Reflections on Syria: Part 2

Introduction

This is an update of a similar essay I'd posted on August 27 at:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/08/pending-usa-response-to-syrian-chemical.html

This essay has three parts:

• A Variety of Comments posted on YahooNews

• Some thoughts on Congress giving Obama authorization

• Why my presidential contract is starting to look pretty good.

A Variety of Comments posted on YahooNews

Within the past few days, I posted these ten comments on YahooNews, which will give you an idea of why I think any USA military response to chemical attacks in Syria would be absolutely stupid:

ONE:

“But, ultimately, we don’t want the world to be paralyzed,” [Obama] said. Listen up, you stupid little man: The world won't be paralyzed simply because you opened your big mouth talking about "red lines." All you did was paint yourself into a corner. Personally? I think you ordered US forces operating in Syria to launch those chemical attacks or to goad the rebels into doing so. There's a special place in hell for you and for your toady John Kerry.

TWO:

Why isn't anyone asking why Assad would have approved a chemical attack in the first place, especially against a target that (apparently) didn't include rebel forces? Recently, the Arab League decided someone had to do something to punish Assad for this dastardly deed. I'm sure Saudi Arabia could afford to send the limited attack message Obama is now twisting in the wind to send. Let them take care of this. Or let France do it - alone. This is Congress's golden opportunity to give such a resounding NO, that future presidents would think long and hard before speaking so easily of red lines that absolutely can't be crossed. You know, "red lines" such as "Based on evidence that North Korea is abusing its people, the USA is justified in sending a few cruise missiles as a token of our moral outrage." When will we stop doing STUPID?

THREE:

"...Kerry said...there is new evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used Sarin gas in an attack on its citizens..." Ahem, perhaps Kerry meant to say, "there is evidence that Sarin gas was used in Syria." But that's not the same thing as saying "we have proof that Assad was responsible for this." You know? When I see that tool John Kerry defending his boss, reminds me of another tool I saw making a case for his boss - before the UN, no less. That of course would be the disgraced Colin Powell. He'd once been spoken of as a presidential possible. People don't speak that way about him any more. End of story. Too bad Colin.

FOUR:

"...the pause would also allow [Obama] time to build international support." Why bother? If Obama's prestige is so much on the line that he simply can't NOT strike, he won't need international support. Besides, if the case against Assad is so overwhelming, why did the British say no?

"The chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose," Obama [said]. What is meant by "whenever WE choose?" There is no WE here. Any decision to strike will be the choice of ONE man - Obama. In the modern era, all US wars are ultimately the province of one man. During the height of our folly in Iraq, if there had come any time that Bush decided to call it quits, HE could have done so. Congress's input not being necessary.

Does Obama think he can get away with conducting just a little war against Syria? How would we react to any enemy that would make even the slightest war-like move against us? How would we have reacted to a handful of suicide bombers knocking down a few of our buildings and killing a few thousand of our citizens? Oh that's right...during the 9/11 attacks, that's exactly what happened. The blow was mostly to our ego, since our casualties and property damage was, relatively speaking, negligible. But, no, we didn't retaliate tit-for-tat; we decided to invade and create hell on earth for hundreds of thousands of civilians in two countries over a period of years. So great was our thirst for revenge. Do you think the Islamic militias are going to take even a slap on the wrist by Obama lying down? Have we learned nothing over the past decade?

FIVE:

"The president doesn't need 535 members of Congress to enforce his own red line," King said.

And just who does King think POTUS is that he can set "his own red line" - a one man branch of government who operates without any checks on his power?

SIX:

"...Obama was 'abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief' by turning to Congress for permission to attack." Obama can only be the CINC of an attack-authorized military if and only if Congress gives that authorization. And anything to the contrary in the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

SEVEN:

So Obama thinks he's got to punish Assad for allegedly giving orders that led to the killing of (some say) over 1,000 civilians because of chemical attack. And that's the "red line" everyone is talking about - "He used chemicals." So where was the US response in 1982 when the Hama Massacre took place in Syria? From Wikipedia:

Syrian journalist Subhi Hadidi, wrote that "under the command of General Ali Haydar, besieged the city for 27 days, bombarding it with heavy artillery and tank [fire], before invading it and killing 30,000 or 40,000 of the city's citizens – in addition to the 15,000 missing who have not been found to this day, and the 100,000 expelled."

Oh, I get it. Back then, chemical weapons weren't used, so it was okay to kill up to 30,000 (mostly) civilians. And this Obama guy was supposed to be "change you can believe in." Go figure.

EIGHT:

Let me see if I understand this. Obama wants to punish Assad for presumed responsibility for a chemical attack that killed hundreds of civilians. Even though there was no possible militarily-related reason for him to launch such an attack. It seems Obama wants to wear the mantle of world's policeman. But tell me this, Mr. President: Should the world have stood united in condemning our nuking of Nagasaki which killed 60,000 civilians? Even though there was no militarily related reason for us to launch that attack? That took place a mere 3 days after we nuked Hiroshima, which was a day that will live in infamy since that made the USA the world's first nuclear terrorist. BTW, the ones we were trying to terrorize were the Russians, not the Japanese. You know what, Mr. President? People are laughing at our hypocrisy.

NINE:


"I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details..." Oh, I get it. He [NATO director Anders Fogh Rassmussen] had access to secret evidence which will never be seen by the public - or so he says.

"...it would send a 'dangerous signal to dictators' if the world did not respond firmly." To dictators? Suppose one of the world's democracies were to pull such a stunk? Suppose the USA were to decide to nuke a city for no militarily-valid reason, would Fogh-of-War favor his native Denmark firing a couple of cruise missiles at the USA in a limited strike in order to teach the USA a lesson? [NOTE: The USA went down in history as the world's first nuclear terrorist for the completely militarily-unnecessary killing of 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.]

Fogh-of-War also thinks NATO should defend Turkey. However, Syria would be completely justified in attacking Turkey since Turkey has been helping the rebels, thereby engaging in act of war against Syria.

BTW, how does a guy like Fogh, from a country like Denmark which has absolutely nothing in the way of a military tradition, get to be in charge of NATO?

TEN:

Compare these two statements, the first of which is from the article:

"We cannot accept a world where...innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale [1,400 dead]," President Barack Obama told reporters at the White House.

 "We cannot accept a world where innocent civilians are killed by nuclear terrorists on such a terrible scale, as recently happened to 60,000 in Nagasaki. Therefore, I move that responsible officials within the US government be brought here to Nuremberg to stand trial side-by-side with Nazi war criminals," the Soviet ambassador announced today...

The pot calling the kettle black?

Some thoughts on Congressional Authorization

Obama isn't answering one critical question: If he can't get Congress to support his bid for a micro-war against Assad, would he still proceed with the attack? Obama won't respond to reporters asking this question. Maybe he'd respond if the House and Senate leaders (Boehner and Reid) were to send a joint letter asking this of POTUS.

I would like to see Congress not only decline to give Obama the authorization he seeks, but to pass a Joint Resolution declaring that such any USA military response would be in violation of the will of Congress and that, furthermore, such a response would be an impeachable offense. But of course Congress would do no such thing. The Democrats wouldn't want to embarrass their boss. And the Republicans would vote in support because they wouldn't want to see any erosion of the president's power (as they see it) to wage unilateral war. In case they, once again, win the White House, they'll want their guy to have as much power as possible.

The only reason Congress would even consider giving Obama the green light is, we still have a Two-Party Congress instead of one consisting of non-party affiliated independents.

My Presidential Contract

This is where I get to say, "I told you so."

I ran against Obama in 2008 and 2012, both times under contract as explained below. Back in 2006, I saw completely through the "peace" candidate who billed himself as "Change you can believe in." My complete contract is posted at:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

However, I'm going to quote selected parts of this contract, relevant to the situation in Syria, to close out today's post:

QUOTE:

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Preamble:     I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2012 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following text, which concludes with my signature block, comprises this contract in its final form. This document has been under construction for the past two years and its supporting essays are available at http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com .

[The following is a partial list of the 31 promises I listed in my legally-enforceable contract.]

ONE:     If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

FOUR:      Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently in Iran.

FIVE:     Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene in the affairs of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

TWENTY-SEVEN:     During my first State of the Union address, I will declare that any Congress consisting of Democrats and Republicans is unrepresentative of the people, and therefore urge voters to replace their Congressmen with independents.

:UNQUOTE.

Not many people read my blog posts and even fewer read them during my campaigns for the US presidency. However, if I had been able to present my case to a broader audience, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today - acting like lemmings making a suicidal dash to the sea.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"I can say 'I told you so,' but I take absolutely no pleasure in doing so" - Steve Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com