PETA: Chicken Wings Lead to Small Penis »« The Commitment Effect and Critical Thinking

WND Can’t Make Up Its Mind on Syria

Joseph Farah’s Worldnetdaily has a problem. They just can’t seem to make up their mind about Obama’s actions toward Syria, so they’re criticizing him for contradictory things. Obama is horribly wrong because he’s going to bomb Syria and support the Muslim extremist, Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels AND he’s horribly wrong and abdicating his role as commander-in-chief by dilly dallying with Congressional approval.

Until he suddenly decided to seek the approval of Congress before ordering military strikes — kinda, sorta — WND’s preferred narrative was that military action was all part of Obama’s secret plot to help terrorist rebel groups take over Syria. Tom Tancredo declared that any order for military action without congressional approval would be unconstitutional, which just goes to show how much he hates America.

Not content to ignore the Constitution on domestic matters alone, President Obama is now planning to act against constitutional safeguards by using military force against Syria…

But using humanitarian concerns to justify a military intervention in a civil war is not something Congress should approve, and definitely not something the Constitution allows the president to do unilaterally.

Obama has made no claim that Syria poses a threat to the United States. Syria is not offering safe haven to al-Qaida training camps as the Taliban government in Afghanistan did in 2001, nor has Syria invaded its neighboring oil-rich state as Iraq did to Kuwait in August of 1990. It is not threatening to annihilate Israel with nuclear weapons as Iran has been doing for a decade, and it is not systematically persecuting Christians as the government of Myanmar continues to do.

Larry Klayman upped the ante. Not only is it unconstitutional but it’s designed to create “Obama’s Muslim paradise.”

Recently, the Obama administration signaled that it intends to enter the civil war in Syria by soon commencing a bombing operation. Notwithstanding that only Congress can declare war and any such action to the contrary would be illegal under the U.S. Constitution…

If we enter war in Syria, the current rules of engagement and outreach to Muslims must be changed to let our fighting men and women do their job. In Afghanistan, we suffered an inordinate amount of casualties because of the current rules of engagement and policies. We unnecessarily lost our most elite SEAL Team VI and other special ops forces. Our military has been ordered by the commander in chief and his military commanders to be so overly concerned about civilian Muslim casualties that our brave men and women are being killed and maimed in record numbers because they cannot take offensive action unless fired upon first. And then when they get killed, their memories are desecrated by Muslim clerics who damn them to hell.

Is this war or Obama’s Muslim paradise?

Pat Buchanan said that if Obama attacks without congressional approval, it’s an impeachable act!

The next 72 hours will be decisive in the career of the speaker of the House. The alternatives he faces are these:

John Boehner can, after “consultation,” give his blessing to Barack Obama’s decision to launch a war on Syria, a nation that has neither attacked nor threatened us.

Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.

As speaker, he can call the House back on Monday to debate, and decide, whether to authorize the war Obama is about to start. In the absence of a congressional vote for war, Boehner should remind the president that U.S. cruise missile strikes on Syria, killing soldiers and civilians alike, would be the unconstitutional and impeachable acts of a rogue president.

And Joseph Farah declared that Obama’s preference for bombing would bring about the New World Order and that Obama is taking the side of Al Qaeda terrorists because he secretly wants to create a global Muslim caliphate:

There are no good guys in the conflict in which Obama is about to take sides. There are only bad guys and worse guys. And which side do you suppose Obama has chosen? That’s right. The worse guys – the really, really bad guys, those actually allied with al-Qaida…

The answer to that question is easy: Obama bet on the rebels in Syria fully knowing they are led by Sunni terrorists, including al-Qaida. Now there’s no turning back.

Why did he bet on them? The same reason he did in Libya and Egypt and will again and again. It’s a New World Order game in which the U.S. and its European allies make over the Middle East with talk of an “Arab spring” – and the media eat it up with a spoon and fork.

That’s what we’re doing in Syria.

And it will end badly – just as it did in Egypt and Libya, where other authoritarian leaders were deposed in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood whose goal is nothing short of restoring the glory of an Islamic caliphate.

For those who don’t know their history, Islam conquered much of the known world and created one of the biggest and longest lasting empires in the history of the world – lasting from the seventh century until the early part of the 20th century. It was merciless in its expansion and was a plague on the civilized, peace-loving nations, including the U.S., until it was defeated in World War I.

That’s what our “allies” in Syria want to recreate.

And then Obama decided to ask Congress for approval. And wouldn’t you know it, suddenly Obama was a dithering fool abdicating his constitutional responsibility to protect the country:

In doing so, however, some analysts believe the president would be abrogating his role as commander in chief in his role to react to an immediate crisis, as opposed to engaging in a long, drawn-out conflict such as Iraq or Afghanistan in which only Congress can declare war in a protracted conflict under the War Powers Resolution of 1973…

Analysts believe Obama has been somewhat ambivalent about the Syrian civil war overall. For a president who has disengaged from the Iraq war and is about to end U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, analysts say Obama is very reluctant to get involved in yet another war, since even a “limited” U.S. military strike could commit the United States in what could become a regional conflict…

In announcing his intention to authorize military action, Obama can maintain some operational surprise, although the Syrians and its allies know that it won’t happen before Sept. 9 when Congress convenes and then debates the matter.

By then, the Syrian government will have sufficiently hidden its delivery systems and command-and-control structure which would be targeted if military action commenced…

The waffling approach by the Obama administration also has raised longer-term issues of international enforcement of future non-proliferation violations, whether chemical, biological or nuclear, by a nation-state or transnational terrorist group.

How convenient for the Worldnetdaily that Obama is wrong if he does it and wrong if he doesn’t. Either way, he’s obviously a traitor. Heads they win, tails he loses.

Comments

  1. John Pieret says

    It’s not contradictory when the premise is “anything that Obama does is the wrong thing; anything Obama doesn’t is the right thing; anytime Obama changes, he is going from the right thing to the wrong thing.”

    More simply, Obama is wrong all the time. The rest is simply adjusting the rhetoric to the wrongness.

  2. Chiroptera says

    What’s wrong with taking contradicting positions? I would say that any respectable journal of opinion would be presenting all the arguments on all sides of an important, complicated issue.

    Hey, why is everyone laughing at me?

  3. Trebuchet says

    As I said on Mano Singham’s blog, Republicans are salivating over the opportunity to blame Obama for whatever bad outcome we get in Syria. It’ll make no difference what he actully does; it’ll be his fault. The likelihood of a good outcome is sadly almost nil.

  4. says

    Oh, please. It’s really quite simple. All Obama has to do is bomb and not bomb, arm the rebels and not arm the rebels, rush in early and take his time, put boots on the ground and keep troops out of the country, go it alone and bring in allies, etc.
    By not doing everything and also nothing, Obama’s making the same mistakes he made in Libya and Obamacare.

  5. imrryr says

    For those who don’t know their history, Islam conquered much of the known world and created one of the biggest and longest lasting empires in the history of the world – lasting from the seventh century until the early part of the 20th century. It was merciless in its expansion and was a plague on the civilized, peace-loving nations, including the U.S., until it was defeated in World War I.

    I’m guessing he’s combining several different empires into one, forming some kind of Umayaad-Abbasid-Ottoman nonsensical hybrid Empire. That seems overly simplistic, the Ottomans were Turks, not Arabs like the Umayaads were, for a start, but hey, they all have that same religion in common, sortof, and brown people confuse me, so let’s just lump them together into a big pile and be done with it.

    And I’d say something about the U.S. and other predominately Christian nations being “peace-loving” but I’m way too busy laughing.

  6. oranje says

    @5: That civilized bit amuses me as well. Especially when you compare Europe and the Middle East during the so-called Dark Ages.

  7. RealityBasedSteve says

    This is the exact thing that I predicted (not that you had to have a very good crystal ball to do it) would happen. Acting alone, Obama becomes “IMPERIAL PRESIDENT”, consulting with Congress “HE’S WEAK AND NOT A LEADER”.

    As I posted on another blogsite, if a year ago somebody would have told you that the Right Wing Nut Jobs would be wildy praising Putin, and opposed to any actions against Assad I suspect you would have busted a gut laughing.

    I personally see the entire Syria situation as a likely “no-win” scenario. Assad is, by any reasonable definition, a bad actor, but I don’t have a lot of hope that what would come out of the opposition forces would be significantly better. I’m sure there is a middle of “Jeffersonian Republic” Muslims, but as a middle ground in most ways they are simply overwhelmed by the the force of the combined conflict.

    I really don’t have an answer to the problem, and if there is one, it sure as hell won’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    RBS

  8. Synfandel says

    …and it is not systematically persecuting Christians as the government of Myanmar continues to do.

    No, it’s just systematically slaughtering innocent Muslim men, women, and children by the tens of thousands. But apparently that’s okay, ‘cuz they’re not Christians. Well, a majority of them aren’t, anyway.

  9. caseloweraz says

    Modus: Oh, please. It’s really quite simple. All Obama has to do is bomb and not bomb, arm the rebels and not arm the rebels, rush in early and take his time, put boots on the ground and keep troops out of the country, go it alone and bring in allies, etc.

    Maybe Leonard Wibberly had the right idea in his 1955 novel The Mouse that Roared when he called his ultimate weapon the Q-bomb. Such a Q-bomb, or quantum-bomb, could enter a superposition of states when it reaches its target, both exploding and not exploding.* Just the thing for a president who’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t to use.

    * Of course, in the present crisis this would remain only so long as no one ever visited or tried to observe Syria.

  10. D. C. Sessions says

    I’m sure there is a middle of “Jeffersonian Republic” Muslims

    For some reason history has not recorded many instances of people willing to kill and die for moderation.

  11. dmcclean says

    How in holy fuck can you possibly hold the position that “using humanitarian concerns to justify a military intervention in a civil war is … definitely not something the Constitution allows the president to do unilaterally” and then in the very next paragraph imply that the President could initiate such action against a country that was “systematically persecuting Christians as the government of Myanmar continues to do”?[1]

    I’d suggest that the only way to hold both of these positions is to defy the existence of the very concept of law in favor of raw tribalism.

    [1] I’m not taking a position on either the name of the country he’s referring to or of their actions with respect to christians, as I don’t know anything about either issue and it isn’t relevant to the point I’m making.

  12. lpetrich says

    Reminds me of the positions that the right wing took on Libya. Before Obama authorized intervention, they were for intervention. After Obama authorized intervention, they were against intervention. Always on the other side from him, no matter what it happens to be.

Leave a Reply