White House sources have told Fox News’ Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen., that president Obama plans to launch an attack on Syria, even if congress votes against it. That is why he repeated several times that he believes he has the authority. But does he? Not according to the 1973 War Powers Act. (WPA)
The WPA clearly states that a president can act only if:
A) We are attacked
B) An attack is imminent
Syria has neither attacked the United States nor do they have a delivery system that would allow them to do so.
In his speech yesterday, Obama tried to paint Syria as a threat to attack the United States. He did not elaborate how. In fact, his speech was about the humanitarian obligation. That does not provide provocation to use the WPA. That would belong to the UN, which has already denied an attack.
And who would be the beneficiary of such an attack? Al Qaeda. In the history of the United States, Syria has never attacked us on our shores. By contrast, Al Qaeda has. On September 11th, 2001, Al Qaeda murdered 2977 people, including 343 firefighters, 60 police, and 2 paramedics. Another 6294 people were wounded, including about 2,000 first responders.
Al Qaeda has also killed, wounded and maimed US citizens around the world, including Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other people at the compound in Benghazi. Another two dozen or so were wounded.
The Obama administration assures us that they have irrefutable proof that Assad ordered the sarin gas attacks. They have also assured us they had irrefutable evidence that the Benghazi attacks were made because of a 12 minute Internet movie, two rogue agents in Cincinnati were responsible for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, that Eric Holder knew nothing about the Fast and Furious program and that under Obamacare, you can keep your insurance and doctors. We now know these were intentional lies. Do we believe them now?
Irrefutable? Like global warming? The intelligence community doesn't think so. (And some of the people interviewed for the AP story works for Obama) According to an AP story, intelligence can't even determine who has control of Syria's WMDs. If you don't know that, how can you possibly say irrefutably that Syria was responsible and not Al Qaeda?
And are you aware that Al Qaeda has a history of manufacturing poison gas? In June of this very year, Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq were caught manufacturing poison gas, which they intended to smuggle into the United States and Europe. Three workshops full. And what gases were they manufacturing? Mustard and sarin. Iraq shares a long border with Syria. Who can say for sure, that gas did not come from there?
More importantly, who would benefit the most from a gas attack? Not Syria. They've been struggling to keep other countries out of the conflict. Here is an interesting article (which I wrote) that outlines who stood to benefit from the attack and why Syria had no reason to use the gas.
"Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?"
Excellant question. But if he truly believes that, then why aren't we planning an attack on the Al Qaeda fighters from the Benghazi Al Qaeda terrorist training camp, instead of Syria? Al Qaeda has, is, and will be a threat to the United States as long as they and we exist. And considering the fact that the president has done little or nothing to stem Iran from developing nuclear weapons, his statement is facetious at best and dishonest at worst.
So where does all this leave us? The answer is simple. If Obama attacks Syria after congress rejects his request (assuming they do) then he is guilty of violating the War Powers Act, a crime punishable by impeachment. In aiding Al Qaeda in Syria, like he did in Libya, you could make an excellant case for aiding and abetting the enemy, which is also grounds for impeachment as well as treason. And should we learn later that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack, perjury. Also an impeachable offense.