Tomahawks into Syria as Turkey remains chicken

Just so we are clear on this – There is a HUGE difference between President George W. Bush attacking al-Qaeda (‘War on Terror’) within Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, and what President Obama is doing now.
The most notable difference is President Bush had authorization and agreement, with each sovereign nation, to attack the terror entity within it’s border; Obama has no such agreement with Syria.
And remember, according to President Obama 2013, the “2003 George Bush war on terror is over“.   OVER!   Not to mention the post 9-11 AUMF was specifically only for al-Qaeda, and ISIS is admittedly, by Obama and al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda.   So what exactly is the “legal authority” President Obama is using?
obama - Kerry - Hagel - Power - Rice - McDonough
Secretary of State John Kerry would not answer that question to congress last week. Senior White House National Security and Foreign Policy advisor Susan Rice would not answer that question last Friday. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest would also not answer that question last Friday.  President Obama’s chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, would not answer that question on Saturday, and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power would not answer that question on Sunday.
The mysterious “legal authority” is said to exist, but has never been outlined.
Yet on Monday the attacks began.
Under what legal authority? We are not under attack, this is not a defensive decision. This is 100% offensive.
five nations
There are only two legal ways such offensive action could be taken without the request of Syria to do it:

1.) Congress declaring war on Syria, like they did for the war in Iraq.  Or…
2.) The U.N. Security Council authorizing the U.S. to attack an entity within a sovereign nation, somewhat like Libya 2011.

Congress has not declared war on Syria, and the U.N. has not authorized any such action.
Obama Libya Bombing
I believe this factual conundrum is what led to the attack beginning last night.
This was not a bold decision, this was an urgent political decision forced upon him because President Obama was/is about to go to the U.N. and lead a security council meeting.
Syria’s key ally, Russia, would block any request for a security council resolution, leaving only 100% illegal unilateral action toward Syria as an option. Knowing this, and knowing the attack into Syria was politically beneficial, Obama was about to have his legal options removed to assist his sagging polling numbers. He had to act fast, albeit illegally.
Obviously attacking ISIS is not that controversial here at home in the U.S. Indeed, it is the wonderful fact that such action “polls well” which led to the political decision to move forward and do it.
However, just because Denis McDonough approves it, that, by itself does not make it lawful.
Can we, according to this mysteriously not outlined legal doctrine, attack Mexican Drug cartels -inside Mexico- without permission, agreement or authority granted by the government of Mexico? Likewise can Mexico attack Texans who they would disagree with?
Can the Chinese attack Islamic “terrorists” inside Indonesia or Malaysia?
Or, more aptly,…. is Russia attacking Ukrainian “terrorists” now permissible under the same Obama doctrine, and we must drop our prior admonitions?
Sorry Ukraine, our bad.
Obama-Nobel-Peace-Prize-500x714President Peace Prize is indeed charting new territory with this approach of crossing a sovereign border, with nothing except popularity as the legal justification, and shooting rockets at the unpopular.
Can you even imagine what the media and political left would be doing/saying if George W Bush was engaged in such behavior.
Indeed, by this principle of non-legal combat, President Obama is proving himself a far larger war monger than George Bush ever was. Remember, Obama is not attacking a “state”, he’s attacking a group within a state without the expressed permission of the state itself.
Do you think the media will hold him to account?
Yeah, yeah, I know…. rhetorical questions. However, it is often within these popular campaigns the groundwork for less popular consequences are established.
How magnanimous – President Obama and the U.S. administration “told Syria” Sunday they were going to attack:

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syria’s foreign ministry says the United States informed Damascus’ envoy to the United Nations before launching airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Syria.

Syrian state media carried a brief statement from the foreign ministry early on Tuesday, saying that “the American side informed Syria’s permanent envoy to the U.N. that strikes will be launched against the Daesh terrorist organization in Raqqa.”

The statement used an Arabic name referring to the Islamic State group. The city of Raqqa is the militant group’s self-declared capital in Syria.

It was Damascus’ first official reaction after the U.S. and five Arab countries launched airstrikes on Islamic State group’s targets in Syria late Monday, expanding a military campaign into a country whose three-year civil war has given the brutal militant group a safe haven. (link)

Hey, I’m all for cooking up large batches of Jihadists, Sunni side up, but the sketchy legal authority is way, way, W-A-Y, outside of the constitution.  And… well,…

….Watch out Canada, there’s a pesky bunch of Nova Scotians who have been pissing off the White House for the past several months…. Just sayin’

Obama - Kaboom

Share