Saturday, August 31, 2013

Breaking: Obama Will Seek Congressional Approval for Attack on Syria



The President from the Rose Garden:

"The U.S. should take military action in Syria."

"I will seek authorization for use of force from Congress."

"I am looking forward to the debate"


Reaction from "libertarian" Justin Amash:
@repjustinamash: Thank you, Mr President. 
Does this mean Amash will support an attack if Congress votes in favor of it?


Senate GOP leader "Hold Your Nose" McConnell:

"Pres’s role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress"


Prepare for massive propaganda.


Keep in mind what Daniel McAdams wrote last week:
What matters is that there is no grounds for the US to make war on Syria. It has not attacked us; it does not threaten us. On the contrary, by arming and training the jihadist rebels fighting against the Syria government, it is the US that is threatening Syria. It is the US that is the aggressor. It is the US government that through its actions opens the US to all manner of retaliation in response to its initiation of aggression in Syria and elsewhere.
A debate on weapons or a vote in Congress or the mad ravings of the neocons and humantiarian imperlalists means precisely nothing in light of this simple truth.


  1. Most importantly though, Obama said that while he will seek authorization he still believes he has the authority to use force--even if Congress rejects it.

  2. "Prepare for massive propaganda."

    You got that right!

  3. All comes down to if the Republicans will put aside their desire to tear a strip off Barry or cleave to the ancient line of party politics stopping at the waterline to fight a foreign war.

  4. Is it worth it to write to those scoundrels, the congressional representatives?

  5. I posted this comment over at DP:

    How did the peace candidate from 2007 become such a warmonger? Was he just lying to the voters to tell them what they wanted to hear, while secretly just coveting power? Or was he sincere and really wanted to end the wars?

    Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was sincere. How could someone change so much in a few years?

    Murray Rothbard had a theory that all billionaires are crazy, because they become surrounded with yes-men that tell them what they want to hear and that completely distort their view of reality.

    I think something similar works at the level of the presidency (besides just the corrupting effect of the power itself). Obama is surrounded by advisors that want the war for ideological or financial reasons. They keep chewing on his ears about why the war is a good idea, how it's the "right thing to do," and so on, while limiting his exposure to the opposing side. Over time, they just wear him down, like some kind of bottom-up brainwashing, until his reality sees no other option.

    What's the lesson? The same thing would, over time, happen to Rand.

    We need to change the system, rather than just focusing on putting the "right person" in charge.