Posts Tagged ‘Syrian Civil War’

I like that President Obama makes his selections for the NCAA BAsketball Tournament each year. Like many, I make my selections as well, betting a lunch with my brother. Obama is picking Michigan State this year. I’m picking Florida. Picking the winners and losers is fun for millions of guys, and many women too. It’s a place where political differences cease to be important, which we all need.

Nevertheless, that our Commander-in-Chief has time to do this, but does not have time to attend his daily National Security Briefings is troubling. He is so busy he has skipped half of his briefings throughout his Presidency, including times of national crisis like the days before and after the attack on Benghazi, the Syrian crisis over the use of chemical weapons, and the current crisis in Ukraine.

Even worse, as our political influence in the world declines under his watch, he has surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants for advisers, while routinely snubbing our primary allies—the United Kingdom and Israel.

That he spends his time on the NCAA Brackets and not on American interests abroad is unacceptable. How anyone would think differently is beyond my comprehension.

Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

There are eight reasons why I predict Congress will not support Obama’s war initiative in Syria:

  1. Obama has not presented a clearly defined purpose for such an attack—far from it. He looks like he is in over his head, which will work against him.
  2. It isn’t even clear that the Assad government is the culprit.
  3. There is no international support for Obama’s plan, including the U.N. Bush has 48 countries supporting his war; Obama has one—the French. That’s not very reassuring.
  4. The conflict in Syria is a thirty-month-old civil war that is none of our business. We haven’t been attacked like we were on 9/11.
  5. Our national interests are not at stake, despite Obama and Kerry’s insistence that they are. What national interest? Be specific.
  6. The American people do not want another Middle Eastern war—neither Democrats, Republicans, or Independents favor it.
  7. Attacking Assad would help al Qaeda, and Americans have no stomach for that, especially so close to the 9/11 attack and Benghazi.
  8. Obama has routinely treated Congress contemptuously, so there is very little personal loyalty to him—not even in his own party. So, our feckless elected representatives are not going to risk losing their seats so that Obama can save face. It isn’t going to happen, and certainly not in the House of Representatives, where the money is.

Read Full Post »

There are those who want to congratulate President Obama for exercising wisdom and prudence about his desire to strike the Assad regime in Syria over the use of Serin gas in their thirty-month civil war. I am not one of them.

Obama, desirous of doing as he pleases with impunity, simply can’t find anybody to support him. That he can’t is a serious blow to his Presidency. He has exposed himself for what he is—a weak, feckless leader. Now, the entire world can see for themselves that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

In America, neither the Right nor the Left are willing to stand behind him, especially since he has been unwilling to wait for the UN to finish its investigation. The inspectors have not yet determined if it was Assad who was responsible for the gassing or the rebels themselves, trying to get Obama to be their air force. Obama, who lied at the UN about Benghazi, wants us to believe him now, but that’s not going to happen.

President Obama’s inability to impose his will, as the leader of the world’s only superpower, will make it much more difficult for him to accomplish his Presidential agenda of fundamentally transforming the United States of America. He may be the earliest lame duck in history, and I believe we have the British Parliament to thank for that. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, wanted to back Obama’s air strike, but he also wanted Parliamentary support to do so. He didn’t get it. He missed by twelve votes. That means that if seven members had voted differently, things would be different. By now, there would already have been an air strike on Syria  that might have escalated the Syrian Civil War into a regional conflict—perhaps even larger than that.

Cameron couldn’t keep his troops in line on this one because of its seriousness and because many MPs don’t like Obama’s arrogance. When he refused to attend the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, or even send the Vice President as his representative, it was an unappreciated slight to our number one ally. Obama was equally obtuse when he sent back the bust of Winston Churchill, which was a gift of Her majesty, Queen Elizabeth. Obama did this because of his personal antipathy toward the Empire aspect of the United Kingdom. The Brits felt the sting, so when Obama needed them, many MPs were simply unwilling to step up to the plate for him. Who can blame them?

In international politics, what goes around comes around. We have the United Kingdom to thank for providing a check on Obama’s lust for power. Now, it is the Congress’s turn to do the same thing. Our Congressmen need to sustain what the Brits started, remembering that for Obama, the Constitution isn’t the law of the land. It’s simply a group of suggestions, which he routinely ignores. What is in front of Congress is more than a vote on Syria. It’s our lawmakers chance to stop the usurper in his tracks and reestablish the power of Congress to make the laws of the land. Don’t miss this opportunity.

Read Full Post »