Not to be messed with by allaboutgeorge
CNN photo of President Obama under the headline Obama, "U.S. Not To Be Messed With"
Unable to achieve a "coalition of the willing" with the British Parliament yesterday nixing Prime Minister David Cameron's plea for Britain to join the U.S. in attacking Syria, the White House says, "Obama can act alone".
What the "legal" basis for this latest misadventure by the U.S. government is simply : The President can do it. What else is there?
White House spokesmen have said he doesn't have to go to Congress, the U.N. Security Council is certain to veto the idea and besides "it's too late" as far as waiting for the U.N. chemical inspectors to give their report on the alleged gas attacks in Syria nine days ago.
Besides the British Parliament some 200 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in a rare bi-partisan showing want the president to present his case to the Congress before taking any action on Syria.
And according to accounts by a few high ranking retired military officers as well as some active duty officers, all have expressed skepticism of what would be the end game of a missile attack on Syria with deep concerns of what surely will be unintended consequences spurred by such an attack.
Of course the specter of the Bush administrations false account of Iraq's Saddam Hussein having WMD in 2003 weighed heavily in the British Parliament's decision and presumably behind the 200 members of the House being skeptical of the administrations plans to attack.
Even the American people in polls are overwhelmingly against a U.S. attack on Syria, they too remembering the charade given by Colin Powell at the U.N. in February, 2003 presenting "incontrovertible" evidence of Iraq's WMD, (which of course was proven to be a total fabrication).
Supposedly the Obama administration has "incontrovertible" evidence of Basher Assad being responsible for the gas attack last week.
However, no such "evidence" has been made public, just some allegations presented to a few Congressional leaders and even that was reportedly not the "smoking gun" leaving no doubt Assad authorized the attack.
So now we get "the president can act alone" in authorizing an attack on Syria. But it would be an illegal, reprehensible, un-Constitutional act of aggression and a crime against humanity against a country that has not attacked the U.S. or is an imminent threat to do so, (the ONLY legal basis to go to war).
If Obama does authorize a missile attack on Syria, this could be his "Waterloo" moment. With Democrats in the White House going all the way back to Lyndon Johnson and Viet Nam, the rationale for taking aggressive action has been fear of an attack by Republican right wingers. That continues with likes of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham but now include the unhinged neo-conservative crazies pushing for regime change in Syria with Iran next on their agenda.
And let's not forget the Israeli government in this Syrian imbroglio. It is their "intelligence" on Assad's chemical weapons that the White House is purportedly trotting out as the basis for an attack on Syria. Throw in Israel's obsession with Iran developing a nuclear capability (and Syria being its primary ally along with Russia) and voila a new unnecessary war is on the near horizon with "unforeseeable consequences" sure to result.
From here it's reminiscent of the alliances of antagonists in 1914 before the onset of W.W. I. Think that probability is too much of a stretch; think again.