Despite Obama’s infuriating incompetence and the irresponsible leaking and the weak-kneed hedging and the endless equivocating, despite the ridiculous disavowal of regime change when he has previously called for regime change, and when regime change is the only serious way to deter prospective users of chemical weapons; his failure to articulate an easily articulated American nations interest in punishing and indeed removing Assad, it would be disastrous for an American president to back off form the just and necessary use of military force when he has threatened it and prepared for it. The American left as Harvey Mansfield has put it, “has become hardly more than a trembling in the presence of illiberalism.” So here is one of Israel’s most prominent columnist-left wing journalist—“the end of the world is starting in Damascus.” “If civilians can be gassed to death in 2013 we face the end of the world that purports to be moral and enlightened. No decent person can ignore what’s happening. What is supposed to be an enlightened world cannot remain silent. It’s the end of the world that purports to be moral; it’s the end of the world that sought to establish a reasonable international order of which the Middle East would be part. Its time to break free of the moral relativism, multicultural hypocrisy and political correctness that prevent us form seeing our evil neighbor as it really is . a terrible warning siren is being sounded in Damascus., do we hear it. Does the world hear it? Does Obama hear it? Another one of Obama speeches—“we are not only citizens of American or Germany—we are also citizens of the world. And our fates and fortunes are lined like never before.” Nowhere did he mention Syria. Obama had talked much but done nothing. One might conclude from Obama’s inaction that those who do nothing but talk about how they are citizens of the world tend to lack the courage to come to the aid of their fellow citizens of the world.

Source—weekly standard, Haaretz

The case boils down to this: yes vote may be problematic in all kinds of ways, a No vote would likely be disastrous for the nation in very clears ways. Statesmanship requires choosing the problematic over the disastrous. This is a chance for the republicans who want to cast a broader vote of no confidence in Obama conduct on foreign policy. But using this resolution to cast a vote o f no confidence against Obama would empower those abroad making the case against placing confidence in the USA. A party that for al leat=st two generations has held high the banner of American leadership and strength should not cast a vote that obviously risks a damaging erosion of this country’s stature and creditability abroad. They believe perhaps correctly that Obama has cynically thrown his ball into the lap of congress in order to get republicans fingerprints on an action that many not succeed. The politically prudent vote is NO. A yes vote is in fact the easy vote. It’s actually close to risk-free. Obama who is seeking the authorization to use force and who will order and preside over the use of force, its fundamentally his policy. A no vote is risky vote; only thing that can get Obama off the hook is for republicans to deny him authorization for the use of force against the Assad regime. Then the GOP can be blamed for whatever goes wrong. Casting a “tough” political vote is a way for members of congress to appear to be rising above mere party policies.
Sources-weekly standard,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s