By Chris Rossini
Back in 2013, the American public awoke from its slumber and smacked down President Obama's idea of sending the U.S. military into Syria. The opposition was very strong, especially after Americans had to digest the chaos that was created by invading Libya not too long before.
At the exact same time that Obama's Syria smackdown occurred, British Prime Minister David Cameron put a vote to the House of Commons for Britain to assist in attacking Syria. The Commons voted No!! It was the first time that a British Prime Minister was rejected since 1782!
Unfortunately, individuals in power that want war are patient. They know that memories are short, and that if time is needed to find another way in, so be it. President Obama would take the next two years to proclaim a litany of lies by saying (over & over) that there will be no U.S. boots on the ground in Syria.
Well, as of last week, it was calculated that the time to break those empty promises had arrived. Obama has decided to place U.S. boots on the ground in Syria.
Did Obama seek the approval of Congress? No.
Does Obama have the constitutional authority to deploy troops on his own? No.
Did the American public have a chance to smack down the idea, just as they did in 2013? No.
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister David Cameron (once again) wants to mire the British in Syria as well. However, today he backed down on the idea. Why? Because he doesn't have the necessary votes in the House of Commons.
Evidently, the British Prime Minister fears his Parliament much more than The U.S. President fears Congress!
The U.S. Congress just sits by silently as the President sends U.S. lives into a war zone that has absolutely nothing to do with defending our nation. The Constitution is very clear. It states in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 that "The Congress shall have Power To ...declare War...."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all members of Congress (as well as the President) all "solemnly swear" to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Don't they all raise their right hands, while placing the other onto a Bible? Are inaugurations just entertainment now? Have they become nothing more than a politician's first official lie?
Shame on The U.S. Congress.
By Norm Singleton
Since our Nobel Peace Prize winning President is sending "a few" special operations forces to Syria, it seems like a great time to revisit one of Ron Paul's columns from 2013. In it, Dr. Paul asked if war with Syria was justified even if President Obama sought and received a declaration of war (spoiler alert: it's not!)
Of course, this is a theoretical question since Obama, the former Constitutional Law Professor, did not seek Congressional approval before sending American troops to Syria.
Here is Dr. Paul's column from 2013:
President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
This article was originally published at The Campaign for Liberty.
By Ron Paul
Usually when politicians apologize it’s because they have been caught doing something wrong, or they are about to be caught. Such was likely the case with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recently offered an “apology” for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Blair faces the release of a potentially damning report on his government’s conduct in the run-up to the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq.
Similarly, a batch of emails released from the private server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show Blair pledging support for US military action against Iraq a full year before the decision to attack had supposedly been made. While Prime Minister Blair was assuring his constituents that he was dedicated to diplomacy in the Iraq crisis, he was communicating through back channels that he was ready for war whenever Bush decided on it.
A careful observer of public opinion, Blair took the surprising step of “apologizing” for the Iraq war during an interview on CNN last month.
However, there are two other characteristics of politicians’ apologies: they rarely take personal blame for a misdeed and rarely do they atone for those misdeeds.
Thus Tony Blair did not apologize for his role in pushing the disastrous Iraq war. He did not apologize for having, as former head UN Iraq inspector Hans Blix claimed, “misrepresented intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to gain approval for the Iraq War.”
No, Tony Blair “apologized” for “the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,” on Iraq. He apologized for “mistakes in planning” for post-Saddam Iraq. He boldly refused to apologize for removing Saddam from power.
In other words, he apologized that the intelligence manipulated by his cronies to look like Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the UK turned out to not be the case. For Blair, it was someone else’s fault.
But if we are waiting for any kind of apology from George W. Bush for Iraq we shouldn’t hold our breath. Likewise if we are looking for any kind of apology from President Obama for a similarly disastrous war on false pretext against Libya we shouldn’t bother waiting.
If they ever did apologize, we can be sure that like Blair they would never really confess to their own manipulations nor would they seek to atone for the destruction their manipulations caused.
In fact, far from apologizing for leading the United States into the Libya war based on a false pretext, President Obama is taking US ground troops into Syria on a false pretext. Let’s not forget, this US military action was sold as a limited operation to save a small religious minority stranded on a hilltop in northern Iraq. After one year and thousands of bombing runs against Iraq and Syria, Obama announced last week he is sending US ground troops into Syria after promising no fewer than seven times that he would not do so.
Here’s an idea: instead of apologies and non-apologies from politicians, how about an actual debate on the policies that led to such disasters? Why not discuss why the US keeps being drawn into wars on false pretexts? But that is a discussion we will not have, because both parties are in favor of these wars. They are ready to spend us into Third World status to continue their empire. When we get there, we will never hear their apologies.
By Tyler Durden
One point we’ve been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin’s move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin’s open “invitation” to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.
That is, it simply wasn’t possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don’t necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.
Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.
Well, it hasn’t worked.
With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington’s effort to oust Assad both “counterproductive” and “illegal.” In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.”
For more on how Russia and Iran's efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see "ISIS In 'Retreat' As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As 'Weak With No Strategy'".
This article was originally published at ZeroHedge.