This afternoon, in a bipartisan 10-7 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution granting Obama supposedly limited authority to conduct military strikes on Syria.
Three Republicans (John McCain of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jeff Flake of Arizona) joined seven Democrats in backing the measure, while two Democrats (Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut) opposed it along with five other Republicans.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama’s war against Syria despite the fact that:
1. There is compelling evidence that the Obama regime lied to us about the August 21 chemical attack that reportedly killed 1,429 Syrians outside of Damascus. Those lies include (see “Article cited by Limbaugh on Syrian chemical attack being a U.S. false flag“):
- The identity of the chemical attack perpetrators being the Syrian al-Qaeda rebels instead of the Assad regime.
- Obama regime having foreknowledge of the August 21 attack.
- U.S. intelligence agents telling — and arming — the rebels to prepare for a major game-changing development that will result in U.S. bombing of Syria and the toppling of the Assad regime.
2. Whatever evidence we have indicate that members of U.S. armed forces oppose this war (see “U.S. soldiers in open rebellion against Obama’s war in Syria“).
3. A majority of the American people oppose this war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, conducted last Wednesday through Sunday (Aug. 18-Sept.1) as the Obama regime made its public case for military strikes. The poll found that:
- Nearly 6 in 10 U.S. adults oppose missile strikes.
- Democrats and Republicans alike oppose strikes by double digit margins.
- There is deep opposition among every political and demographic group in the survey, with political independents the most clearly opposed.
Even worse, although Obama and John Kerry repeatedly said a U.S. intervention will not include “boots on the ground” but will be confined to air strikes, the Washington Times reports that analysts and lawmakers said the language of the Senate’s Syria resolution or Authorization for the Use of Military Force, contains plenty of holes the White House could use to expand military action well beyond what Congress intends.
In fact, an effort by Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) to specifically limit attacks to naval or air power outside Syria was defeated overwhelmingly.
The resolution still prohibits “combat troops” from being deployed, but analysts said that still leaves open room for other American troops to be used in Syria, either as special forces or search and rescue missions.
The resolution drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez and Bob Corker, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, grants Obama power “to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria” — but only in relation to that nation’s weapons of mass destruction. The resolution puts a 60-day limit on Obama’s ability to conduct strikes, while allowing him one 30-day extension of that authority.
Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and a veteran of four decades of studying legislation for the Congressional Research Service, asks “What could possibly be the meaning of ‘limited and tailored?’ I doubt if I’ve ever seen the word ‘tailored’ in a bill. Even if the ‘intent’ of Congress is a limited war, war has its own momentum.” As an example, Fisher points to the 1964 resolution that authorized a limited response to the Gulf of Tonkin, but that ended up being the start of an escalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.
Now the resolution goes to the House of Representatives.
Tell your representative to vote against the resolution!!!!
To find out how to contact your representatives, click here.