A serious question for Democrats on SyriaSubmitted by MichaelCollins on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 04:44
Leaders of the Democratic Party and their media side kicks are giving President Barack Obama a free ride on his proposal to attack Syria. Along with the Republican leadership, they're ignoring the strong opposition to any attack by citizens in both parties and independents.
The president's proposed military strike targets a government that has neither attacked nor threatened to attack us or our allies. Obama did so without any intent to get congressional approval and before any evidence was made public. He and the Secretary of State announced the attack without regard to clear international law which bars the unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations.
We are told, Trust me. I've made the decision.
Does this remind you of anyone? The president is Barack Obama but the words sound just like those of former President George W. Bush before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
During the Bush years, Democrats were up in arms about the doctored evidence behind the Iraq invasion and the rush to war. Bush must get congressional approval, they argued. He needs to justify any action through the full release of accurate, verified information. A few Democrats worked closely with conservative Republicans like former Representative Ron Paul to challenge the legality of the war given the lies used to justify it and prevailing international law. Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi went so far as to draft a legal brief for The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. The cry to impeach Bush was heard on a regular basis.
What are Democratic leaders and the media doing to stop the illegal attack on Syria?
Democratic leaders supporting the proposed attack on Syria are suffering from political amnesia. Democratic senators Barbara Boxer of California and Dick Durbin of Illinois had been harsh critics of the Bush invasion. On Wednesday, they both voted in favor of an attack on Syria in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, consistently identified with the liberal wing of the party, announced his support for the president's attack plan saying that he was "confident" that "we are going to make more robust our support for the Syrian opposition that is vetted [read, that is not Al Qaeda]."
Democratic media figures are soft selling the case against Obama's proposed military aggression. Chris Matthews speaks about the political harm to Democrats forced to vote with the president. Rachel Maddow advocates United Nations action but took the time to deride conservatives for an irrational dialog (she picked Rush Limbaugh as the spokesman for conservatives).
Where's the outrage?