Skip to comments.Patrick Buchanan: Congress Should Veto Obama’s War – OpEd
Posted on 08/27/2013 5:17:03 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Congress doesnt have a whole lot of core responsibilities, said Barack Obama last week in an astonishing remark.
For in the Constitution, Congress appears as the first branch of government. And among its enumerated powers are the power to tax, coin money, create courts, provide for the common defense, raise and support an army, maintain a navy and declare war.
But, then, perhaps Obamas contempt is justified.
For consider Congress broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.
Why is Obama making plans to launch cruise missiles on Syria?
According to a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity, President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people last week in the two-year-old Syrian civil war.
But who deputized the United States to walk the streets of the world pistol-whipping bad actors. Where does our imperial president come off drawing red lines and ordering nations not to cross them?
Neither the Security Council nor Congress nor NATO nor the Arab League has authorized war on Syria.
Who made Barack Obama the Wyatt Earp of the Global Village?
Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense.
Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assads cause but, rather, was certain to bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party which wants a U.S. war on Syria as the back door to war on Iran.
Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assads offer to have U.N. inspectors already in Damascus investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas go to the site of the latest incident?
Do we not want to know the truth?
Are we fearful the facts may turn out, as did the facts on the ground in Iraq, to contradict our latest claims about WMDs? Are we afraid that it was rebel elements or rogue Syrian soldiers who fired the gas shells to stampede us into fighting this war?
With U.S. ships moving toward Syrias coast and the McCainiacs assuring us we can smash Syria from offshore without serious injury to ourselves, why has Congress not come back to debate war?
Lest we forget, Ronald Reagan was sold the same bill of goods the War Party is selling today that we can intervene decisively in a Mideast civil war at little or no cost to ourselves.
Reagan listened and ordered our Marines into the middle of Lebanons civil war.
And he was there when they brought home the 241 dead from the Beirut barracks and our dead diplomats from the Beirut embassy.
The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Congress should cut short its five-week vacation, come back, debate and decide by recorded vote whether Obama can take us into yet another Middle East war.
The questions to which Congress needs answers:
Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did? What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran? If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started? Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States? If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene? The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?
To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assads, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.
The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.
Perhaps Congress cannot defund Obamacare. But at least they can come back to Washington and tell Obama, sinking poll numbers aside, he has no authority to drag us into another war. His Libyan adventure, which gave us the Benghazi massacre and cover-up, was his last hurrah as war president.
The undocumented pRes_ _ent supports al Qaeda.
Patrick....you are such a silly goose.
You expect Congress to act like men. If someone were to launch cruise missiles against us, that dome would be a nice target.
the president believes he can start a war with another nation to punish them and correct their behavior. This should not be seen as controversial for this administration.after all he believes government, actually his government, has a right and responsibility to punish and correct everyone’s behavior. All hail king George Obama The First. And last American king.
Congress should veto Obama’s war on American... but they make a lot of money from it, themselves, so they won’t.
Buchanan was a long time opponent of the globalist agenda of both Bushes.
Thanks. Good to know. I guess I’m just being especially cynical these days about our political party charade and about our middle eastern adventurism.
Boehner should quickly and quietly conduct a poll of the house Republicans, to find out if they support or oppose a US attack in Syria. If the answer is “no!”, then he should immediately sponsor a recorded house resolution to that effect.
While he might argue that this would diminish the authority of the president, that is a fatuous argument, because the office of the POTUS seriously needs to have its authority reduced, no matter *who* is POTUS.
But a resolution *against* the use of force in Syria would split the Democrats, put Harry Reid’s senators in a bind, and would strongly raise the credibility of the Republican house.
It would also expose those Democrats who would support Obama as “war hawks” (though they are in fact ‘Obama hawks’), that would seriously upset their liberal constituents.
It’s a golden opportunity for Boehner to support Republicans with a very popular resolution, and to put Obama and his side on the spot.
baraq took out the leader of Lybia.
Congress did nothing.
baraq took out the leader of Egypt.
Congress did nothing.
baraq is working to take out Assad.
Congress appears to be following the same path.
Congress does not have the stones to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. They sure are not going to stop Barky from bombing Syria and starting WWIII.
This is only the latest example of who really rules this country - and it isn't the people of the United States.
It doesn't have anything to do with republicans and democrats, it has to do with foreign policy doctrines.
In the GOP there are Realists, NeoCons, and Isolationists.
In the dem party there are Realists, Liberal Interventionists(sometimes called liberal internationalists), and Antiwar Pacifists.
Among these rightwing isolationists, there are two groups. First there are the libertarian minded such as Senators Paul and Lee. Ron Paul also is/was in this group. The second group are those that are called PaleoCons, PaleoPopulists, or Goldenagers. These are people like Buchanan and Taki. You can get a good idea of their foreign policy at The American Conservative or Taki's mag.
The Antiwar Pacifist dems are people like Sens Wyden and Udall. You can get an idea of their foreign policy at Antiwar.com
Now these antiwarriors and isolationists have very little influence on US Foreign Policy. They are never given jobs on a prez's(R or D) foreign policy team. They are never allowed to chair a congressional committee that has any thing to do with foreign policy. But they can serve on those committees. Rand Paul, Dems Wyden and Udall serve on the Senate Foreign Policy Committee.
So it is the Realists(R&D), the Neocons(R), and Liberal Interventionists(D) that control foreign policy. A GOP prez's foreign policy team will be made up of Realists and NeoCons. A dem prez has Realists and Liberal Interventionists on his foreign policy team. For example: A dem prez always has a Realist at SoD, Republican Realist Gates, Dem Realist Panetta, and Republican Realist Hagel. A dem prez always has an interventionist at SoS, Kerry and Clinton. A republican prez usually has a realist at SoS: Rice, Powell, Baker, Schultz, Haig, Kissinger. A Gop prez usually has a NeoCon at SoD: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wienberger, Rumsfeld
So, now lets look at Syria.
The first thing you need to understands is that Obama has never wanted to intervene in Syria. Because he learned his lesson in Libya when the Italians and Brits didn't come through plus public opinion is against it.
He never had to worry about it because thruout 2011 and 2012 the Realists were opposed to intervening. But beginning in late 2012 the Realists began to gradually shift so by may 2013, most realists were supporting intervention.
On May 22 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took a vote on whether or not to intervene in Syria. There were 15 R&D votes to intervene and two dems(Wyden and Udall) and one republican(Randy Paul) opposed. 15 Realists, NeoCons, and Interventionists versus 3 antiwar pacifists and isolationists. Not long after that Mike Lee(isolationist) joined the other 3 to submit legislation into the Senate opposing the intervention .
What about the whole senate? They won't take a vote but if they did, it would be to intervene.
What about the House? Amongst the dems, there would be relatively more pacifists than the are in the Senate and among the GOP there would relatively more isolationists than in the Senate. I figure 80-120 votes total in the House opposed to intervening in Syria.
You can forget about Congress stopping Obama because Congress is pushing Obama. He ain't got nowhere to hide and he can't hide behind the pacifists and the isolationists.
And some of these hardcore NeoCons are not going to be satisfied with cruise missles. They want a no fly zone and boots on the ground. The could care less about a multilateral coalition and prefer unilateralism.
Give the s.o.b. an “assault rifle” with all the ammo he can pack, and set him off on the beach. Let the s.o.b. take care of it personally.