as of today an unnamed but apparently highly placed into administration
official
is saying that the situation sir Syria has I moved past the point of no return
and you can expect at some point in the next few days possibly
while we're speaking some sort of attack will be launched on Syria we have
warships
off the coast of Syria right now the or drums are beating on both sides of the
aisle not some people are trying to pump the brakes
on Obama's use of military force and we will talk about that angle
but it looks right now is if there's basically nothing that can stop us
barring Russia
or china on the security council doing whatever they can to stop it those
negotiations still are ongoing
but we do look like we're going to have a conflict so what do you guys think
about that
I'll you know my some I we love the trains
okay and a when you get on the train where they say olive oyl word
and thats exactly where we are now the train is not left the station
but all aboard were about to go so you could tell we can guys
when all the pundits and all other congressmen senators ever on TV
came out in unison someone handed them a memo going
we're going and so I gotta in December issues with it
one is that it's a one time thing the syrians is John's about tells are
already clearing out
every semester we my bomb so it's quite well those drug test three we tell you
you know couple weeks in advance by the way we will be testing you star athlete
will
please make sure you get paid in these next couple weeks the onion had an
awesome headline today it was Obama is considering his option in Syria
but I'll yeah nothing about him a different things they could do better
yeah I guess I I think that you know if we actually do go through with this half
measure and that's essentially what is the half measures a really bad idea and
we have pay
up occurrences in the past that proves that it's a bad idea 1998 there were two
different strikes that we took
against I saddam hussein and
against a Osama bin Laden and in those books two cases
it turned out to be a complete and utter disaster right they
obviously the US thought that they were successful
however it did nothing to stop either one of those people like they still came
after the United States
if anything it cause more hostility toward the United States and at this
point in time Syria is not
a threat to the United States so why are we going to get involved
and carry out this half measure the reason why called a half measures
because there won't be boots on the ground I'm not even advocating for boots
on the ground but you know we're gonna watch the missiles and hope that it all
somehow did to her which are also hot it's not going to deter him
so I'm I'm against it I don't think we should get involved at all
I think the crazy thing here is this is completely unmasked Obama as some sort
of anti-war
or change the foreign policy America Got
because he is now going to not get authority from Congress
he's going to not get authority from the UN to things that he
attacked bush relentlessly for he already did it once in Libya
didn't get authorization from congress so he's
doing exactly what we expect from
our foreign policy except he's the guy we don't expect it from so this this is
a really sad moment for anyone it still believes
any the things that Obama said in 2007 and they've systematically been knocked
down one at a time
I mean this is this there's nothing left at this point with so I would overall
conclusion on which grocery or not but it depends its
related to two things just about to tell so tells the Syrian army's doing telling
us what
congress' do yes so as expected Syria is not simply going to wait patiently by
until the bombs are dropping
until they see a telltale like Drona signature on the radar I suppose
they are %uh started to evacuate military assets
leadership politically %uh the political leadership assets
we've got a message from the Abu I have a commander in the
Ansar al Islam rebel Brigade is this one other defected Syrian generals just
giving us information about the movement of their forces
he says to all intents and purposes the army's command control compounds have
been evacuated
before the threat of western strike they've been taking precautions by
working more for lower floors
in the last 48 hours they've been vacated we also have kind of an ominous
a a message from a resident love go far to say which is
a pretty high security area of Damascus but that the person said you can drop a
needle into farce it's a and here
and so they have done whatever they can to disperse their their political and
military assets
as we would have expected and as you predicted just last week
we have to imagine it also disperse their chemical weapons as well
and so God knows at this point where those aren't how they might be deployed
the future
right now and we're saying that we're not necessary gonna hit the chemical
weapons
we're just doing this is some say punitive measures
as the official word from Washington is accountability measures
okay so it's not necessarily like I'm gonna knock out their chemical weapons
is just that
says they use them and I made a big political think about a red line
that I gotta do something this is what I'm gonna do but doesn't show you why
Obama has been such a failure at this thing he created the
the red line and that helps we're giving them days to literally move all the bad
stuff we can detect chemical weapons because if they blow up a chemical
weapons depot
with a chemical weapons can be spread all over the place and we're now
allowing them to move people move assets
everything that's important that will eventually they'll be able to continue
the war with
warn Obama way months a building for a couple days I mean it really
it shows you the the lack of foresight the administration yeah but I think to
be here just to directly address that I i mean
it's certainly fair to say we're giving the morning and that's true
but we're also criticizing him for not interfacing enough with both the the
domestic political leadership and also with the UN
like me can't really have both those either attacks instantaneously well
forecasting what he's doing
or he does the diplomacy and we doing enough Louis mabel even probably
accurately so that in the end he's not going to require congressional
authorization or UN authorization
but they all are talking with the different members of the Security
Council
he has been he wrote a letter to Congress that he may not at in the end
actually care what they have to say
but that had this time that we've been expensive last few days has been spent
at least with the fake diplomacy if nothing else when it comes to Syria
there's a lot of debate about exactly what measures Obama can take
on his own or what measures he should wait for congressional approval
on and so at least 82 house members in this number has been going up throughout
the day
including at least 13 Democrats have site have written and signed a letter to
President Obama
basically saying that you be violating the constitution if you attack Syria
without their approval some %uh the text to them up the message that they sent to
Obama says
engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States
exists and without prior congressional authorization
would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the
constitution
and they got later go on to say that if you deem the military action in Syria is
necessary
congress can reconvene at your convenience and I just to put this in a
bit of historical context
for if we were to go back 2007 Brock Obama has previously talked about the
use
%uh unilateral executive power in waging war
he said then but the president does not have power
under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack
in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat
now he doesn't say
an actual or imminent threat to the United States
maybe that's the wiggle room that he has because it is an actual or imminent
threat to
I suppose the rebels and civilians Syria
art so first of all I have been vacillating on this issue for the entire
time with the Syrian civil war I think it's an incredibly hard issue
I think it's totally be a okay to be on either side of it is
and just last week I was saying I was 51 percent in favor
at taking some action against the rebels up but I have now reached a definitive
conclusion one day before the bombing begins
ok and I i partly do this because I don't like being a monday-morning
quarterback I like
you know talking about things before they happen so it's constructive
criticism what should we do
before we actually take action and so up
I I'm pain by what the site is done
and and I a you know you see the chemical has we've shown them you see
the kids their lifeless and
it just got ranching and center that's poor why I was a fifty-one percent
but I've concluded that we're going about this the wrong so number one
President Obama had all the time in the world class for congressional
authorization
and back when it was when he was not present in the want to criticize
President Bush
rightly so he said you absolutely need congressional authorization
now in Libya he didn't get it and I thought I was in favorability action
which put me at odds with a lot of progress in the country
but again there I thought why not get congressional authorization
a look I'm in favor the action but if Congress doesn't agree that apparently
the american people don't agree
said they live in a democracy series a perfect example of that
if the american people don't agree well sad day for me that I don't get to do my
position cuz
I'm at the King America I'm the press you know in his case I would be the
president the
American I need to go through what the Constitution demands
right and is just no excuse for because there is no imminent threat
good job no that's that's totally true let let me give that the opposite side
of it just just
before we did we continue debating at on this is a person a politician I don't
usually like to be on the same side of an issue with
we have Peter King you speaking about this issue on Fox News Wilson a.m.
has the right to act without authority that presents a gun that matter where
you are
president reagan did in grenada president eisenhower did and
lebanon as commander in chief he is the right to begin military actions now if
he's smart
he would certainly consult with the House and Senate leaders with the
members are beyond the year two top people Intelligence Committee the Armed
Services Committee
I the year part Affairs Committee but he doesn't happen as commander in chief I
believe strongly
the present has a constitutional right to carry this out so true true
definition 1
his right to do it per second and he'd be very smart and so the leadership
now we're told congress up no pickings a horrible guy but I think that he is
right in both areas if that
like it it's bad I think that the president has the established authority
to wage
some sort of a limited military conflict before then after within two months
having come back
under the war powers act but that is the the president has been set historically
and I don't see why
a democratic president should be held to some dis- different standard the
Republican president and I don't think that iraq
is a similar situation an invasion a ground invasion other country
is I think very different than air strikes okay but
if we if Canada was to lob rockets into
America I'm pretty sure we would all consider it an active war so
I would certainly understand if Siri or the international community thought
we parked a couple boats in the Mediterranean launched a couple cruise
missiles
I'm gonna go with an actor war on our so are our level up at the end
you know for the related to the Libya think Obama already did this one so
Peter King's right sure reagan did it but
that's not just the president there's a precedent in this administration which
is that Obama has already attacked
a country without question so that there goes my second point john i understand
what you're saying you're right we have been by leading fast you prefer all
these decades
I'd like to get back the following I don't think that it's not necessarily
violating the Constitution
I think that that in that area when you talk to in the constitution about him
being commander in chief
exactly what the balance is that our is something that is up for
philosophical and legal debate and i has been hundreds of your argument when you
make the argument that
you know Obama 10 act unilaterally without
dealing with congress at all if Syria poses and
it yet to the United States we're already seeing a quote that Barack Obama
said in 2007 now he's a constitutional scholar in some senses but he is not the
arbiter and we're really good about you know I'm I
say is simply because he said that is called does not mean that that is the
constitutional law barring the War Powers Act say it has to be an imminent
threat it's not Obama's words the actual war powers act the separation of powers
says that it has to be an imminent threat I have studied the war powers act
but it's been a number here so yeah
no sex just what he say yet no I understand that any is being a giant
immigrant about this is a
and by the way in in there a talk about this the white house is safe
know it's an imminent threat because it's a future for yeah know that would
be a future israeli on a minute 11 if
if anything it will become an imminent threat if you intervene if you get
involved in your launch missiles that's when it becomes imminent threat so
so let me go to the second point on on all on all the things you guys are
mentioning here
listen the if if we were not hypocritical
and we were consistent I would be in favor this and here's what I mean by
that
to go to the point over the Syrian Army clearing out all the building so they
don't have to worry about anything
I will after I had cleared it with the united states congress
and two are with our allies to the best of our abilities and he said that russia
and China my not sign on but I would lease want to get it
large percentage of the Arab League to sign on because we're going to their
backyard
et cetera and they have not right so is a significant problem with the coalition
and it's beginning to look by the Coalition of the Willing which we did
under
bush with iraq which was a disaster and Ajo right
so we don't have good international support either-or enough
international support in this case out but if we did
I would say look you desire here's our precedent that were laying down and use
the ruling that
if you use weapons of mass destruction we're gonna come get you we're gonna
build a coalition
we're gonna go through congress and once we've decided
we're not going to give you fair warning you use it we're going to hit you
okay and we're gonna hit you consistently it's not a one-time thing
we're not going to tell you were coming on Thursday OK so you can clear out the
building's
you're going to live in a state that you will put your civilians under which is
constant worry
when am I gonna get okay so that's a precedent that I would love
because I actually I'm more to ration is the most liberals in the most
progressives
aunts and certainly more than libertarians I believe that
you know its a good thing when we push for Human Rights also believe it's a
good thing when we protect civilians
for weapons of mass destruction is said oh how we have not in the past I just a
story this week
about how we gave saddam basically the green light to use chemical weapons
against the run
okay reagan did that you know any said ago Forza
Iran wedding was unacceptable right so we've been joined a group but
efforts about in the past doesn't mean we have to be in the future
now as we are doing this attack we're not doing any other
we having on the coalition we have a gun authorization from congress
and weird it indicating to them we're gonna come for only this limited time
you guys throughout the buildings
and what we're doing is we're lighting a match without good follow-up in good
strategy
and you don't know what happens when you light a match when you light a match you
have to be
inordinately careful doesn't mean you should want one okay
we have to be really careful so house here to counterattack for example they
could counterattack
in act two wars they've said by attacking me and NATO allies the second
largest
a army nato's turkey sitting right there next to them on their border
what if they saw watching bombs in a turkey and then turkey says I'm a NATO
ally I gotta go there hit me with bombs
US you gotta come with me now what are we gonna do now we have all this study
we need congressional authorization because it must be a war a perfect I
mean that's the problem that's the real problem they've already said Syria has
already said
we will attack Israel and Jordan if this happens will you do that
pretty sure they're gonna hit back and then that you've you've created dare I
say going back might be right
you really could create a slippery slope into World War three with this thing I
really believe it's that
catastrophic so I don't know if this is the max that light sapphire
by that fire is brewing in brewing in the Middle East
and I'm scared to death a bit so if you had really well thought out strategy
any a way to try to protect people long run and we've been sticking with it for
decades and we want to continue today
I would be in favor it but we're not stuck with it for decades we say we're
not gonna stick with it going forward
so then this is a really poorly thought out plan that I'm officially again