WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Wednesday declared unequivocally that the United States has "concluded" that the Syrian government carried out a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians. Yet U.S. intelligence officials say questions remain about whether the attack could be linked to Syrian President Bashar Assad or high officials in his government.Wasn't this the same President who, as a Senator, claimed that Bush didn't have the authority to launch strikes against a sovereign nation? Oh, yeah, he was:
Obama did not present any direct evidence to back up his assertion that the Syrian government bears responsibility for the attack. U.S. officials were searching for additional intelligence to bolster the case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure and rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the Syrian military could have used the weapons on its own authority.
“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,” Obama said in 2008.There's also the inconvenient question of where Syria got those chemical weapons. Many believe they got them from Iraq, who moved them across the border in the run-up to the US-led resumption of hostilities after inspectors were repeatedly denied access.
So, to recap:
Barack Obama wants to unilaterally and without Congressional approval launch bombing raids in Syria over the Syrian government using chemical weapons they got from Iraq - that Obama and his left-wing allies claim never existed - even though Obama himself has stated the President does not have the power to launch an attack on a country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US. During this time of economic uncertainty, with DOD sequestration and other cutbacks, we are to believe that military action costing millions of dollars is necessary against a country that poses no threat to the US or even its own neighbors. And we're going to launch this attack because they're using chemical weapons that we said didn't exist. Oh, and we've argued against doing THIS EXACT THING when the other party was in power.
Remember, it's only confusing if you expect consistency or logic from the left. Or, you know, anything even remotely resembling journalism, either. All we have heard from the news from Syria is "ZOMG CHEMICAL WEAPONS". We are treated to headline after headline like "Obama: Strike Would Send 'Strong Message'" - compare and contrast that to the headlines from 2003, if you dare. I know it's too much to ask for consistency from the left. It would be just amazing, though, if anyone outside of Breitbart would point out the GLARING HYPOCRISY from the left all the way up to the President and Vice President.
And while I'm dreaming, I'd like ammo back to 2004 levels and prices...
That is all.