The proposed attack by Obama on the Syrian regime has always fallen into three distinct areas of concern; legal, factual and political.
Claims of Syrian government use of lethal gas against Syrian citizens have been going around for months. At least 40 attacks, we’re told. But nothing was done because there were no fingerprints. No proof. No smoking gun. The Administration couldn’t be sure….it could condemn Assad. All other possible perps were automatically ruled out.
Then suddenly, a few days ago, 1300 Syrians were gassed to death, including 400 children, and also just as suddenly, we had proof positive it was the Assad regime who did the dirty deed.
Slam-dunk proof, if I recall.
The Settled Legal Issue
Thus began a 9-day march by Obama up to the border of Syria, missiles at the ready, launch codes set. Stalwart, firm, and irresolute, the jutted chin of resolve. (By God) And Congress stood mute. Obama proclaimed he didn’t need Congress’ permission. (which he does) but Congress seemed willing to let the matter go forward on his word alone…until four days ago.
No one is certain what happened to stall Obama’s train (wreck) but it’s thought the British vote in Parliament not to join Obama in this attack was the big kicker, for not only were the Brits “tired of war” but there were loud whispers in London that there was doubt that the factual basis for the attack, i.e, Assad’s responsibility, was actually true. (Unlike the American media and Congress, the Brits are absolute fiends for little details like “facts”.)
What Obama did next has never been done in the history of American diplomacy or warfare. He did an about-face, and retreated. Why, I can’t say. Maybe he knew there was truth in the British whispers. Maybe they didn’t really have Assad dead to rights after all. Maybe Kerry even knew this as well. Or maybe Obama was covering up an even darker connection to those weapons in Syria. Or maybe Obama just went all wobbly (always likely).
But Obama decided to clear up the legal issue, and offered to ask Congress for a vote, delaying the “when” part of “not if, but when” of an attack in Syria at least another week when Congress reconvenes. It’s suddenly important to Obama that he appear legal, and while I don’t believe that for a second, it is important to me that he be legal. An act of war, even if based on wrong evidence, must still be legal.
We’re is that week-long process now, so pay attention, for Kerry is better than Jay Leno when he’s trying to do “brahminese” straight-faced. And this can all still unravel, if, as Kerry says the president can do, Obama launches an attack after Congress has refused to sanction it. (I think two generals, maybe three, lost their jobs over Benghazi, so look for even more if Obama tries that stunt. Or worse.)
The Unsettled Fact Issue
Remarkably, just as the “facts” surrounding this claim of Assad’s guilt become a little more murky, Congressional leaders, including, sad to say, the Republican House constabulary, have rushed out to embrace Obama’s bombing plans. Why, I can’t say, unless CYA is ever on their minds. But Booshway to timid souls.
Enter Vlad “the Impaler” Putin, with another twist to the facts and the law.
Putin asserts that any attack on Syria by the US will be illegal internationally unless the UN sanctions it. And Vlad also says he will even support such an attack “if it can be proved” that those gas attacks did in fact occur at the hands of Assad and not some other party. (Which means, as every good lawyer knows, he already knows the answer to his question.)
You may ask, isn’t this the sort of gauntlet George W Bush faced when he sent Colin Powell up to the UN, loaded down with irrefutable evidence from the CIA and British intelligence sources about WMD’s in Irag in 2003?
Well, actually not quite, for Powell made a factual presentation, but was uncontested with any offer of contrary evidence. And he faced no threat of a veto by Russia (who voted for the 2003 resolution because they knew what Powell stated about WMD’s was true, even as Powell himself doesn’t believe it to this day.)
Putin has in effect asked for a trial, a real-fact finder, where the world’s public will be asked to weigh evidence presented not only by Kerry, accusing Assad of high crimes, but by the Russians, defending Assad, at least on this tiny narrow issue of factual truth; namely that others in Syria besides Assad both had access to lethal gas and the ability to deliver it.
So, Putin has suggested a review of factual truth, not political truth, not ideological truth, things the American media, the Democrat Party and the McCain wing of the GOP can screen out of any managed presentation in Congress. Even if we have to watch it on Al Jazeera, the American public will finally be able to see all the evidence laid out in one place.
Obama has been out-lawyered, but also so it seems, has the Republican leadership been up-staged.
Don’t look for a Perry Mason or Matlock-like presentation of evidence, for all evidence will be hearsay by our standards. Still, there will be evidence to weigh on both sides, which we have yet to see offered by Obama. And don’t look for a “beyond a reasonable doubt” verdict. Being a political forum where at least 40% of the General Assembly, and at least two members of the Security Council wouldn’t agree to the chemical composition of air unless you slipped them a C-note. one could never hope for a unanimous verdict.
But do look for reasonable doubt, and the world will then know the relative weakness of the “slam dunk” claim Kerry has submitted to the American people via his very compliant press.
Now why Obama made this journey into international incoherence in the first place is anyone’s guess. I don’t think it’s his policy all alone, and I smell the Playskool Foreign Relations Kit Samantha Powers carries around, but there could be a much darker involvements involved here, which I’ll discuss at a later time. Just suffice it to say that Obama “hoped his audacity” would bowl all the opposition over, but then that old Churchill chicken came home to roost from London. And it snowballed from there, for Putin never passed by a drunk lying in the snow without stopping and stooping to lift his wallet.
Putin did not put Obama into this position, Obama put Putin into his.
If you think I’m happy, I’m not. For one, what is Vlad Putin doing asking questions the Republican leadership should be asking? (Hats off to Rand Paul for not being as part of it.)
I’m just an ordinary guy, but I’ve been asking these same questions for months. You don’t have to hang out in a Beirut chaikana (tea house) and not know the rebels had access to lethal gas. Why did Omar the camel-driver know this, and you didn’t, Congressman Boehner?
Or if you did, why did you go along with Obama’s anyway?
