Patty

Where are the Republicans?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

July 02, 2014 "ICH" - Barack Obama has asked Congress for $500 million to train and arm rebels of the Free Syrian Army who seek to o*******w the government.

Before Congress takes up his proposal, both houses should demand that Obama explain exactly where he gets the constitutional authority to plunge us into what the president himself calls “somebody else’s civil war.”

Syria has not attacked us. Syria does not threaten us.

Why are we joining a jihad to o*******w the Syrian government?

President Bashar Assad is fighting against the al Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front and the even more extreme and vicious Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

In training and arming the FSA, we are enlisting in a cause where our foremost fighting allies are Islamists, like those who brought down the twin towers, and a Sunni terrorist army that seeks to bring down the government we left behind in Baghdad.

What are we doing?

Assad is no angel. But before this uprising, which has taken 150,000 lives and created millions of refugees, Congressmen and secretaries of state regularly visited him in Damascus.

“There’s a different leader in Syria now,” cooed Hillary in 2011, “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

If we bring down Assad, what assurance do we have that the Free Syrian Army will prevail against the Islamists who have proved far more effective in the field?

Will we not be compelled to plunge into the subsequent civil war to keep ISIS and al-Qaida from taking power?

If Assad falls there is also a high probability Syria’s Christians will face beheadings and butchery at the hands of the fanatics.

And should martyrdoms and massacres begin with the fall of Assad because of our intervention, the blood of Christians will be on the hands of Barack Hussein Obama and the Congress of the United States.

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin says he wants no part of Obama’s new wars. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine rightly asserts that President Obama has no authority to take us into war in Syria or Iraq.

But where are the Republicans?

Absent an attack on U.S. citizens or vital interests, or an imminent threat of attack, Obama has no authority to initiate war. The Constitution places the power to authorize wars of choice exclusively with Congress.

James Madison and his colleagues were seeking to ensure against a rogue presidency of the kind that Obama has lately begun to conduct.

It is astonishing that Republicans who threaten to impeach Obama for usurping authority at home remain silent as he prepares to usurp their war powers – to march us into Syria and back into Iraq.

Last August, Americans rose as one to tell Congress to deny Obama any authority to attack Syria. Are Republicans now prepared to sit mute as Obama takes us into two new Middle East wars, on his own authority?

A congressional debate on war is essential not only from a legal and constitutional standpoint but also a strategic one. For there is a question as to whether we are even on the right side in Syria.

Assad, no matter his sins, is the defender of the Christian and Shia minorities in Syria. He has been the most successful Arab ruler in waging war against the terrorist brigades of ISIS and al-Qaida.

Why, then, are we training Syrians to attack his army and arming people to topple his government? Have we not before us, in Libya, an example of what happens when we bring down an autocrat like Gadhafi, and even worse devils are unleashed?

While Assad has battled al-Qaida and ISIS for three years, our NATO ally Turkey has looked the other way as jihadists crossed over into Syria. Our Gulf allies have provided jihadists battling Assad with arms and money.

Query: Why are our putative allies aiding our worst enemies?

This weekend ISIS declared a caliph**e, the Islamic State, over all lands in Syria and Iraq it now controls. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ISIS war chief, has been declared the new caliph.

“The Caliph**e Rises,” wails the Wall Street Journal.

But who midwifed and breast-fed the ISIS movement that has now proclaimed the new caliph**e? Was it not our Turkish and Arab friends?

And whose army is the major obstacle to consolidation of a caliph**e from Aleppo to Anbar? Is it not the army of the autocrat Assad whom we seek to bring down? Does this make sense?

We are told that ISIS represents a security threat to the United States.

But ISIS-controlled Syria and Iraq are on the border of Turkey, whose army could make short work of them. If the caliph**e is not such a threat to the Turks as to warrant their intervention in Syria, how can it be a greater threat to us? It cannot.

Congress should block the $500 million for Obama’s wars and tell him his days as imperial president are over.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Still Backing Al-Qaeda.
Beat Him Over The Head With Facts, And He Stubbornly Blithers On.
But He Said He Would Always Side With The Muslim, No Matter Who Apparently.
As Long As They Are O*******wing A Government.

Personally, I Appreciate Arab Dictators And Monarchs.
They Quelch Terrorists As A Threat To Their Own Power.

Patty

:thumbup: The fact is in Iran and Syria 3 different religions lived peaceably together because it was demanded that they do so. It was only after Washington decided to liberate them did these beautiful country fall into complete destruction. I cried when I saw how beautiful these countries were.
carpenter please watch this video. Look at these woman. They have to be the most beautiful women in the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dF47rrHd7wo

Glaucon

I think we should take the perfect opportunity presented by the upheaval in the Middle East to tie the hands of our president and smear him as much as possible.

Patty

Its not just Obombya. It is every president but Kennedy for decades.
This article will help you bring your information level up to date.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/systemic-destabilization-as-a-strategy-of-tension-911-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/5305884

Glaucon

Patty,

You have kept me up on the childish attempts destroy Obama with well thought out rationale like, I can spell Obama’s name in a cuter more imsulting ways than you can. Obombya is the cutest yet and proves conclusively that we have grounds to impeach him and, in addition, Obama is bad. That insightful analysis and proposals brings my information level up to date. I trust you for information and analysis, but I am waiting to hear what Sarah Palin has to say before I blindly accept and pass on the propaganda our rulers are feeding us.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

That's The Whole Point Of The Hijab Rule.
Mohamad Knew How He Looks At Everyone Elses Women.
And Presumes All His Men Look At His Wives The Same.
Therefore He Needs To 'Reveal' Allah's Will To Keep Women Covered, Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind.

Glaucon

I almost wish Obama hadn't started the war in Iraq. It has cost more than 186,000 lives of men, women and children and, it seems China is ending up with the oil and we are ending up with the bill and the wounded vets.

I think the problem would be solved if we could only come up with some more clever, cute ways to insult our president by spelling his name in creative ways; Obummer, Ovomit, etc. If we don't come up with more clever variations of his name, the Middle East will be lost to Islam, c*******m, liberals, or socialists or wh**ever.

Glaucon

Washington didn't decide to "liberate" them, Bush and his gang decided to liberate their oil.

Patty

You don't understand how war is declared by our constitution do you? Sad.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Blood For Oil !! Blood For Oil !!

Afghani's Are Drowning In It.
We Must Throw Them A Life-Line Before They All Gag To Death

Patty

Obomber doesn't need my help in destroying his presidency. Only the truly stupid haven't figured out how destructive this man is to my country.

Glaucon

I don't think many of those who were pulled in to supporting the invasion of Iraq would have gone along if they had known that the source for accurate intelligence was feeding them bogus information.

I supported the invasion of Iraq because I trusted Bush was giving us accurate information. The information he gave us turned out to be bogus and Bush was either incompetent or dishonest.

The interesting question is, why did Bush honor the fellow who was apparently responsible for the bogus information, George Tenet? The Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor for exceptional service to our country was awarded for allegedly providing Bush and the rest of the world with the information that was used to justify our invasion of Iraq. How do you explain that?

Patty

The executive office hasn't given accurate information on anything since the 60's. Only when they officially deny something do we know that it is true.

Glaucon

You have some very strong feelings about this, but your thinking is almost nonexistent. You apparently have the rage and then find some place to focus it. Right now, Obama seems to be your focus. I wonder what you would think if you were thinking rather than emoting. We understand your rage, although, we don't know its roots in your genetic makeup and in your life experiences.

Trust me, Obama is not the cause of your rage and diffuse verbal outbursts.