Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Obama Wants Congress' Stamp Of Approval "After The Fact" For His Rogue War Against Syria

Just in case you are confused by what an "act of war" is, please refer to the following:

An act of war is an act of aggression against one nation by another, which may or may not result in armed conflict.  

An act of war may be one nation's troops crossing another nation's border to engage in hostilities against that nation, whose borders were violated.  An outright invasion or military attack upon another nation constitutes an act of war.  Initiating an act of aggression against a nation, such as a blockade, an act of espionage, aiding and abetting a rebellion that seeks to overthrow a nation's government or regime, attacking a nation's foreign interests, also constitute acts of war.

In short, an act of war is " act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace..." and "... an aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes an immediate threat to peace..."

It may also be argued that giving aid and comfort to the enemies of a nation, such as arming or assisting a rebellion or a particular faction of a rebellion, constitutes an act of war against the targeted nation.

War by proxy is still war.

Considering these factors, the U.S. has already been at war with Syria for some time. To wit:

Andrea Peterson wrote in the Washington Post yesterday: "...The United States hasn’t decided whether to launch airstrikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But the Obama administration long ago decided to provide the rebels with another form of assistance: hardware and software to help the rebels communicate more effectively and evade government censorship..."

Additionally she reports:

"...The communications aid appears to have had a rough start, with rebels complaining they did not receive the assistance they had been promised. But the satellite communications equipment turned out to be of particular importance when Syria experienced nationwide Internet outages in November 2012. By that time, State Department representatives claimed, they had provided some 2,000 communications kits to opposition members...But the technology alone is only part of the package. Time reported in June 2012 that the State Department’s Internet Freedom grants program has also been providing media-technology training through nonprofits such as the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House. Although the Internet Freedom grants program was initially funded to help provide the Chinese religious group Falun Gong with technology it could use to circumvent the great firewall of China, it was later expanded to include training for activists in other areas where online freedom was limited and to support the development of software and technology to help those activists..."

The U.S., then, has been at war, albeit in a limited capacity, with Syria for some time now.  We have, therefore,  a situation in which a President (Obama)  has committed acts of aggression against Syria, which constitute acts of war, but has done so, as he has on previous occasions (Libya and Egypt), without the official consent or approval of the American people.

Apparently up to his neck in the Syrian quagmire, he sought to create a coalition of foreign powers, including the U.K., and France, and after securing agreements from those nations first (from which they later backed off) to launch strikes against Syria for its alleged gassing of its own citizens, he only now, after the fact, seeks to enlist the support and "authorization" of the American people via Congressional approval.

Obama now is looking for the rubber-stamp approval from Congress for a war he has already (unconstitutionally and illegally) declared against Syria, and to which he has already committed U.S. resources for Syrian rebels, and provided those resources against the Syrian regime.

Obama finds himself out on a limb with recalcitrant, reluctant, or non-existent allies in a war in the Middle East, confronted by the opposition of two major international powers, Russia and China, and a host of regional powers to boot.

Obama's rogue war against Syria has created a quagmire that threatens to engulf the region of the Middle East, and possibly beyond there, in a war for which there has been no stated political or military objective.  He is confronted with the possibility, unless he enlists the "authorization" of Congress, of getting his rogue military de-funded.

Obama seeks Congressional rubber-stamp approval to hide the fact that he has already been conducting a war against Syria.  Obama's "Red Line" declaration, whether he declares it is his Red Line or the World's, is a blanket of confusion to fool Americans into believing that we are not yet at war with Syria.

In collusion with and as active actors in this criminal act, were principally Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, (along with the usual Democrat Obamistas) until recently, when they were joined by Speaker of the House John Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor, and others.

To sum it up, Obama started a rogue war in Syria, is now caught in a quagmire, and wants help and approval from the American People (Congress) to continue that war and to escalate it, AFTER his "coalition" abandoned him in his unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore criminal actions, against Syria.

Obama is attempting to kill three birds with the one stone of Congressional approval.

He pretends to involve the U.S. in a war, which he has already started, by seeking "bipartisan" approval, and thus engaging our military, our resources and the lives of our soldiers.

He distracts from an endless string of scandals that are plaguing him domestically.

He conquers his opposition at home by dividing Republicans on the issue of the war with a "debate" for approval for that war.

Additonally, the ramifications of Obama's Rogue Syrian War will benefit Syria's Assad, who will get an advantage from an attack or even the threat of an attack by the U.S.  (See that HERE)....

The question now is, who in this nation has the intestinal fortitude to put period to the unconstitutional, and therefore criminal, actions of a President, who appears to be ready to involve the U.S. in an international conflagration, and the resulting military and economic quagmire, for the purpose of advancing his personal political agenda?

Do you?

No comments:

Post a Comment