“One of your closest allies in the House said yesterday, when you’ve got 97% of your Constituents saying no it’s kind of hard saying yes,” ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl told President Obama recently during a press conference at the conclusion of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
“Why should members of Congress go against the will of their constituents and support your decision on this?”
“Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it’s the right thing to do for America’s national security and the world’s national security. Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you’ve got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America.“
In other words, Obama is telling our Congress — the people duly elected by the citizens of the United States to represent them in their government — to vote for bombing Syria even if the American people are overwhelmingly against any military action whatsoever in Syria.
Although the president continues to campaign for what he says will be ‘limited’ strikes in Syria against specific Assad regime targets, the Pentagon has already expanded the strike list once ahead of this week’s vote in Congress, giving people even less faith in what seems like a half-cocked plan at best. For just one off a laundry list of examples, no one has yet discussed who would control the chemical weapons in Syria once the Assad regime has been ousted (*cough Al Qaeda cough*).
Other than “sending a message,” Obama has not really explained how striking Syria even supposedly limited targets is going to help anyone in Syria, rebels or civilians. In fact, the only thing Syrian rebels and the Assad regime have agreed on is that these strikes will not change anything.
The response to Assad’s regime supposedly using chemical weapons in an attack on Damascus August 21 has been puzzling to say the least. Obama has said a retaliatory U.S. strike on Syria is set and “will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now”; but if the red line really was crossed, why the delay in response leaving the door open for more chemical attacks? Obama’s delay here has been the equivalent of disciplining a dog for urinating on the carpet weeks after he did it.
On top of that, a new talking point has emerged that Obama/America cannot “look weak” on the whole Syria situation. Again, how is that a justifiable reason to bomb a country that has been at war for over two years and kill even more people?
Obama is well aware the majority of Americans do not support any military intervention in Syria. It’s despicable that he would resort to openly instructing Congress to defy their constituents’ will, betraying the very purpose of the representation they were voted into office to provide.
Worse, Correspondent Karl point blank asked the president what he would do if Congress did not end up voting to support him on Syria, and Obama flat out refused to answer him.
The president has already said he does not believe he needed to ask Congress first before striking Syria. The Constitution of the United States of America and a letter from 140 House representatives begs to differ.
Congress is set to vote on military intervention in Syria this week.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Melissa Dykes of The Daily Sheeple.
Melissa Dykes is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!