by Big Dog on Sep 10, 2013 at 13:15 Political
The Bush Doctrine of preemption is one that has given liberals like Barack Obama fits. They are opposed to military action but generally only when Republicans want to take it. Liberals, even those who really are opposed to violence, are mostly silent when one of their own is proposing military force.
Barack Obama, the alleged Constitutional Law professor, seems to have a few problems. First, when he was a candidate, he stated that the president does not have the Constitutional authority to attack another nation unless the US has been attacked or there is an imminent threat.
Now the Constitutional Law Professor is saying he has the authority to do just that. He is working on plans to attack Syria even though that nation has not attacked us and there is no imminent threat to us from Syria.
It would seem that a liberal Constitutional Law Professor is one who believes the Constitution authorizes whatever a liberal wants to do. Simply put, it is a flexible document that can be interpreted as a liberal sees fit.
Before John Kerry said that Syria could hand over its chemical weapons to avoid a strike Barack Obama was working on getting authorization to strike Syria. Obama believes he can strike without Congressional approval but is seeking it anyway. It is rough going as many oppose a strike. Obama was on several news shows to make his case and this is what he had to say when trying to justify the strike:
“But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria. Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our national security.” [emphasis mine] UPI.com
So, in this long drawn out roundabout way, the chemicals in Syria might end up in the hands of bad people who would use them against us so that is an imminent threat and we can strike Syria. This is a stretch by any measure but if this is the path Obama wants to follow the question becomes how is this any different than the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike that liberals violently opposed? I see the difference in that there is no actual threat the chemicals could be used against us. It would be different if Syria threatened to use them on our troops in the area. This is a threat and could justify a preemptive strike but saying that some third party might get them and then use them on us is several layers removed from being a threat.
But if this is how Obama is playing it then he is trying to claim the right to a preemptive use of force. The very use of force liberals decried when Bush used it.
The reality is that if we allow Obama to use this contorted view we could basically justify preemptive force against anyone. North Korea or Iran might lose control of their nuclear materials and a terrorist group might get it and use it on us so let’s bomb North Korea and Iran.
Someone might steal Russia’s smallpox virus and sell it to terrorists who might use it on us so let’s attack Russia.
This is the theater of the absurd.
Not to mention the reality that if we attack Syria and destabilize things (even more than they are) there is a greater risk that Syria will lose track of chemical weapons which then could end up in the wrong hands.
In other words, the act Obama wants to prevent (or that he is using to justify force) might be aided by the very attack designed to prevent it.
Yep, it is still amateur hour at the White House.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post