People demonstrate against a US-led strike on Syria in front of the White House in Washington on August 31
The implosion of the Obama Presidency Continues
The stage was set. The world waited for a week. Barack Obama was about to order a military strike against Syria for a chemical attack that John Kerry called a direct threat to US national security just two days ago. There was consensus within the administration. It was go-time.
Then, at the 11th hour, Barack Obama blinked.
After a week of insisting that he had the authority to unilaterally order a retributive attack against the Syrian regime for the use of chemical weapons against its own people, Obama did an abrupt about face and said Saturday he would now seek Congressional authorization for the strike.
Political brilliance – or political suicide? A strengthened president – or a weakened one? Newfound respect on the world stage – or further disrespect and humiliation? A safer world – or a more dangerous one?
These are the questions that pundits will ask [and answer, ad nauseum] after Obama played his latest chess move in an effort to extricate himself from a corner into which he and he alone painted himself by declaring a red line on chemical weapon use - which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad promptly crossed – most likely twice.
This is the irony of ironies. After a week which saw the British parliament vote down Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge to join Obama in a strike against Syria, and world opinion stack up overwhelmingly against the White House, a desperate president looked for a lifeline from the very body he has castigated, circumvented and blamed for all that ails America for nearly five years.
While the Democrat-controlled Senate is likely to side with the president and authorize an attack, approval by the Republican-controlled House is far from certain. Should the House also vote for authorization, Obama will be able to claim “shared responsibility” for the strike and its ultimate consequences.
Should the House vote to deny authorization, Obama could then claim that, like Cameron, he will abide by the will of the representatives of the American people [regardless of his continued insistence that he has the legal right to go it alone], and call it a day.
But Barack Obama is not David Cameron. More than likely, after having been thrown a political lifeline by a no-go vote in the House, Obama would then revert to “Obama” and castigate the House for doing so.
All this because the President of the United States wrote a check with his mouth that he never intended to cash.
No comments:
Post a Comment