Monday, September 9, 2013

Monday, September 9, 2013

Syria Week In Washington 

As Congress returns to Washington this week, the headlines will be dominated by Syria. Today, Obama is pushing his Syrian strike plans in media interviews with ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, Fox News and NBC. 

Tomorrow, he will address the nation from the White House. Some believe he will make the case for military intervention in Syria by raising the threat from Iran and suggesting that he is defending Israel. It is hard to see how that would be credible given his visceral disdain for Israel and his appeasement of Iran. 

Meanwhile, the appeal being made behind the scenes to congressional liberals has very little to do with Israel. Instead, it may be about raw politics. Liberals on Capitol Hill are being warned that if Obama loses this vote, his presidency and his entire agenda could be mortally damaged. 

Washington Post columnist Colby King said: "A defeat of this magnitude would diminish his presidency -- not just the legislative agenda he has, but his presidency domestically and internationally. … There's no fallback position... his administration has got to see this as the most urgent, most urgent task in front of them." 

But just when Obama needs them most, he is being confronted by yet another problem of his own making -- Obama has not maintained good relationships on Capitol Hill, even with members of his own party. 

According to one media analysis, a solid majority of 230 House members are on the record as either against or leaning against a resolution authorizing the use of force. John Harwood of the New York Times predicts that if Obama wins the vote in the Senate, he may act anyway without approval from the House of Representatives. 

Last week, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) suggested that Obama could face impeachment charges if he strikes Syria without congressional approval. There would certainly be disagreement among legal scholars as to whether such a strike would qualify as an impeachable offense, especially if the Senate (which ultimately removes the president in impeachment proceedings) approved the action. 

But this would be clear: Obama has already done much to strain our political system with his disdain for the other co-equal branches of government. If, after pledging to seek congressional approval, Obama breaks his promise to do so, he would further damage the American compact, undermining what little comity remains in our political discourse. 

Conservatives Should Be Ready For Obama Attack 

Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, makes a compelling political argument that the "risky" vote for congressional conservatives is actually to oppose the resolution authorizing Obama to strike Syria. 

Suppose Congress votes the resolution down, and next month Assad uses poison gas to kill 25,000 people. Kristol argues that the Obama Administration and its media allies would lay these deaths at the feet of every conservative member of Congress who refused to stand with the president on punishing Assad now. 

Conservatives could avoid that danger by being very clear about the reason why they are opposing Obama -- which is that his foreign policy in the Middle East is a disaster and has done nothing but aid Islamists. 

Kerry's "Unbelievably Small" Message 

As Obama returned from Russia, Secretary of State John Kerry was dispatched to Europe to rally our allies. Speaking in Paris over the weekend, Kerry warned that Syria was our "Munich moment," referring to the 1938 debacle in which European powers surrendered Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler.

But today, during a press conference with his British counterpart, Foreign Secretary William Hague, Kerry said the following about U.S. strikes against Syria: 
 

  • "We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable … in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing -- unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

Kerry's comment completely undermines Obama's argument that our effort will hold Assad accountable and dissuade him from using weapons of mass destruction in the future. In fact, I would argue that a "small" surgical strike actually increases the likelihood that Assad will use such weapons again. 

How can we credibly respond to a "Munich moment" with an "unbelievably small, limited effort"? If this is such a defining moment, small efforts won't cut it. No wonder so many are so skeptical about Obama's leadership and resolve. He is advocating another politically correct war -- the kind of war we never win. 

Speaking Of Skeptical… 

In the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, the Obama White House dispatched then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to go on all the major talk shows and mislead or lie to the American people about the cause of the attack. Despite all the intelligence pointing to a terrorist attack, Rice insisted the cause was a movie no one had heard of.

Adding insult to injury, Obama promoted her to White House National Security Advisor even after it became obvious to everyone that Rice had misled the country. 

So as we approach the first anniversary of the atrocities in Benghazi, guess who the White House is sending out to make its case on Syria? That's right -- Susan Rice!

It is impossible to think of a person inside this administration with less credibility to make the case to a skeptical public for attacking Syria than Susan Rice. 

Obama & The Decline Of America 

Norman Podhoretz is a first-rate conservative intellectual. He is a "neo-con" who was also among the first to support and advise Ronald Reagan. He has written a column suggesting that America is facing a historic decline in power and influence, and that it is by design an intentional result of Obama's policies. You can read his column here. 

Many of you have indicated that you feel the same way. That might not be terribly surprising coming from committed conservative activists. But it is surprising when an intellectual like Podhoretz decides to state it publicly on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.