Developments on Syria

A reporter asked Secretary of State John Kerry if Syria could do anything to avoid getting attacked.  Off the cuff, Kerry said, sure, get rid of their chemical weapons.  Whereupon the Russian foreign minister seized on the idea, turning it into a proposal.  Whereupon the Syrian foreign minister indicated that the country might be open to that.  Now the rest of the world and much of Congress is rallying around that possibility.  Do you think this proposal is a way out or a delaying tactic?  A diplomatic breakthrough or a Russian ploy to keep Assad in power?

Meanwhile, President Obama will address the nation tonight at 9:00 ET, after a day packed with TV interviews, all in an effort to persuade Americans to persuade their Congressional representatives to let him attack Syria.  I can’t watch the speech, but if you do, live blog it here.  We’ll discuss it tomorrow.

UPDATE:  Syria says it will accept the Russian proposal.  President Obama is revising his speech accordingly.

[Read more...]

“Pontification, Prevarication and Postponement”

Foreign affairs columnist Anne Applebaum (who is not a conservative) on our current international relations debacle:

The central problem of the Obama administration’s Syria policy is not that the president has failed to use military force but that both the president and his top officials have implied that they might use force, then backed away, then once again picked up the rhetoric. To put it bluntly, President Obama has also failed to understand the ways in which an American president’s words will be interpreted around the world. [Read more...]

Coalition of the Unwilling, so U.S. will act alone

The British parliament voted not to attack Syria over the alleged chemical attacks.  France and Germany have decided not to act without the UN Security Council finishing its investigation.  These countries were the first ones to raise the red flag against Syria, but now they are backing off.

But President Obama, who, unlike the British Prime Minister, is not taking the issue to the legislative body that is supposed to approve such action, is saying that the United States will act alone. [Read more...]

Rule of Law vs. Rule by Decree

We have discussed the president’s bad habit of ignoring or even altering laws that he finds inconvenient.  Charles Krauthammer catalogs just how many times and to what extent he and his administration have done this. [Read more...]

When the president does it, it’s not illegal

Those who oppose Obamacare may well be glad that the President keeps delaying the implementation of parts of the law (namely, the employer mandate and the limits on out-of-pocket expenses).  But there is a deeper issue:  The law says that these measures are to go into effect in 2014.  But now the President says, “no they won’t.”  By what authority can the President just change a Constitutionally-enacted law?

George Will says that the President’s increasing habit of by-passing Congress, ignoring laws, and legislating by Executive fiat is an example of the flagrantly unconstitutional principle affirmed by Richard Nixon :  “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” [Read more...]

Obama is pro-fracking

Evidently, President Obama is not in complete thrall to environmentalists.  He has said that he supports “fracking,” the technique of pumping in liquid to fracture geological formations that is unlocking vast quantities of natural gas. [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X