"The President Does Not Have The Power..." - Unless You're Barack Obama

The United States has apparently determined that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad has deployed chemical weapons against civilians in his country.  A few months ago, President Obama announced to the world that if Assad crossed "the red line" and used chemical weapons "it would be a game changer."

Many Democrats, including the Vice President, have said that Obama can and should mount a cruise missile attack on Syria even without Congressional approval.  One Democrat politician even said Obama should notify Congress - but after the fact.  It seems people's minds change when they are the ones in power.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in 'instances of self-defense.'”

“The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Senator Joe Biden said in 2007.  Biden, then a Democratic senator from Delaware, suggested presidential war-making was an impeachable offense. “Given this,” Biden said at the time, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.

I find it interesting that Obama and Biden said unilateral action by the President without Congressional approval is not only wrong but possibly an impeachable offense...  until they are the ones in the White House.  The President has already used military force (in Libya) without Congressional approval and he is now considering doing it again in Syria - despite the fact that he condemned his predecessor for it.  Welcome to hypocrite politics.

And speaking of Syria, the other night on "The O'Reilly Factor," two of Bill's guests were retired Colonel David Hunt and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, both military warfare experts.  O'Reilly was telling them why he thought President Obama should intervene in Syria with a strategic cruise missile attack.  Both Hunt and Peters told Bill, in their professional (and very experienced) opinions, that he was wrong; that the President, at this point, should stay out of it.  Both basically said that assisting the Al Qaeda backed rebels against Assad would be a huge mistake.  

I like O'Reilly and though I disagree with him on many things, I enjoy his show. But I had to laugh at him when he told both Colonel Hunt and Lt. Colonel Peters that they, the experts, were wrong.  Maybe he only did it for shock value to keep his ratings up or maybe he truly believes he knows more about military strategy than the experts he invites to the show - I don't know.  But it was pretty funny and kind of pathetic.

Whatever Obama does in Syria one side is going to fault him.  With several other Islamic nations threatening to attack Israel should the USA attack Syria, and with Russia and China backing Assad, it's a huge decision that shouldn't be made just because the President drew a line in the sand and now doesn't want to lose face. What he needs to seriously ask himself is "Is it worth the risk of World War III?" Given the instability of the region and the fanatical Islamic groups that are active in this Syrian conflict (Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc.) - it's something he seriously needs to consider.