Obama ‘allows’ Congress a vote on Syrian attack. The word ‘dictator’ springs to mind.

The most disturbing part of Obama’s speech is this: where he crosses the line which defines the speech of a President versus that of an authoritarian dictator:

“I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I’ve made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.” 

“Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

Yes, you heard that right: Obama stated that he has already declared war on his own, but as a benevolent dictator – he will allow Congress to vote on war, also known in politically correct speak as the “authorization of force”.

And then there’s Obama the internationalist. He continued his long-running audition for the role of global president: “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community:  What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” 

The stretch continues, as Obama inflates the importance of an alleged attack in Damascus, equating it to genocide and nuclear arms deployment, still with no real evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on its own people, other than innuendo, You Tube videos and politically sexed-up ‘intelligence’:

“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?”

Genocide, nuclear arms, flouting international rules? He could easily be referring to Israel, or even the US there. No bother. The dictator has spoken and put the Syrian government – and the Middle East, on warning.

Obama then went on to establish his unilateral position, claiming: 

“I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.”  

Like John Kerry before him, Obama has already coolly written off the UN as irrelevant in his decision for military force, much the same way George W. Bush did in 2003 when they famously dared the U.N. Security Council to authorize military force or become an “ineffective, irrelevant debating society.” 

The big difference between then and now, if that the geopolitical chessboard is much tighter after the US and British colonial escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan. As with the domestic political telegraphing, Obama has also given away his position early on with regards to diplomacy within the U.N.  framework by essentially ignoring it. This would have worked in 2003, but today power players in Washington clearly have not fully considered the rise of Russia and China as major players in international affairs. US attempts to isolate Russia and China over a U.N. vote over intervention in Syria may not go as smoothly as planned, and therein lies the danger of this President’s current exposed position. A lot can happen in 9 days. 

Patrick Henningsen extract.  full article below.


The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.