Congress Should Veto Obama’s War

The administration has deliberately left itself almost no room for maneuver – its credibility would now be zero if it failed to take some form of military action”

~Mark Mardell
BBC News, North America editor


Patrick J. Buchanan

“Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of core responsibilities,” said Barack Obama last week in an astonishing remark.

For in the Constitution, Congress appears as the first branch of government. And among its enumerated powers are the power to tax, coin money, create courts, provide for the common defense, raise and support an army, maintain a navy and declare war.

But, then, perhaps Obama’s contempt is justified.

For consider Congress’ broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.

Why is Obama making plans to launch cruise missiles on Syria?

According to a “senior administration official … who insisted on anonymity,” President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people last week in the two-year-old Syrian civil war.

But who deputized the United States to walk the streets of the world pistol-whipping bad actors? Where does our imperial president come off drawing “red lines” and ordering nations not to cross them?

Neither the Security Council nor Congress nor NATO nor the Arab League has authorized war on Syria.

Who made Barack Obama the Wyatt Earp of the Global Village?

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense…

…Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assad’s offer to have U.N. inspectors – already in Damascus investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas – go to the site of the latest incident?

Do we not want to know the truth?…


The complete article is at WorldNetDaily.


Related:  Sen. Ted Cruz weighed in this morning on Facebook [video here]:

On action in Syria, Secretary Kerry and the President have said they want to go to the United Nations for approval. How about going to the United States Congress?


Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike 

…Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show “prudence” over the crisis and observe international law.

“Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa,” he said in a statement.

Late on Monday, the US said it was postponing a meeting on Syria with Russian diplomats, citing “ongoing consultations” about alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Hours later, Russia expressed regret about the decision. The two sides had been due to meet in The Hague on Wednesday to discuss setting up an international conference on finding a political solution to the crisis…


Expert: US-led attack on Syria may lead to increased Russian cooperation with Iran

Russia warned Western powers on Monday against any military intervention in Syria.


Iran warns against strike on Syria, says conflict would engulf Middle East

Foreign Ministry spokesman says foreign military intervention in Syria will have ‘perilous consequences’ for the region.


Update: Congress Doesn’t Think Much of Syria Intervention 

…Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), a Marine veteran who represents the military-heavy Norfolk area, said Obama has mentioned working through coalition partners and the United Nations, but never Congress.”It is not the king’s army,” Rigell told POLITICO. “The point is here is we have to challenge this basic premise that’s dangerously permeating Washington and really throughout America that it’s the president’s prerogative alone. It’s not. The use of that much force should be a judicious collaborative decision.”Rigell, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called engagement in the Middle East a “quagmire.”

“It’s a quagmire military, it’s a conundrum politically … a cauldron of confusion. This is a region that is just inherently unstable,” Rigell said. “The idea of injecting, inserting U.S. troops – I haven’t seen anything yet that reaches that level.”…

Read the whole thing.


Someone laid it out for the “low information voters”:

…Before launching a single cruise missile toward Syria, Team Obama needs to be sure it has a good answer to the question, “What comes next?”

If Obama does a Clinton and churns up some sand with do-nothing cruise-missile strikes, it will only encourage the Assad regime. But if our president hits Assad hard and precipitates regime change, then what?

If al Qaeda and local Islamists seize Damascus, what will we do? The enfeebled “moderate opposition” we back rhetorically couldn’t dislodge hardcore jihadis, no matter how many weapons we sent (the jihadis would simply confiscate the gear).

What if we weaken the regime to the point where the fanatics rev up their jihad to drive out Christians and other minorities? What’s your plan then, Mr. President? After your night of explosive passion, will you still love the opposition in the morning?

Exactly which American vital security interests are at stake in Syria, Mr. President? Your credibility? Put a number on it. How many American lives is your blather about red lines worth?…


Read the whole thing in an excellent article, Speaking truth to power about Obama


Instapundit:  NOBEL PEACE PRIZE UPDATE: Obama Seeks a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ on Syria. Hmm. Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba’athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?


Reports: Cash-strapped N. Korea ‘stepped up’ chemical weapons shipments to Syria

North Korea was believed to have sent chemical weapons technology to Syria.

A United Nations panel and Western analysts agreed that Pyongyang was shipping CW technology to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad…




Update 2: Glenn Beck compares FDR’s administration to the Obama administration, and shows how Syria can lead to World War III using the comparisons. The comments on the YouTube page are worth reading.



Comments are closed.