The 5 Most Ludicrous War Claims in Obama’s Syria Speech

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/11-1


President Obama delivered a televised address on Syria from the White House Tuesday.


1. “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”

No you don’t, Mr. President. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and ordering military strikes would be a clear act of war, thus violating the Constitution. It would also violate the War Powers Act, which says that the President can’t engage in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization unless there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And Syria has done no such thing.

2. Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “a danger to our security.”

Note that four paragraphs later, he said it wasn’t “a direct or imminent threat to our security.” So what kind of a threat is it? Well, a rather tenuous one. “Other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Really? It is very unlikely that some dictator would do this because he would know that if he did, the U.S. would drop a nuke on his head. That was the warning that Saddam Hussein got from the U.S. in January of 1991, and he didn’t use his chemical weapons even as the U.S. was destroying most of his army. If that threat was enough to stop Saddam, it’s likely good enough to stop other dictators.

Obama also acknowledged that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.”

3. “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.”

Let’s just look at Israel. Obama contradicted himself just a few minutes later when he said, “Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.”

4. “It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed.”

Only?

If U.S. missile strikes seriously degrade Assad’s military, they would certainly help the extremists who are allied with Al Qaeda in Syria.

[jsr]

1. And don't forget to tell your friends and family to view the awesome videos.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Thug?

[ellenrr]

2. UN charter- "The use of THREAT of force" is illegal

addition to point #1.

re#3-
No "if"- the fighting is already beyond Syria's borders.
and, nothing would make the likelihood of increased regional if not global conflict - than the US involvement.

#4- absolutely agree, about helping the extremists.-
as does anyone that knows anything about the middle-east

Remember the Maine!
Remember the Gulf of Tonkin!

there must really be nothing new under the sun.

this country keeps repeating history, when do the people wake up?

[The Link]

3. But, it will make our children safer. What about the children?

Did you see the dead children?

[xchrom]

4. indeed. and here are some more children

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023636769

[The Link]

5. Well, that wasn't really a war.

Incidentally, my dad died in 1992 due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam.

[truth2power]

10. I'm so sorry, Link. About your dad, that is...

Members of our own military are just fodder to them (the Powers Really In Charge, e.g. PRICs)**



** I borrowed that acronym from the comment section over at Common Dreams. Clever, I thought!

[xchrom]

11. you're the second person today to mention a run in with agent orange.

very sorry for your loss.

[iemitsu]

6. This last week has been a low point for Obama.

Maybe the last couple of months, ever since Snowden spoke to us on Hong Kong-ese television.
But this last week he has looked frazzled, stressed, and anything other than his usual "cool" self.
His arguments lack clarity and draw unsupportable conclusions.
I have been embarrassed by him and he should be embarrassed too.
And this from a "great legal mind", a Harvard professor?

[rtracey]

16. You'd be stressed too dude

But there is really only 1 main conclusion..no? that is a foreign country gas murdered it's own people, and there are a lot of people who don't give a shit.

[niyad]

23. see post 4 above

[RC]

26. As if being made into body parts or have large holes poked into you is somehow better?

Please explain.
The biggest problem with being gassed, over being blown up, is with being gassed, there are still bodies laying around to take pictures of. And that is why gassing is somehow worse. The evidence is in plain sight, instead of being paint on the rubble. Dead is still dead. Why not stop blowing people up and shooting them altogether? Maybe there is not enough money in Peace?

[TheMadMonk]

54. It's more than that. The reason for the ban on chemical...

...weapons has little to do with civilians.

The reason they were banned, was that they left behind job lots of outwardly healthy young men with the lungs of emphysemic old men.

To those who think they matter, sixty years of pensions times 100,000 living corpses is a lot of money they think is theirs going to the "wrong" places. About 2 trillion dollars of "losses" in today's money.

[RC]

55. Hadn't thought of that.

Makes sense. It's always the money, isn't it?
Humans beings we can breed more of, but money is power. Power is control of other human beings.

[Shemp Howard]

28. We don't care about the casualties?

That is actually insulting, although I'm sure you don't mean it that way.

Please rt, don't fall into a logic trap like the one we saw back in 2003. I'm sure you recall that if, back then, you were against the Iraq invasion, you were more than just wrong. You were labelled as unpatriotic and unAmerican, or worse. Remember all the mud that was thrown at the Dixie Chicks?

With apologies to John Lennon, sometimes military action is the answer. Hitler just had to be stopped, for example. But there are many, many more times when military action just makes a bad situation worse.

One can be very much against a Syrian strike, and still care very much about all the civilian deaths in the conflict. That statement is so obvious that it almost does not need to even be said.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

36. "and there are a lot of people who don't give a shit..."

1) How many undeclared wars has the USA been in in the last decade?

2) How many people (civilians and US troops) have died as a consequence of those undeclared wars?

3) How many US troops have been damaged mentally, physically or both?

4) How much $$ is the USA in debt for all these undeclared wars?

5) Who made us the police of the world?


Go back under your bridge.

[TheMadMonk]

52. Starting with the 100 million plus Americans who don't give a fuck...

...for their fellow countrymen at home, and cheered on two illegal wars, three if you include Poppy's little adventure in Iraq.

Those who now want an attack on Syria DO NOT GIVE ONE SINGLE FUCK FOR those 400 dead kids.

THOSE SELF SAME PEOPLE have not (not in decades of conflict across the entire planet) given a single fuck for MILLIONS of kids, starved, dismembered, enslaved, and otherwise exploited and exterminated. More often than not, these very people are ultimately responsible for those dead millions, and almost invariably profited from their deaths.


But 400 kids, killed in this specific fashion, in this specific place, at this specific time?

What a fucking good excuse to beat the war drums.


Stressed? Indeed, but no sympathy. Compare today's man who just had peace rammed down his throat, with the quintessential statesman stumping for military intervention over the past fortnight.

[arewenotdemo]

30. Obama never was "the smartest guy in the room" like so many here thought.

His Middle East policy alone points that out very clearly.

He surrounded himself with a cadre of interventionist fools, for starters.

[DhhD]

35. In Texas it is called, Guilt by Association.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76412

[iemitsu]

62. True, that he is not very good at picking advisors

or appointing decent people to beheads of agencies.
He kind of likes the republicans for these positions.

[n2doc]

7. It doesn't matter. He is already 37 steps ahead of you

His brilliant master plan will make sense eventually, and we will have plenty of folks ready and eager to explain it to us simpletons.

[jsr]

8. Indeed

[goatmilker]

24. perfect

Nice way to show a complete cluster F of late in the W.H. I still think there are other reasons unseen as to his sudden need to bomb the sh!t out of "nobody cares about Syria". I am not a conspiracy guy but something stinks here.

[truth2power]

9. Thanks xchrom. I was just about to post the link to this article...

had it in my taskbar.

Here's the claim that I thought was crucial...

5. “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.”

Was the U.S. an anchor of global security and an enforcer of international agreements when it overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, or the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954?

Is the world a better place because the U.S. helped overthrow Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government in Chile almost exactly 40 years ago?

Is the world a better place because the United States killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and because we dropped 20 million gallons of napalm (waging our own version of chemical warfare) on those countries?

and so on...

Yep. I guess it was purely an oversight that Obama didn't mention our little pecadillos.

Gawd! Sometimes I just want to barf!

[CrispyQ]

22. The President needs a history refresher course.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present

by William Blum

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

snip...

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

~extensive list follows at link:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

William Blum, of this fame:

The Author Who Got A Big Boost From bin Laden

By David Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 21, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001971.html

Twenty-four hours after Osama bin Laden told the world that the American people should read the work of a little-known Washington historian, William Blum was still adjusting.

Blum, who at 72 is accustomed to laboring in relative left-wing obscurity, checked his emotions and pronounced himself shocked and, well, pleased.

"This is almost as good as being an Oprah book," he said yesterday between telephone calls from the world media and bites of a bagel. "I'm glad." Overnight, his 2000 work, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," had become an Osama book.

I'm with you truth2power - it's a barf moment.

[Comrade Grumpy]

49. Bill is an old friend of mine. I used to work with him back in DC. He must be getting old now.

[arewenotdemo]

32. According to Obama, we're NOT the world's "policeman", after all.

We're the fucking ENFORCER.

[Snake Plissken]

12. At least he' didn't throw Home Depot a bone last night and get into duct tape and plastic sheeting

Like Tom Ridge did

[bahrbearian]

18. Thats funny

[grahamhgreen]

13. We must have war because the people want us to deal with our own problems instead.

Is what I heard

[durablend]

43. That's been a theme here on DU

"You damn SELFISH people just worried about kids dying from malnutrition here while people are getting GASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSED over there!"

[Coyotl]

14. 5. “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. ..."

What a self-delusional serving of American Poooo Pie. Who overthrew democracy in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, ...? Who financed terrorist mercenaries in Nicaragua? You know the long litany .... and so does the rest of the world.

[arewenotdemo]

34. Or more recently...who overthrew and murdered Qaddafi in Libya?

“I’m good but not that good,” Obama told Senate Republicans.

Good at spouting the same old flag-draped bullshit. Or as Bush would say, "catapulting" it.

[SidDithers]

15. Matthew Rothschild. LOL...

A favourite source for BBI, if I recall.

Sid

[niyad]

27. would you be kind enough to show us what he got wrong? it would be helpful.

[truth2power]

46. Why do you do that, Sid? You throw out these ad hominem attacks..

and that suffices as some sort of analysis, I suppose. Maybe these throw-away lines do influence the weak-willed, but that's about the extent of it.

Obama said, "“For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security." What a pantload!

So...which of what Rothschild pointed out in #5 didn't happen or were not the result of US meddling? Mossedgh, Arbenz, Allende? Did we use Napalm in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? Have we supported brutal dictators? Have we tortured people, and if so, how was that enforcing international agreements?

If the foregoing is true, then how could Obama make the statement he did, and with a straight face?

And you're laughing at Matthew Rothschild? Amazing!

[ProSense]

17. No 1 is not wrong

1. “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”

No you don’t, Mr. President. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and ordering military strikes would be a clear act of war, thus violating the Constitution. It would also violate the War Powers Act, which says that the President can’t engage in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization unless there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And Syria has done no such thing.

People making this claim simpy don't know what they're talking about.

The War Powers Resolution allows the President to act, but he must report to Congress within 60 days. Obama didn't pull that claim out of thin air, and all Presidents have committed military resources to actions without Congressional approval.

Clock Ticking on War Powers Resolution

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

<...>

Under the War Powers Resolution, when a president introduces troops into hostilities without prior authorization from lawmakers, he must withdraw them if 60 days pass and Congress has not since voted to approve the deployment. Pressed on several occasions this week to say whether the administration believes it is bound to comply with that requirement, several top officials demurred.

Attention to the issue swelled following an account in Talking Points Memo about a classified briefing with Congress by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on March 30. That report, however, was apparently overstated, according to Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who questioned Mrs. Clinton at the closed-door meeting.

Citing an unnamed Republican lawmaker who attended, the report said Mrs. Clinton had said the administration “would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission” and that she “plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions.”

<...>

But in a phone interview, Mr. Sherman said that he had actually asked whether the administration believed it was bound to obey the 60-day deadline. And Mrs. Clinton gave no definitive response either way, he said.

- more -

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/clock-ticking-on-war-powers-resolution/

Going through Congress is a precedent, no matter how you slice it.

Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy To The President's Remarks On Syria

August 31, 2013

(Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt., President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and chairman of the State Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee) has participated in all of the leadership conference calls that have been held with the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense about the situation in Syria.)

"The President is right to seek authorization from Congress for a response to the Syrian regime's clear violation of international law, in the use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. I continue to oppose introducing U.S. troops into this conflict, and I continue to believe that seeking congressional approval of military action is called for. Given the positions taken by past presidents, the President's decision to seek congressional approval is especially commendable. I look forward to this debate, and we should have it openly in the Congress."

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/reaction-of-senator-patrick-leahy-to-the-presidents-remarks-on-syria

[JayhawkSD]

20. Try actually reading the War Powers Resolutoin.

The War Powers Resolution allows the President to act, but he must report to Congress within 60 days. Obama didn't pull that claim out of thin air...

The War Powers Resolution actually requires him to report to Congress within 48 hours. The sixty days is the length of time he may use military force without reauthorization. It also says that he may initiate hostilities only in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

It doesn't say "threat of attack" and it certainly doesn't say anything about the president being in fear of a slippery slope of events leading to a putatively dangerous situation which still is not an actual attack, nor does it say anything about our allies or our friends.

There is no possible way that Obama or anyone else can manipulate the truth sufficiently to make the case that Syria's use of chemical weapons constitutes an attack on "the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

...and all Presidents have committed military resources to actions without Congressional approval.

And they have violated the law in the process, and/or have trumped up some bogus "threat" to the nation in order to pretend they have not broken the law. The fact that priop presidents have broken the law does not mean that it's okay for this president to violate the law. He ran with a promise that said, "I have taught the constitution. I will restore the constitution."

[ProSense]

25. Yes,

The War Powers Resolution actually requires him to report to Congress within 48 hours. The sixty days is the length of time he may use military force without reauthorization. It also says that he may initiate hostilities only in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

...I've read it. It state that he can act without going to Congress. He acts, reports within 48 hours and continues to provide reports for up to 60 days. It's at that point he must terminate military action depending on what Congress does. It still means he can act prior to Congressional approval. Despite UN involvement in Libya, this is the procedure the President followed, and people were still screaming it was illegal.

<...>

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[JayhawkSD]

51. Read all of it.

Including the part you don't like.

It still means he can act prior to Congressional approval.

Yes, it says he can act without Congressional approval, but only in the event of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

You even included that part in the blockquote, and then proceeded to completely ignore it. The War Powers Resolution was passed over a presidential veto for the purpose of limiting presidential power to de facto declare war, not to empower him to do so. Presidents have ignored it with impunity because the only way to enforce it is impeachment. That should have been considered more than once with more than one president, because using military force without Congressional approval, absent an actual attack on us, is a violation of federal law.

[TheMadMonk]

57. Amerika Uber Alles.

Tell me, in words of no more than two syllables:

EXACTLY WHAT GIVES THE USA THE RIGHT TO DESTROY SOVEREIGN NATIONS WITH IMPUNITY?


Don't tell me what your law allows your president to do with his toy soldiers. Your so called LAW also allows armed adults to stalk children and shoot them like dogs.


Tell me what give you the right to fuck over any nation which gets in your way and is incapable of defending itself?

Tell me what give your nation the right to AR AYE PEE EE, RAPE like a self entitled high school footballer (or given the disparity of power involved, a certain college football coach) with impunity?

[rhett o rick]

63. Your reading comprehension is hampered by your apparent agenda. nm

[bvar22]

58. Number 1 is CORRECT, according to THIS guy:

[font size=3]“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”[/font] ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

[rhett o rick]

64. That's really a low blow.

Good job.

[dreamnightwind]

66. Perfect quote!

Looks like his position has "evolved".

[truedelphi]

60. Yeah, especially on account of the fact that this

US Constitution that people keep referring to is the OLD CONSTITUTION.

The new, "Because Obama" Constitution clearly states that he can do whatever the heck whenever he wants to or needs to.

I mean, for Pete's sake the guy is friends with Jay Z!

[MNBrewer]

19. I could only get 2 minutes into the speech before I turned it off in disgust

[Cryptoad]

21. The SCOTUS ,,,

does not support your fallacies !

[idwiyo]

29. K&R

[pscot]

31. K&R

[fredamae]

33. What good is being

an "Anchor" for Peace/Order is there's no boat attached to it?
We can't go it alone. Period.

If world leaders really Wanted to Really Help?
Then:
Drop Food, Shelter, Medical Supplies/Water to Help the Refugees for Crap Sake!

[mountain grammy]

37. After the speech, my husband wanted to hear what the heads on faux news had to say..

I said, don't worry, just read DU tomorrow, you'll see it all there.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. !

[Ocelot]

40. Only a schizophrenic would be able to follow Obama's reasoning at this point

Syria is a clear and present danger to the United States, only not really.

Syria is a clear and present danger to Israel, only not really.

Al Qaeda will draw strength if we don't bomb, so we need to bomb in order to help Al Qaeda fight Assad.

His worst and most incoherent speech yet.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. So, now that we're not "going to war" the President is still a piece of shit? Just want to...

get it straight that on an allegedly Democratic board Obama can't get a break.

One wonders what would make some of you happy...

[Ocelot]

44. As soon as he rescinds NSA spying and opts out the Trans Pacific Partnership scam...

Which aren't going to happen. Nope he's still a crappy President and a rather right-wing one at that.

He doesn't need "a break". He needs to actually work in the interests of the Democratic party and the American people.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. That's all? I can think of at least another...

dozen things I'd like him to do, but I'm not sure not doing them makes him a crappy President.

[leftstreet]

47. DURec

[Marr]

48. I wonder how much this whole thing has been fueled by a desire to change the subject from NSA

domestic spying.

[Phlem]

50. K&R!

-p

[Uncle Joe]

53. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

[forestpath]

56. K&R

[woo me with science]

59. K&R Thank you for posting this. nt

[eridani]

61. #2. The US fhad no compunctions whatsoever about helping Saddam Hussein--

--gas Iranians. #4. Assad's best organized and most effective opponents are extremists.

[gulliver]

65. Commondreams.org or Obama

It's so hard to decide which to believe.