President Obama notched several incremental victories this week in his push for congressional approval of a strike in Syria -- winning the support of congressional leaders and, on Wednesday, the backing of a key Senate panel.
But the president and his allies on the Hill are facing evident headwinds from rank-and-file members still not convinced that it's in the U.S. interest to launch missiles at Syria.
"It's going to be very difficult for [the president] to convince me the United States should be involved," Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., told FoxNews.com. "I'm not seeing any threat to our national security."STRIKE ON SYRIA:
Some of the strongest voices in opposition are coming from the Republican wing of Capitol Hill. Secretary of State John Kerry got a grilling from skeptical Republicans during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday afternoon; the hearing was far more contentious than one on the Senate side a day earlier.
While leaders of the Republican-led House said Tuesday they would support a strike as punishment for Syrian President Bashar Assad's recent chemical weapons attack, many conservative members are openly opposed -- or at least undecided.
What does that mean .. "Strike on Syria"?
Missiles? Bombers? Boots on the Ground?
Nobody seems to know, yet, exactly what kind of "retaliation" (for evils NOT committed against American Citizens) seem most appropriate by Our American President.
One thing is sure, though; President Obama seems determined to make his "War Time Legacy" based on an attack on a foreign country (which has not demonstrably attacked us first).
Will we send rockets? Well we send bombers? Or will we send American soldiers to invade this Middle-Eastern country?
Does it matter?
"I don't think a majority of the Republican conference will support this," Salmon said. "And I suspect some Democrats will defect."
Earlier in the day, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash tweeted: "If members of Congress care at all what constituents think, they will not authorize strikes in #Syria. "Never seen an action w/ less support."I've never met a political who impressed me by what he "tweeted", and I couldn't have less respect for anyone who expected that Twitter was a viable venue for political comment ... but just because the Congressman is clue-less about social websites, that doesn't mean he is clueless about political issues.
I remain adamant in thinking that assaulting Syria, in any manner, because their president poisons his constituents ... is not within the prevue of the United States Constitution. Color me pink, but I always thought that the Military arm of the United States had a mandate to protect American sovereignty .. not American Presidential Preferences.
Until it can be shown that Syria represents a threat to America, I think America should stick to its own knitting.
Or, as I may perhaps have said before:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
3 comments:
Reading the language in the Senate version, it leaves the questions of how to hit and who to hit in Syria wide open, the only qualifier being that the targets have to have SOMETHING to do with WMDs, not just Sarin gas. "What's a WMD?" seems to be the wiggle room in the whole deal. A 60mm mortar tube is a WMD if fired at a crowd in a market square, at a mosque during prayers, or a school full of kids.
SLCMs or ALCMs cannot be recalled once their 2-hour flight has begun. Far better targeting control is offered by tactical air bombardment, but we will lose aircrew to Syria's Russian SAM systems and their ZSU battlefield AAA systems.
"Boots on the ground" are NOT specifically prohibited by the Senate version of the AUMF either, in fact, the use of forward observers in this sort of war is usually required.
The AUMF could even be used to go after al-Nusra and Hezbollah, but with the muzzie-loving White House in charge, these (worst) enemies will get a pass, I'm sure.
This has been a well orchestrated maneuver to get Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Egypt and all the other administration screw ups off the front page.
Congress may barely authorize the use of force. It is important that the historic first black president not be embarrassed by a congressional NO vote.
Post a Comment