barack obama


As the rhetoric surrounding what the United States should do about Syria intensifies, I wonder what the President of the United States really thinks? Some have argued the President’s red-line comment awhile back is the reason the United States is now embroiled in this debate about war and peace. The fact is that as the President said, it was never his red line to begin with. The use of Chemical weapons have long been banned by the International community.

The modern use of chemical weapons began with World War I, when both sides to the conflict used poisonous gas to inflict agonizing suffering and to cause significant battlefield casualties. Such weapons basically consisted of well-known commercial chemicals put into standard munitions such as grenades and artillery shells. Chlorine, phosgene (a choking agent) and mustard gas (which inflicts painful burns on the skin) were among the chemicals used. The results were indiscriminate and often devastating. Nearly 100,000 deaths resulted. Since World War I, chemical weapons have caused more than one million casualties globally.

As a result of public outrage, the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare, was signed in 1925. While a welcome step, the Protocol had a number of significant shortcomings, including the fact that it did not prohibit the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons. Also problematic was the fact that many States that ratified the Protocol reserved the right to use prohibited weapons against States that were not party to the Protocol or as retaliation in kind if chemical weapons were used against them. Poison gasses were used during World War II in Nazi concentration camps and in Asia, although chemical weapons were not used on European battlefields.

Syria has never signed a global treaty banning the storage of chemical weapons and is believed to have large stocks of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agents. VX nerve agents.

This President is nobody’s fool, he is a smart deep thinking man. Like many presidents before him this president does not want to cede an inch of power to the Congress. Some would argue this is true because they like the power. I tend to lean toward the fact that Congress usually stand in the way of a President’s agenda. One of the many criticisms of President Obama is that he is not deeply engaged with Congress. I fail to grasp why he would, in light of the blanket obstructionist tactics of this Republican caucus.

Why then would President Obama punt the issue of  Syria’s alleged  use of Chemical weapons to this no-productive congress? I presume this President wants to make sure that there can be no legitimate argument made that he did nothing. At the same time he wants the brain-dead right-wing  nut jobs to duke it out and share in the consequences of inaction. Already there are more than enough reasons to believe that the regular obstructionists are not going to support any military action by this President against Syria. Remember these are the very same idiots who gave George Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq on fraudulent,  trumped-up allegations of weapons possession , not clear usage of banned Chemical weapons, what hypocrites!


Obama was elected because he was opposed to war. That opposition separated him from Hillary Clinton who was far more hawkish in her rhetoric and with her vote as a member of the Senate. Since then Obama as ended the Iraq war and significantly reduced America’s foot-prints in Afghanistan. Is it logical to believe Obama does not want war? Is it out of the realm of possibilities he doesn’t want to be the guy who watched and did nothing as Syria used chemical weapons on its own population? Is it logical to assume no America President want to cede any authority to the legislative branch?

If the above is true , can we then conclude that Obama brilliantly punted the Syria hot potato to the do nothing Congress? Can we assume Obama wanted to  expose  the dysfunctional  Congress , while he wages a parallel campaign for action, using Kerry and Hagel? I don’t know about you but I say brilliant and ingenious, once again the moronic Republicans are left looking as stupid as they have always been. Whether you support America’s military intervention into yet another Middle eastern nation is important to debate. What is blatantly obvious is the hypocrisy of the Right in this country when it comes to America’s vital interest. Politics and race trumps everything.

One thought on “Why Did Obama Punt Syria To Congress?

  1. Mike , I share your view on this issue . You were right on point in many respect . Now lets see how the Republicans respond .

Comments are closed.