Tuesday night, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered the response to President Obama’s nationally televised speech on his Syrian foreign policy plan.
In his address, Senator Paul (shown) struck a very pro-American tone, using logic, the rule of law, and the Constitution to present a powerful refutation of the president’s plan for military intervention in the Syrian civil war. From the opening line, in fact, the presumptive 2016 presidential candidate pummeled the president, exposing the inconsistencies in his as yet unexplained choice of Syrian allies.
“Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaeda, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaeda, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaeda,” Paul said.
Despite establishment attempts to downplay the presence of al-Qaeda in the leadership of Syrian resistance, the evidence is overwhelming and has been reported widely.
In August of 2012, to begin with, Reuters published an article detailing a secret order signed by President Obama providing support to Syrian rebel forces opposing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Reuters wrote, “Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad's opponents.”
The next day, The New American’s Alex Newman covered the same story, writing,
Western governments, brutal Sunni-Arab dictatorships, an assortment of terror groups including al-Qaeda, and other powerful interests have all been backing the uprising since long before violence even broke out last year.
Later that same day, in a story covering the violence of the Syrian uprising, the BBC reported:
The al-Qaeda-styled group in Syria is Jabhat al-Nusra li-Ahl al-Sham (the Front for the Protection of the Syrian People).
Like other al-Qaeda affiliated groups, al-Nusra's statements and videos are usually issued by its own media group, al-Manara al-Baida (the White Minaret) in Syria.
Al-Nusra has claimed responsibility for several attacks against the Syrian army, security and shabiha (state-sponsored thugs) since it announced its formation early this year.
Finally, under a headline reading "Al-Qaida turns tide for rebels in battle for eastern Syria,” the Guardian (U.K.) reported:
They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs [improvised explosive devices].
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
These disturbing associations of al-Qaeda with the Syrian “resistance” and of our own government with the very organization that is accused of killing thousands of our citizens on our own soil should be enough to put an immediate halt to talk of placing our own military at the disposal of the very people so many members of our armed forces have died trying to eliminate.
President Obama’s policy prefers expansion of the American empire over punishment of the people he and his predecessor believe bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a dozen years ago.
What’s more telling, though, is the lengths that his lackeys go to to deny the rebels’ damning connections to terror.
Next, Paul landed a solid shot right on the chin of the president’s (and his water carriers' in both parties) push to bring stability to Syria by launching Tomahawk missiles at its people. This time, the atrocities committed on Christians by our would-be allies were highlighted by the first-term senator.
“Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians,” Paul reminded viewers.
Read the report on the brutality of those recipients of President’s Obama’s beneficence as filed by The New American’s Alex Newman:
One of the most shocking revelations in recent days was video footage of rebels brazenly perpetrating war crimes and murder. The film, smuggled out of Syria by a former opposition fighter disillusioned with rebel brutality, promptly made waves around the world. Also sparking alarm was news that al-Qaeda-linked opposition forces had seized control of an ancient Christian town. The “rebels” reportedly burned down and looted churches while killing and terrorizing local Christians, ordering them to convert to Islam or die, following a long pattern of atrocities aimed at Christians.
Separately, pictures posted on Facebook feature the rebels sporting black al-Qaeda flags and heavy weaponry — much of it probably provided with U.S. assistance. Analysts said the troubling images offer more insight into the jihadist opposition and its long-term aims.
There’s more than the despicable behavior of the forces fighting the Assad government, however, that makes the establishment’s effort to deputize al-Qaeda in the posse chasing, well, al-Qaeda indefensible.
Paul said, “There is no clearly defined mission in Syria, no clearly defined American interest. In fact, the Obama Administration has specifically stated that ‘no military solution’ exists. They have said the war will be ‘unbelievably small and limited.’”
Unbelievably small and limited more accurately describes the dedication of President Obama, Secretary John Kerry, and their cohorts on Capitol Hill to their oaths of office and to the core principles of liberty and the rule of law upon which this Republic was founded.
With regard to the “no boots on the ground” mantra chanted by the high priests of global war, even Secretary Kerry admitted that if President Assad’s chemical weapons cache could not be contained, then a provision of the authorization of the use of military force in Syria would be triggered, providing for the deployment of 75,000 American troops to Damascus. If the White House is to be believed, then, these soldiers would be wearing something other than the standard issue combat boot.
Commenting on the Russian peace proposal, Senator Paul ascribed it not to Obama’s bravado, but to the determination of the American people to not wage another Middle Eastern war.
The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details.
But one thing is for certain: The chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today.
The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said "slow down" allowed this possible solution to take shape.
Finally, Senator Paul delivered the haymaker, tag-teaming with James Madison to drop the president’s justification for war mongering to the constitutional canvas:
The President maintains that he still has the power to initiate war. This is untrue. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. James Madison wrote that the "Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore the Constitution, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in the legislature."
All that remains to be seen is whether the president and the war party will accede to the will of the people and their representatives now that the inconvenient truth of the president’s proposed allies' ties to terror has been broadcast.