Thursday, August 29, 2013
What'cha Gonna Do Now, Obama?
The below news report from Fox News pretty much sums up what a ridiculous situation President Obama has put himself in over Syria.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/syria-strike-push-hits-hurdles/?intcmp=HPBucket
This is the same Barack Obama who, as a US Senator, proclaimed that the president -or any president- would have to get permission from Congress for any military action that was not in defense of the US.
And didn't loudmouth Joe Biden loudly tell Chris Matthews that he would lead the charge to impeach George W Bush if he launched military action against Iran?
We are now on the side of Al Qaeda in Syria.
What in the world are our leaders thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
He is so over his head that it is pathetic. His natural inclination is to champion our worst enemies and blame ourselves for anything that goes wrong.
Now his ego gets hooked into this and he is trapped.
I'd like to hear what our national interest is and what our whole foreign policy is as well.
This is the kind of governance you get when you elect a charismatic amateur, especially a liberal one.
My local mackerel wrapper , accurately or otherwise, recently quoted Obama as saying, two days after the latest chemical attack, "If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it; do we have the coalition to make it work?".
I could be mistaken (I once thought I was may have been wrong about something but later found out I was right after all) that Obama has commented similarly to Biden relative to Congressional approval for such actions (I know what his answer to a question in this regard to another president, or at least any Republican president) would have been.
Seems fairly clear to me. If an attack on Iran under Bush would have been an impeachable act, then it would necessarily follow that an attack on Syria under Obama involving somewhat similar conditions (but with even less concern about an imminent threat to our national security) would necessarily be likewise impeachable.
Further, since Obama Himself indicated that an attack without a U.N. mandate AND (not or) a coalition (he has neither) AND "clear evidence" (which he may have) could/would run afoul of international law, that would necessarily make him a war criminal when/if he attacks Syria under the current conditions, no??
These impeachable act(s) would even fit the standard/definition floated by lib/Dem pukes during the Clinton debacle, as they would be related to the office of President rather than to personal conduct. The end result of impeachment under this Congress would be the same as that of Clinton, thanks to a bunch (some of them are even the same people) of cowardly, duplicitous Democratic senators.
I am not sure I support impeachment anyway, as that would result in a President Biden, God forbid. I can think of only one thing possibly worse than that, and I sure hope the Hillary Clinton/Michelle Obama campaign bumper sticker I saw the other day is just a goof.
Michelle Obama would make a much better president than Hillary Clinton, and possibly better than the current incumbent. However, one of my objections to Hillary is that I want no dynasties, and the first woman president should get their on her own, not piggybacked on her husband's presidency. On that basis, no more Clintons, no more Bushes, no more Obamas, no more Reagans, and no more Kennedys either. At least not for a couple of generations. I'm still upset about Benjamin Harrison.
Post a Comment