Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Iran awaits word on U.S. resolve

I’m beginning to think the fundamental question of whether the United States should attack Syria over its use of chemical weapons is this: If the United States pulls back on a direct challenge to make Syria pay for its actions, will it embolden Iran to commit even more mischief in the Middle East?

President Obama has pledged to strike Syria if it crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons on civilians. The Syrians did the deed and the United States is now poised to launch air strikes. Obama has formally asked Congress for authorization and it appears that while the Senate might approve the request, the House of Representatives will pull back.

Without full approval by both houses of Congress, the president is left with two terrible options: walking away from his threat to strike the Syrians or acting on his own as commander in chief by issuing the order to strike.

If he goes it alone, he faces the wrath of a Republican-led House of Reps that detests virtually every policy he proposes. If the president walks away and gives Syria a pass on the hideous act of gassing civilians, he risks looking feckless in the face of imminent threats to a critical region.

Waiting in the wings is the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s primary allies, an exporter of terrorism and a known hater of the United States, aks “The Great Satan.”

The Iranians can bring a lot of misery to the region in a huge hurry if we fail to act.

The world awaits to learn how Congress will respond.

Uncategorized

Boehner, Cantor sign on with POTUS on Syria

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has been persuaded: Striking Syria is the right thing to do, given the Syrians’ horrifying act of gassing civilians.

So will House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

The question? Will these two leaders be able to bring the rest of their Republican caucus behind them, giving the president an important foreign-policy victory? My guess is that most of the GOP caucus will join them.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/03/20308438-boehner-says-hell-back-obama-on-syria-strikes?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

President Obama sought and received the backing of the House GOP leadership in advance of Congress’s planned vote on whether to authorize a military strike. What the president has done is put the burning ember in the Republicans’ pocket. Now it’s their call, along with congressional Democrats, on whether Syrian military authorities should be punished for using the chemical weapons on innocent victims.

I still believe a strike must occur. Barack Obama drew that “red line” when he said using the chemicals would violate all “international norms.” The president reportedly is considering a limited strike aimed solely at military targets. Whether our forces can pull this off without inflicting civilian casualties remains to be seen.

Rest assured, even if the attacks are executed as planned, someone within the Syrian government is going to accuse us of harming civilians. Hey, that’s politics — even in international affairs.

The political battle back home, though, has cleared an important hurdle with the House’s two leading Republicans signing on.

Let the debate continue.

Uncategorized

Did POTUS pull rug out from Kerry’s feet?

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., poses an interesting theory that might open up some questions about the relationship between the president of the United States and his top diplomat.

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned, emotional speech about the need to make Syria pay dearly for its use of chemical weapons on civilians — and then President Obama decided to ask the Congress for authorization before taking any action.

Rangel thinks Kerry should be “embarrassed” by the sudden switch.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319883-rangel-of-course-its-embarassing

I have to agree with Rangel.

The timing of the two events does seem odd and more than a little clumsy. Kerry’s speech has been labeled one of the finest of his public career. Obama, meanwhile, had been talking tough and appeared to have been ready to strike at Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s forces. Then he stopped. Did the president flinch? Has he left the secretary of state, to borrow a phrase from the Watergate era, “twisting slowly in the wind”?

We’ll know in short order whether the juxtaposition of these events has damaged one of the Obama administration’s most critical relationships.

Uncategorized

Now it’s Congress’s turn to weigh in on Syria

President Obama’s abrupt about-face on Syria has a lot of American scratching their heads.

He’s talked about punishing the Syrian government for gassing civilians and has sounded for all the world as if he was ready to pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syrian military targets. Then he said: Not so fast; I want to ask Congress for authorization.

Now the debate has begun.

http://news.msn.com/us/lawmakers-begin-to-grapple-with-syria-question

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is beginning to sound reasonable. He says Syria should be punished, but the Senate will need to know precisely the scope of the attack and what the overall strategy will be. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says an attack on Syria must be with “regime change” in mind, that it must lead toward a change of leadership in the Syrian government.

I believe the president is playing this issue smartly. Congress has asked for authority within the War Powers Act. Barack Obama now has given lawmakers the chance to exercise that authority.

Several ships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet are standing by in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The hammer is pulled back and the missiles will fly when they get the order. The president has gathered compelling evidence that the Syrians used the gas on civilians. They must be punished, as Cornyn has said.

This debate should be full and complete. As the president said, he is both convinced that the Syrians did something that requires a response and that he also is leader of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. The Constitution gives both houses of Congress co-equal authority to run the government, right along with the president.

It’s good that he’s asking for their authorization. I’m hopeful he can make the case, that we can act quickly and decisively — and then apply intense diplomatic pressure all sides in this bloody conflict to call a halt to the killing.

Uncategorized

Obama to seek congressional permission on Syria

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz recently called President Obama “imperial” and “lawless.”

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, of course, is fond of tossing out pejorative terms, often recklessly.

I’m curious now whether he feels that way about the Obama administration as it seeks congressional approval to strike at Syria in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons on civilians, including women and children.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/31/obama_seeks_congress_ok_to_strike_syria_119792.html

I’m quite certain Cruz would vote “no” on a congressional resolution. But in the grand scheme, seeking congressional approval for a strike is both wise politically and from a policy standpoint.

Politically, a “no” vote from the House and Senate puts the monkey on lawmakers’ backs for failing to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad for gassing innocent victims. The president has made a compelling case that Assad’s military machine needs to be punished severely for this horrifying action. Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, two former senators with extensive foreign policy experience — not to mention actual military combat experience — have declared their outrage over the chemical weapons attack.

Obama now seems willing to ask Congress for is approval. He is willing to wait for House members and senators to return from their month-long recess before taking the issue up with them. He’s consulted heavily with congressional leaders along with our allies to line them up in support of whatever action might occur.

Is there a lesson to be learned from the British Parliament’s rejection of a use-of-force resolution? That remains to be seen. For now, any U.S. action likely will be done solely with our military might.

The Navy is standing by, as are all available forces that would be deployed against the Syrians.

All the president needs — and it’s no small task — is an approval by the rest of the country’s elected representatives.

I’ll weigh in with this: Congress should approve a limited, but decisive, strike against the Syrian military. However, if it says “no” to such an action, the president would be wise to heed Congress’s “advice and consent” on this critical matter.

As for some of the loudmouths who serve on Capitol Hill, they ought to put a lid on the nasty name-calling and give the president credit for asking their permission to act.

Uncategorized

Syria strike mission must send clear message

It took Dallas Morning News editorial writer and blogger Todd Robberson some space and time to make his point, but his fundamental message on a potential strike against Syria is spot on.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/if-not-a-punishing-blow-to-syria-then-what.html/

We’ve got to hit the Syrians know that gassing their civilian population is unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt and utterly wrong — and never must be repeated.

President Obama has laid down the marker. He said Syria crossed the “red line” when it used chemical weapons on civilians, namely women and children. He’s called it a violation of “international norms.” Secretary of State John Kerry called it a “moral outrage.”

The British Parliament has voted against Great Britain taking part in a military strike, which leaves the United States with the option of pursuing this mission basically alone.

Critics here at home, on the left and the right, are questioning the wisdom of such a strike.

But as Robberson says in his blog, U.S. credibility is on the line if it doesn’t do what it seems to be preparing to do.

Robberson writes: “Some warn that we shouldn’t intervene in Syria unless and until we have a clear military objective. We actually do have a clear military objective: To hit key Syrian military outposts, cripple their air force and send an unmistakable message to Assad that he will suffer severely if he ever contemplates using chemical weapons again. We’re not talking about putting troops on the ground or helicopters and planes overhead. Nor are we talking about lobbing a few cruise missiles into an open field the way we did in Afghanistan.

“We are talking about very precise, very loud and very destructive missiles capable of delivering an unmistakable message to a mass murderer.”

The commander in chief has a capable military apparatus at his disposal. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has said his warriors are ready when they get the order to strike.

We must hit the Syrians hard.

Uncategorized

‘No doubt’ about chemical weapons

I’m hearing it already, the talk that compares the impending strike against Syria to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the faulty intelligence — some call it outright lying about it — that supposedly justified the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Let’s hold on a minute.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said this week there is no doubt, none, that Syrian government forces gassed civilians, including infants. President Obama says that he has no intention of getting into a ground war, that he would use airstrikes only to punish Syria for using the chemical weapons in violation of “international norms.”

http://news.msn.com/us/white-house-to-congress-no-doubt-on-syria-chemical-weapons

How does that differ from a decade ago? Well, the Bush administration said it had intelligence confirming that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. President Bush’s military high command assembled an invasion force to enter the country, to occupy it and to get rid of the weapons. It turned out the weapons didn’t exist. U.S. forces eventually found Hussein hiding in a “spiderhole.” He was tried for crimes against humanity in an Iraqi court and hanged. But we stayed on, and on, and on — fighting to gain control of the country before handing it over to the Iraqi government.

It’s good to ask: Does anyone really believe the Obama administration, knowing what happened when it was learned that the intelligence gathered before the Iraq War was so bad, that it’s going to repeat that horrible mistake this time around? Is it going to risk the most intense worldwide condemnation imaginable if it isn’t certain that Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s forces used the chemicals on innocent civilians? I hardly think so.

The Iraq War was launched on false pretenses. The Syrian strikes — if they come — are certain to be based on much stronger evidence than we ever gathered before marching headlong into Iraq.

Uncategorized

March on DC event lacked bipartisan flavor

I watched a lot of the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington event this week and came away with a single disappointment.

There was no sign of leading Republicans at the speaker’s podium.

Of course, leave it to the likes of Fox News loudmouth Bill O’Reilly to claim falsely that “no Republicans were invited” to speak.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/28/bill-oreilly-falsely-claims-republicans-barred/195656

Turns out there were invitations extended. Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, got invited but declined — understandably — for health reasons. House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor were invited, but couldn’t attend because of “scheduling conflicts.” Same is true, I suppose, for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The scheduling conflict dodge does bother me. All of these individuals knew long ago that this event was on the calendar. If they wanted to attend this event, they certainly could have had their schedulers ensure they would be available to take part — don’t you think?

Absent their presence anywhere near the DC Mall this week, many of the speeches were tinged with a bit too much partisan rancor from those who argued against legislation to make voting more restrictive, which is a largely Republican initiative being pushed on Capitol Hill and in state capitol buildings throughout the South — and that includes Texas.

There once was a time, about 50 years ago, when Democrats and Republicans locked arms for a single cause, which was equality for all Americans. I was hoping the two parties could put aside their differences to mark the 50th anniversary of one of the great days of the American civil rights movement.

Maybe next time.

Uncategorized

Syria should present unifying threat

Suppose the president of the United States orders aerial strikes against Syria.

And suppose those strikes involve manned aircraft, piloted by young American servicemen and women who are thrust into harm’s way by their commander in chief’s order.

What will be our national response? Are we going to rally behind our commander in chief or will we second-guess, armchair quarterback and be openly critical — if not hostile — toward those who issue the order?

I’m hoping for a unifying effect.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130827-editorial-time-for-consequences-in-syria.ece

President Obama is weighing his options carefully. He’s meeting with congressional leaders, the very folks who insist that the president consult with them before taking action. He’s calling allies around the world, enlisting others to join in a coalition to strike against Syria, which used chemical weapons against its own people. Secretary of State John Kerry called it a “moral outrage,” and no national leader anywhere with a conscience can — or should — condone such an act.

It’s not yet clear whether we’re going to become involved in an all-out shooting war in Syria. Obama’s stated mission would be to punish the Syrians for violating a widely accepted tenet of international behavior. The use of chemical weapons crosses that so-called “red line” the president said exists in that conflict.

The late U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., once said that partisan disagreements must stop “at the water’s edge.” Will we heed the wise man’s words?

Uncategorized

‘Regime change’ is hidden strategy

The columnist Charles Krauthammer says any attack on Syria would be a “pointless exercise” if it’s not about “regime change.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/27/krauthammer_pointless_exercise_if_attack_on_syria_isnt_about_regime_change.html

White House press guru Jay Carney says regime change isn’t on the agenda if U.S. forces attack Syrian military installations in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians.

It’s all very interesting. Let me walk us back 20-plus years.

In August 1990, the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sent troops into Kuwait to invade and occupy that country. He took Kuwait’s vast oil supply hostage, threatening to cut off supply lines to countries such as the United States.

President George H.W. Bush said immediately the invasion “will not stand.” So he put together a coalition of nations, obtained United Nations approval to strike back at Iraq, then got the Congress to go along with it. The president stated over and over that the aim of any planned response would be to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and nothing more.

A force of more than 500,000 troops, commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, stood ready to attack.

Then came the first shot of the war, on Jan. 17, 1991. It was a Tomahawk cruise missile launched by the battleship USS Wisconsin. Where did this missile score a direct hit? On the presidential palace in Baghdad.

Had the missile strike killed Saddam Hussein, there would have been a regime change, correct?

No one should be surprised, therefore, if an attack on Syria doesn’t start with a similar targeting strategy.