Kerry says that he and the President are not asking Congress for permission to go to war. They’re just wanting to execute a “limited action.” A surgical strike. With cruise missiles. But that is not war in the “classic sense” of the word. I guess it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
Kerry promises that not “one American troop” will be sent to war. Well, unless chemical weapons end up in the “wrong hands,” in which case the Obama administration wouldn’t remove the option of sending in American troops to destabilize stabilize the region.
At the Foreign Senate Relations Committee, Senator Rand Paul was able to question Secretary of State Kerry about the prospects and Constitutionality of launching a war with Syria. But Kerry said that what they’re wanting to do isn’t war, per se:
“We don’t want to go to war. We don’t believe we are going to go war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to war. The president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. It’s a limited action. It’s limited… Senator, when people are asked do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans will say no, we say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. It is not what we are here to ask. The President it is not asking you to go to war. He is not asking you to declare war. He is not asking you to send one American troop to war… He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that… Ya know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That is not what the president is asking for here.”
OK, so if Syria launched a couple cruise missiles at the Capitol building in D.C., that wouldn’t be an “act of war” per se, right Kerry? I mean, it’s not like they’d have Syrian boots on the ground here in the U.S. They’d be executing a “surgical strike.” No reason to retaliate in that case since it’s not an act of war in the “classic sense.” Just like Pearl Harbor wasn’t an “act of war” either.
Of course a strike on Syria would constitute an act of war. The Obama administration is itching to go to war, but they don’t want to ask Congress’s permission for fear that they might vote them down, so to get around that, they’re not going to call it a war. It’s more like an “overseas contingency operation” or a “humanitarian mission.”
Another thing. Kerry also stated that they’d consider sending in American troops if the chemical weapons ended up in the “wrong hands.” Well, that’s already happened. The evidence shows that it was the terrorist groups, notably al-Nusra Front, that were behind the attacks. They even proudly admitted they were behind them. Even the State Department acknowledged that these militant groups have been behind some 600 terrorist attacks in Syria over the past 2 years. But Assad is still “Hitler.”
I don’t care what Kerry says about how there’s “no question” Assad used sarin gas on his own people. Keep telling yourself that, Secretary. I’m sure if you say it over and over again, eventually even you will begin to believe your own lies.