Thread: Pat Buchanan: No Syrian War to save Obama’s face! “Catastrophic!” said John McCain

No Syrian War to save Obama’s face!


By: Patrick J. Buchanan
9/3/2013 05:05 PM

“Catastrophic!” said Sen. John McCain.

If Congress votes no on a resolution calling for U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war, says McCain, it would be “catastrophic” for U.S. credibility in the world.
Consider what the senator is saying here.
Because Barack Obama, two years ago, said “Assad must go,” and, one year ago, said any use of chemical weapons crosses his “red line,” Congress has no choice but to plunge America into yet another Mideast war.
Can this be? Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war to make good the simple-minded statements of an untutored president who had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimata?
Are we really required to go to war to get the egg off Obama’s face?
Not since the War of Jenkins’ Ear has there been a dumber cause for a great country to go to war. Is there no way out?
There is, and it’s right in front of us.
The House, Senate or both can vote no on the war resolution and Obama can then say, as did David Cameron, that, while he disagrees, he respects the decision of a Congress in which the Constitution placed sole authority to authorize America’s going to war.
Are Brits now crying “catastrophe!”? Do the Spanish no longer think the Brits will defend Gibraltar? Is Britain now wholly non-credible to the world?
For Obama, and for us, it is the other options that invite catastrophe.
If, for example, the House or Senate votes down the war resolution and Obama, without authorization from Congress, the Security Council, NATO or the Arab League plunges us into a new war this nation does not want to fight, he will be courting a geostrategic and political disaster.
Even if Congress approves a war resolution, the president should think long and hard about diving into a war he sought to avoid and stayed out of for over two years. Make no mistake; if Obama attacks Syria, be it for hours or days, we are in that blood-soaked abattoir for the duration.
In his dramatic statement Saturday, as politically astute as it was constitutionally correct, Obama called Syria “someone else’s war.”
Whose war? It is Shia Alawite vs. Sunni, Muslim vs. Christian, Kurd vs. Arab, Islamist vs. secularist. Backing Bashar Assad are Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Backing the rebels are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, al-Qaida, foreign jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Assad is accused of killing 100,00 people. But that is the total of the dead in a civil war Assad has as much right to fight as the rebels. While his army is accused of using gas on civilians, the Islamist rebels have murdered Christians, massacred captives and engaged in public acts of cannibalism on dead Syrian soldiers.
Gas is a sickening weapon. Yet, there is no evidence thus far that Assad ordered its use. Rebel elements are said to have been found with sarin. As for Americans who tend to prefer white phosphorus, napalm and cluster bombs, upon what lofty moral ground do we stand?
Have we forgotten that Churchill wanted to drop anthrax on Germany and settled for two days of firebombing the defenseless city of Dresden? Or that our great friend Anwar Sadat was the confidante of Gamal Abdel Nasser when Egypt was using poison gas on Yemeni tribesmen?
The United States does not have any national security interest in Syria’s war. Why would we then launch missile attacks to “degrade” Assad’s military, when that army and air force are all that stands between us and a privileged sanctuary for al-Qaida in northern Syria, not unlike what al-Qaida had in Tora Bora and Waziristan.
We are told that if we do not strike Syria — making good on Obama’s threats — Israel, Turkey and even Japan and South Korea will not be able to trust us ever again.
What nonsense. We have treaties with Japan and South Korea. As for Turkey and Israel, if what is happening in Syria is outrageous and dangerous, why do they not act? Why do they keep tugging at our sleeve?
The Israeli Air force is five minutes from Damascus, its army a two-day march. The Turks have three times Syria’s population and a 400,000-man army equipped with NATO weapons. Together, they could invade and turn the tide in a week. Why do they not man up?
McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham came out of the Oval Office saying Obama was open to wider strikes on Syria and more lethal support for the rebels. As Iran, Hezbollah and Russia would then upgrade their own weapons shipments to Damascus, this will mean more dead, more wounded, more tens of thousands fleeing into exile and a longer war.
But what it will likely end with, after America is dragooned in, is a U.S. war with Iran; our allies, sitting in their box seats, cheering us on.
And that is the dog you will not hear bark in the war-on-Syria debate.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/0...e-obamas-face/

HEAR HEAR.... AMERICA "We don't have a dog in this fight" Nor Do We Want One

Syrian War Would Reverse Military Spending Cuts

September 4, 2013 by Sam Rolley

PHOTOS.COM

America is broke. But, hey, we’re about to have a war on.

While the Congressional debate on attacking Syria on behalf of jihadi rebels in the nation is just beginning, some lawmakers already want to start throwing wads of money at the military-industrial complex that the United States doesn’t have.

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spent Monday talking to President Barack Obama and other top White House officials about the need to reverse military spending cuts ahead of a possible Syria campaign.

The lawmakers, along with other hawks, argue that it’s time to roll back forced spending cuts known as sequestration imposed by Congress for the current fiscal year and other reductions in military funding from recent years.

“We cannot keep asking the military to perform mission after mission with a sequestration and military cuts hanging over their heads,” Representative Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN. “We have to take care of our own people first.”

As the Syrian situation heats up and with the government’s 2013 fiscal year ending in four weeks, expect the military budget to get a makeover as Congress works on a 2014 spending proposal.

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News, Staff Reports

http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/0...spending-cuts/


This Is Obama's War, Not Ours - We ARE B-R-O-K-E

DIRT BROKE

Some Dumb Ass in the "Political Elite" Better Start Crapping AmeriKa Some ObamaBucks

Its either that or Put on a Tutu and go stand out on the corner

Senator McCain: Congress Rejecting Obama’s Use of Force in Syria Would Be Catastrophic

SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 12:11 PM0 COMMENTSVIEWS: 2857

Never mind the fact that we hardly know who the bad guys in Syria or even who the "good guys" are, Senator John McCain has come out and said if Congress rejects Obama's request to use force in Syria, to do whatever it is he wants to do, the consequences could be catastrophic.
McCain goes on to say that a rejection of Obama would, "undermine the credibility of the United States and the "credibility of the president of the United States." Wait, Obama has credibility in his foreign policy amongst other nations of the world? Oh, then Obama has credibility here at home? Maybe British Prime Minister David Cameron thinks Obama is credible, or maybe Vladamir Putin of Russia has respect for Barack Obama? Any hands?
So, that's the way the senior senator from Arizona bases the need for an attack on Syria, on the freaking credibility of the United States and our bowing-to-a-Saudi-king president. Is that the same president the world watched as he let 4 men die in Benghazi Libya and our consulate get trashed as he stood back and did nothing?
Syria is a complicated mess and we yet to have the critical evidence to determine who were the perpetrators in the chemical attack on Syrian civilians. While Bashar al-Assad is a tyrant just as Qaddafi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt were, the alternative is utter chaos, anarchy and a power vacuum that will likely be filled with Al Qaeda terrorists that could unleash a mayhem on Syria which makes Assad look like a nice guy.
Senator John McCain is a fool to suggest we need to bomb Syria just to uphold the credibility of a president who has about as much leadership ability as that of a Cub Scout den mother.
Read more on this story below from NewsMax.com:
Sens. John McCain Lindsey Graham have had "a candid exchange" with President Barack Obama on Syria, and, McCain warned Monday, "the consequences would be catastrophic" if Congress votes against a military strike against President Bashar al-Assad for his use of chemical weapons.
"The consequences would be catastrophic because it would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the credibility of the president of the United States. None of us want that."
"We had a candid exchange," he said, noting that he was encouraged by the meeting. "We found some areas where we can work together, but we have a long way to go.”
Graham also expressed optimism.
"The president has to fix this," Graham said. "We urged the president to up his game. If we don’t get Syria right, we don't want endless war. We want sustainable stability.
"A degrading strike limited in scope could have a beneficial effect to the battlefield momentum," Graham said. "There will never be a political settlement in Syria as long as Assad is winning."McCain and Graham met privately with Obama as the White House's lobbies Congress for a military strike against Assad.The senators, who have long pressed for a stronger U.S. response in the country, said over the weekend that they might vote against a resolution authorizing military action in Syria because they considered Obama's plan as too limited.
And as many more lawmakers said they were wary of a strike on Syria, no matter how limited, the White House stepped up its lobbying.

http://www.isthatbaloney.com/senator...-catastrophic/