Now quick disclaimer here, I'm not arguing for or against war with Syria, that would require a blog that goes much deeper and stays much more serious than I usually do. What I am trying to show however is that even the possibility of war with Syria shows just how little our elected leaders actually know.
Case and point, Senator Rand Paul who recently said this:
'“I think the failure of the Obama administration has been we haven’t engaged the Russians enough or the Chinese enough on this, and I think they were engaged. I think there’s a possibility Assad could already be gone. The Russians have every reason to want to keep their influence in Syria, and I think the only way they do is if there’s a change in government where Assad has gone but some of the same people remain stable. So I think really the best outcome for all the major powers would be a peaceful transition government, and Russia could influence that if they told Assad no more weapons.”
Yea see about that whole Russia telling Assad no more weapons thing and the peaceful transition government issue.....Russia is the one selling Assad weapons because they want to keep him in power.
This is actually a major issue about whether or not the US should get involved in Syria. Involvement by us would likely trigger Russian involvement on the other side.
yet the fact that Russia is diametrically opposed to the US position in this case is apparently above Rand Paul's ability to understand, as he seems to think if we just ask them nicely they will help us do what we want to Syria.
Now to be fair this "situational stupidity on Syria" isnt limited to Rand Paul. Next up we have Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who saw an opportunity to do some revisionist history.
When asked if the reason Americans are so opposed to intervening in Syria is because of the "specter of Iraq" and the "faulty intelligence" that got us into that war Rumsfeld said this:
"Well, I think that the intelligence community turned out to be wrong and the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell proved out to be wrong. On the other hand, you had a brutal dictator in Iraq who had used chemical weapons against his own people, used them against its neighbors, rebuffed 17 U.N. resolutions. And President Bush went to the congress, got the support of the congress. Went to the U.N., got the support of the U.N. And fashioned a very large coalition. So it seems to me that all the appropriate steps were taken and the congress, a Democratic congress, voted for regime change in Iraq."
Translation, it doesnt matter that the intelligence was bad we did the right thing....and hell its all the democrats fault anyways since it was a democratic congress that passed it.
Problem is by democratic congress, Rumsfeld actually means Republican congress. See when the Iraq war resolution was passed it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 297 to 133. At the time their were 223 Republicans and 209 Democrats, meaning its a Republican controlled House
And of the Republicans only 6 voted no. So of that 297 who voted yes, 217 of them were Republicans, only 82 were Democrats.
Senate was no better, their the resolution passed 77 to 23. In fairness at the time it was actually during brief period of time in 2003 the Democrats who controlled the Senate with 50 Senators to the GOP's 49 (it would be another month before the GOP regained control of the Senate)and one independent. Even with that though the Resolution passed with 48 Republicans voting yes and only 29 Democrats. Now yes that is a majority of both parties.
So if you wanted to you could call the Iraq war vote Bi-partisan and argue that. But the one thing it was not was as frm Sec Rumsfeld put it "a Democratic Congress"
Granted unlike everyone else mentioned in this article, I'm pretty sure he knows that, he's just doing what he does best....lying.
Nor is Rumsfeld our only historical revisionist, next up we turn to Former House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman (and still committee member) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) who said this on FOX recently while pushing for intervention in Syria:
It is against the norms of international standards and to let something like this go unanswered, I think will weaken our resolve. I — I know that President Reagan would have never let this happen. He would stand up to this. And President Obama — the only reason he is consulting with Congress, he wants to blame somebody for his lack of resolve. We have to think like President Reagan would do and he would say chemical use is unacceptable.
Yea about that. In my previous bit on Donald Rumsfeld their is one thing Rumsfeld told the truth about, when he said Saddam had used Chemical weapons on his own people and on his Neighbors. And of course Rumsfeld would know this, he's one of the guys who helped Sadam do it.
 |
| Special Envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld meets Sadam Hussein, in 1983 during the Iran Iraq war. |
Its only a few weeks after that meeting that the US started to give tactical information to Iraq about the location of Iranian troops, knowing full well Iraq had, and were intending to use Chemical Weapons against the Iranian's.
Now of course Republican's long ago fictionalized President Reagan's stand on pretty much every single issue they believe in (since he's basically agree with them on none), but still maybe Rep Ros-Lethinen might want to find a different President she wants Obama to model himself on? Just saying.
Now to be fair, the historical revisionism isnt limited to just one party, as Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi shows. When asked if Congress refusing the authorize force means the president cant proceed Pelosi said this:
"I don’t think Congress will reject. But I do want to remind you because the – I’ve been reading some of what some of you have written and say the president has never gone forward if Congress has not approved, when it has taken up the issue. I remind you that in 1999, President Clinton brought us all together, similar to this meeting here, but over a period of time to talk about going into the Balkans and the vote was 213-213, 187 Republicans voted ‘no,’ 180 Democrats voted ‘yes,’ about 30 on each side, something like that, went in a different way than the majority of their party. And that was when the planes were really ready to go into Bosnia [sic]. He went. And you know what happened there. So, I don’t – I don’t think that the congressional authorization is necessary. I do think it’s a good thing. And I hope that we can achieve it."
Except thats not what happened. Operations in Bosnia started March 24th, the House didnt vote on the use of force resolution until April 28th, weeks later.
Now granted on the wider point Pelosi is correct. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says that as long as he notifies Congress of use of force within 48 hours, the president can authorize military actions not to exceed 90 days (60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period).
Now the problem is, no President since 1973 has ever actually followed the 90 day limit part of that. And no president since June 5 1942 (when congress made 3 declarations of war against Romania, Hungry and Bulgaria respectively) has actually waited for Congress to declare war before starting an armed conflict.
In every single case, after the fighting starts, congress passes the resolution to continue it, no matter if the president followed the law or not before that point.
But still in theory, on paper, Mrs. Pelosi is correct that Obama doesnt have to follow congress, she is just trying to misinform to make it seem like a much smaller deal than it would really be, and not the first time that would have ever actually happened.
Nor is Pelsoi the only one intentionally misinforming on the War Powers Resolution. John McCain is also doing his part.
McCain wants to intervene in Syria, but doesnt want troops on the ground. And he has apparently decided that if he doesnt get his way the President WILL BE impeached.
"The fact is [President] Bashar Assad has massacred 100,000 people. The conflict is spreading … Iraq has now become a haven for al-Qaeda and the violence is greater than in 2008, the Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in, and it’s an unfair fight, And no one wants American boots on the ground. Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.”
Now yes there actually are people who might be OK with american boots on the ground, I think the list starts with several of the people who proceeded McCain in this blog, and they are certainly not the only ones.
But the bigger problem is this: Impeach Obama for what? Constitution is pretty clear on this, the President can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". In other words you have to have broken at least SOME kind of law.
And again, the War Powers Resolution actually says Obama can do what he likes for up to 90 days. So yea, for at least 3 months he can put "boots on the ground" no matter what Cranky Old Man McCain has to say about it.
I suppose hypothetically on day 91, the House could vote to impeach, but lets be honest, the Senate would NEVER convict, so it doesnt really matter. History however suggests it much more likely both chambers would actually retroactively approve "boots on the ground".
Ok so I dont really have a transition for this next one, because we are kinda leaving sanity behind. So now we come to the crazy part of the blog, as embodied by Rep's Jeff Duncan and Joe "You Lie" Wilson and Senator Ted "Calgary" Cruz.
In the order they were uttered all 3 men said this"
"With the president's red line, why was there no call for military response in April? Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals, the failure of Obamacare enforcement, the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote? Again, why was there no call for a military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed?"- Joe "You Lie" Wilson
"I cannot discuss the possibility of the U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war without talking about Benghazi, The administration has a serious credibility issue with the American people, due to the unanswered questions surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi almost a year ago. When you factor in the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the AP and James Rosen issues, Fast and Furious and NSA spying programs, the bottom line is that there is a need for accountability and trust-building from the administration, The American people deserve answers about Benghazi before we move forward in Syria's civil war." - Jeff Duncan
"When [the Benghazi attack] happened, the president promised to hunt down the wrong-doers, and yet a few months later, the issue has disappeared, You don't hear the president mention Benghazi. Now it's a 'phony scandal.' We ought to be defending U.S. national security and going after radical Islamic terrorists." -Ted "Calgary" Cruz
So basically, these 3 idiots wont take a stand either way or what is a MASSIVE current events and foreign policy issue until someone explains to them why nothing is happening with the fake scandals they made up (IRS, "failure of Obama-care (not even sure what that one is referring to)" ect ect), namely the one they can never seem to let go of. Benghazi.
Even though they have already tried it. Again and Again and Again and Again. And that doesnt even count Mitt Romney getting destroyed on national TV for trying it.
Yet somehow, these three assclowns actually think taking YET another hard stand to get the answers on Bengahzi they want (as opposed to the ones that are based in reality) is a good idea.
Well that and they also seem to think trying to rebuild their own parties credibility/salvage Romney's is more important than deciding if they want to get people killed.
Well that and they also seem to think trying to rebuild their own parties credibility/salvage Romney's is more important than deciding if they want to get people killed.
I mean I guess you cant be too surprised, war does bring out the worst, and the craziest, in people......
No comments:
Post a Comment