I’m kind of a neo-con. Kind of. I have no qualms about using overwhelming military force in defense of US interests. I’m not a GWB kind of neo-con, because I would have flattened any neighborhood in Baghdad (or any other city) where our forces took fire and I would have reduced Fallujah to rubble about the size of my little toe nail and paved over that. I prefer a “kinder, gentler” kind of war where our troops take less hostile fire because the price is too high, and I don’t believe in the concept of a “civilian” in Middle Eastern fight.
So, bottom line, I have no issues with bombing Syria into the stone ages. However, I have real issues giving Barack Obama Congressional permission to do it.
I don’t find any constitutional restrictions that would stop Obama from launching a missile strike on Syria without ever mentioning it to the Congress. After all, the best President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, conducted a three day shooting war in Grenada with boots on the ground and didn’t mention it to the Congress.
My problem is with Mr. Obama, and I find the action he wants to undertake to be nothing more than an exercise in fecklessness. It’s his opportunity, as President of the United States, to vote “Present” and use “his” military to do it. This President (or should we refer to him as “Present”) is known for obfuscation and dalliance when it comes to decision making. Word is that Valarie Jarrett actually gave the “GO” on the bin Laden attack, he didn’t even bother with a briefing on Benghazi and he’s been waffling on this for over a year.
As the president has weighed military action, talk of a moral response to the atrocity has been clouded by a discussion of how America’s reputation would suffer if Obama did not act. A year ago, Obama said Syria’s use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line.” If you read his entire answer, Obama tries to dilute his comment almost immediately. He says his “calculus” and his “equation” would change, words that are meant to give him room to move. He didn’t want to box himself into a military-only response. But when you use terms like “red line,” it tends to make people not listen to the rest of the sentence. That’s why you use the term in the first place.
Keep in mind, that paragraph comes from Slate Magazine, a renowned cheerleader for the Present’s agenda.
Tough talk but so what? Well, here’s what.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey being questioned by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) speaking about a resolution to authorize military action.
Keep in mind that Obama made the “Red Line” speech over a year ago so the administration has had lots of time to put together a military response.
DEMPSEY: The answer to whether I support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes.
CORKER: And this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction.
DEMPSEY: I don’t know how the resolution will evolve, but I support –
CORKER: What you’re seeking. What is it you’re seeking?
DEMPSEY: I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.
Got that? No plan. As in no “Plan A”, no “Plan B”. Zip, nada, bupkis, zilch, zero. Nothing.
The Present is asking Congress for permission – when there is no Constitutional reason for him to ask and his aides have agreed with that position – to attack Syria. To put US troops in harms way – Syria apparently has the latest version of a Chinese anti-ship missile – and they don’t have a plan.
I don’t go to the grocery store without a plan and this jackass wants to put US troops under the gun without a clue what we’re going to do? Oh, and Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Graham and the STUPID caucus are supporting this stupidity.
Call your Congress Critter and your Senators. Tell them Hell No. In a nice way please.