I’m kind of a neo-con. Kind of. I have no qualms about using overwhelming military force in defense of US interests. I’m not a GWB kind of neo-con, because I would have flattened any neighborhood in Baghdad (or any other city) where our forces took fire and I would have reduced Fallujah to rubble about the size of my little toe nail and paved over that. I prefer a “kinder, gentler” kind of war where our troops take less hostile fire because the price is too high, and I don’t believe in the concept of a “civilian” in Middle Eastern fight.
So, bottom line, I have no issues with bombing Syria into the stone ages. However, I have real issues giving Barack Obama Congressional permission to do it.
I don’t find any constitutional restrictions that would stop Obama from launching a missile strike on Syria without ever mentioning it to the Congress. After all, the best President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, conducted a three day shooting war in Grenada with boots on the ground and didn’t mention it to the Congress.
My problem is with Mr. Obama, and I find the action he wants to undertake to be nothing more than an exercise in fecklessness. It’s his opportunity, as President of the United States, to vote “Present” and use “his” military to do it. This President (or should we refer to him as “Present”) is known for obfuscation and dalliance when it comes to decision making. Word is that Valarie Jarrett actually gave the “GO” on the bin Laden attack, he didn’t even bother with a briefing on Benghazi and he’s been waffling on this for over a year.
Continue Reading at JoeForAmerica.com