Sunday, September 1, 2013

Obama: The Buck Stops with... Congress

The reason why no sensible person should believe in Obama's new found respect for Congress and the Constitution is this: Obama ignored Congress during his unconstitutional Libyan war.  In light of that record, why should anyone believe he suddenly found new respect for Congress?  Nor did he ever demonstrate any contrition over that blatantly unconstitutional war.  All the worse considering that he once taught constitutional law in college!  Therefore, this sudden volte face is nothing more than an attempt to relieve himself of the burden of standing by his absurd "red line" statement.  The fundamental lack of seriousness of Obama regarding Syria is fully reflected by his decision, after his latest speech on Syria, not to get on the phone to lobby skeptical members of Congress but to... play golf instead.  Does this look like the action of a man fired up with righteous indignation and ready to do battle for his beliefs?

Congress should not let him slither away with this.  A president who is truly interested in pursuing a legislative program usually launches an aggressive program of courting members of Congress to persuade them of his agenda.  Let Obama do that now.  Let Obama deliver an address to a joint session of Congress where he will explain his absolute conviction that the Assad regime did use chemical weapons, that such an act is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and poses a threat to the United States.  When Congress reconvenes, they should ask Obama the following questions:

1. President Bush received Congressional authorizations before he attacked the Taliban and Iraq.  Obama taught constitutional law.  Does Obama believe that his 2011 war against Libya which was launched without Congressional authorization was an unconstitutional war?  If not, why does he need Congressional authorization now?

2. If the Obama regime knew that the Assad government was planning to use chemical weapons 3 days before it happened, why didn't they warn the Syrian people?

3. Why did the Obama regime refuse to offer gas masks to Syrian rebels for more than a year?

4.  Does Secretary of State John Kerry still consider Assad to be "generous" and a "dear friend"?

5. Obama said in March, 2012 that he did not believe in unilateral military actionIn light of the British withdrawal, what country other than the US will make a sizable contribution in a military effort against the Assad regime?

6. If the Obama regime will not remove the Assad regime from power, how can they expect to exercise any kind of deterrence effect on the Assad government?

7. In light of reports suggesting that al Qaeda affiliates and the most ruthless Islamic radicals are leading the Syrian rebels, how can the Obama regime guarantee that a military effort against the Assad regime will not aid these enemies of the US?

No comments: