was inhumane, and those responsible should be forced to suffer the consequences,” Nelson said.
Obama said in his Rose Garden statement that his decision to seek congressional approval had backing from the top four leaders on Capitol Hill.
“The president’s role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also said he was “very pleased” with Obama’s decision to seek Congress’s approval.
”At this point in our country’s history, this is absolutely the right decision, and I look forward to seeing what the Administration brings forward and to a vigorous debate on this important authorization,” Corker said. “Further, now that the president has decided to use force and seek authorization, it is imperative that he immediately begins using every ounce of his energy to make his case to the American people.
And Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said he “strongly supported” the president’s decision.
“The opportunity to fully debate this difficult situation will help educate the American public about the important issues at stake and ultimately provide a political consensus that our servicemembers must be able to rely on,” he said in a statement.
New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged Boehner to call the House back into session “immediately.”
“The president has laid out a strong and convincing case to the American people for action in Syria,” Engel said. “However, I understand his desire to seek explicit authorization to do so from Congress.
Others criticized Obama’s move. New York Rep. Peter King, the hawkish Republican who formerly chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement that Obama was “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents.”
“The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria,” King said. “If Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the President is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date. The President doesn’t need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own red line.”
In the context of a 24/7 news cycle and with the eyes of the world upon you , "optics " have meaning ! And it's important to be seen as serious to be taken serious. We have a leader who comes across as shallow , trivial and not strong..... and that is how he is viewed and assessed as being by friends and enemies of the US .
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/08/31/Obama-Syria-Address-After-Gameday
OBAMA ANNOUNCES 'MILITARY
ACTION' NEEDED IN SYRIA... AFTER
COLLEGE GAMEDAY
On the opening weekend of the college football season and nearly 30 minutes after the conclusion of College GameDay, President Barack Obama announced that he has decided America's military "should take military action against Syrian regime targets," but he would first seek Congressional approval.
On Saturday, Obama said from the White House that he would "seek authorization from the American people from their representatives in Congress." And though he said he believed he could carry out the actions without Congressional authorization, Obama said he felt the "country will be stronger" with it. Obama said he spoke to all four leaders in Congress, and they agreed to schedule debate and have a vote as soon as Congress returns from its August recess. He said the military actions would not be "time-sensitive."
"We are ready to strike whenever we choose," Obama said, noting he was ready to give the authorization.
The timing of his announcement underscored the the power of college football, which unifies Americans in an age of hyper-polarization and fragmentation. He made the announcement after Americans finished ritually watching ESPN's College Gameday, which went from 9AM EDT to 1PM EDT to commemorate the kickoff of the college football season--and other college football pre-game shows--and started to sit down and get comfortable on their couches to watch an afternoon's worth of football on television.
Obama, who has filled out college basketball brackets for ESPN every year since he has been in office, knows the power of sports in America's culture, and is cognizant of the fact that live sports is one of the few things Americans collectively watch in real time. And throughout much of the country, college football is king.
Obama's announcement hit when it would have the maximum impact--after the college football shows and before the primetime slate of games--and Americans heard Obama saying that the Assad's regime's alleged use of chemical weapons was an "assault on human dignity" and a "serious danger to our national security," and that is why he decided he limited military action was necessary even though the country was "weary" of war.
In a country in which Americans often are not listening to same music, watching the same television shows, sharing common experiences or even learning the same history, for that matter, perhaps only issues of war and peace get the attention of Americans more than college football.
and one of the priorities seems to be always getting in some golf ........
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/31/Obama-Hits-Golf-Course-After-Announcing-National-Emergency
OBAMA HITS GOLF COURSE AFTER
ANNOUNCING NATIONAL
EMERGENCY
President Obama and Vice-President Biden held a rare press event Saturday in the Rose Garden to address the escalating tensions with Syria. President Obama said he was convinced Syrian President Bashir Assad had ordered a chemical weapon attack on his citizens and that the US, and the world community, must act in response. Obama called on Congress to authorize a military attack against Syria. A new foreign policy crisis now faces the US. After the press event, Obama and Biden went golfing.
I'm not an expert in foreign policy, but I can think of a few things a President ought to do after requesting authority for a military strike on a sovereign nation. There are probably some Congressional leaders who ought to be briefed. There are likely one or two world leaders who would appreciate a chat about the US plans. No doubt generals in the military would have a thought or two about how things should proceed.
An hour after announcing a potential new military venture in the Middle East, with unknown consequences, "5 Wood or 2 Iron" is the last thing I want on a President's mind.
Don't you wonder ( and don't think Congress doesn't worry constantly about the thinking process of the White House ) whether the brains at the White House and the State Department ever think things through ? And as Congress debates granting war authorization to the President , the question is - do you trust their judgment ?
and....
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 17:00 -0400
and......
and....
And Now, It's Golfing Time (Or Putin +1, Obama 0)
After bringing the world to the edge of WWIII and nearly giving the first order to launch the ironically named Patriot missile, then dramatically punting in the very last second whether to invade Syria to Congress, something he should have done from the every beginning, Obama went on to do what he does best.
Politico explains:
Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course.Obama’s motorcade left the White House at 2:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after completing his statement.Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are playing at Fort Belvoir, Va., along with White House trip director Marvin Nicholson and Walter Nicholson, according to the White House.
And so after last month's Snowden humiliation, Russia's Putin just schooled the US golfer-in-chief again. Although, was there ever any doubt?
The Russian president:
and......
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/08/31/obamas-serial-syria-mistakes/
Obama’s Serial Syria Mistakes
Let’s count the ways in which President Obama has screwed up his Syria policy.
1. He failed to take a stand in a conflict that clearly involves our interests. Bashar Assad is an ally of our enemy, Iran, and a supporter of Iran’s interests and of terrorism throughout the Middle East. He arms people who want to destroy Israel, and Israel is our friend, whose continued existence we safeguard militarily. The chance to eliminate Assad should have been seized early with a robust program of assistance to rebels before Islamists and al Qaeda had fully infiltrated their ranks.
2. Obama drew a red line without thinking. He committed to United States to action without thoroughly understanding the consequences. America must be considered true to its word or it will not be taken seriously, and national security will be severely damaged. This type of irresponsibility is what happens when you elect someone with no relevant experience for the job to be president.
3. Having drawn the red line, he failed to enforce it. The White House Friday acknowledged that Assad has already crossed the red line multiple times, using chemical weapons in limited amounts against his people. Really? Now you tell us? The United States did not even respond by sending light weapons to the opposition, which everyone understood was supposed to happen. It’s no wonder Assad felt free to wage a larger attack.
4. Obama is planning a limited attack on Assad. That is not worth doing. Any attack that fails to take out Assad or destroy his defenses is counterproductive. A limited strike will only rally sympathy for Assad and prove to the world that the United States won’t act forcefully to back up its word and support its interests, and that it lacks commitment to lead.
And a world without U.S. leadership is a very dangerous one indeed. The world won’t go away just because we decide to abandon it. When we ignore our enemies, they eventually come to get us, as they did twelve years ago next month.
No comments:
Post a Comment