The CFR is the Devil in The Details of War

Yesterday CFR President Richad Haass tweeted :

Lindsey 2

I clicked the link to review the thoughtful commentary. Lindsay’s “thoughtful commentary” tells us that CFR members Presidents Bill Clinton and HW Bush took us to war without congress and implies it is the Presidents right to do so. Missing from Lindsay’s “thoughtful commentary” is any mention of the Council on Foreign Relations role in taking our nation to war. I wrote a comment to Lindsay’s article and submitted it at 2:17 pm September 1st. A note appeared saying Your comment is awaiting moderation. It is now 7:46PM September 2nd and my comment is still awaiting moderation.

The article and comment follow. BTW James M. Lindsey doesn’t seem to like my comments on twitter and blocked me long ago.

Obama Asks Congress to Vote on Syria

by James M. Lindsay
August 31, 2013

Lindsey 1

President Barack Obama makes remarks on the situation in Syria at the Rose Garden of the White House (Mike Theiler/Courtesy Reuters).


President Obama’s announcement that he is asking Congress to authorize the use of military force against Syria comes as welcome news to proponents of the view that presidents cannot unilaterally initiate the use of military force. Although Obama endorsed that view back in 2007 before he became president, he pointedly declined to ask Congress to authorize U.S. military action against Libya in 2011.

The timing of a congressional vote remains to be determined. Lawmakers aren’t scheduled to return from their summer recess until September 9. Congressional leaders have not said whether they will call members back sooner. Indeed, they may be surprised that Obama asked for a vote. The letter House Speaker John Boehner sent the president this week asked for consultations on Syria; it didn’t demand a vote. (Congressional leaders also have fit Syria into a tight calendar. Congress is scheduled to be in session for just nine legislative days in September; most of those days were supposed to be spent trying to find a way to keep the government running once the new fiscal year starts on October 1.)

Will Congress give Obama the authority he is seeking? The odds are it will. Most Democrats are likely to stand by him, even if only out of party loyalty. Skeptical lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will also confront the argument that a “no” vote would gravely damage U.S. credibility in dealing with Iran, North Korea, and other potential threats.

Still, widespread doubts about the wisdom of a military strike against Syria make a “yes” vote far from certain—or easy to obtain. The memories of the bad intelligence on Iraq could prompt tough questions about the evidence the White House has today. White House officials will understandably be reluctant to discuss the details of its planned military operations. That might not satisfy members who fear that the administration will go too far or that it has no strategy for what to do if Syria persists in using chemical weapons. And writing authorizing legislation that satisfies the administration while being sufficiently limited to assure lawmakers that they aren’t giving the White House a blank check they might later regret—as happened with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Iraq War authorization—could prove difficult.

However the Syria vote goes, it sets a precedent. Any future effort to initiate the use of military force will come with heightened public expectations that the president, whether Obama or his successors, will first go to Congress. But it hardly guarantees they will. Syria lacks many of the attributes that presidents and their lawyers have traditionally cited when justifying unilateral presidential military action: it is not an act of self-defense; it is not pursuant to a UN Security Council authorization (as Obama argued in Libya) or a regional organization (as Bill Clinton claimed with NATO in Kosovo); it does not involve protecting American lives or property (as Ronald Reagan claimed in Grenada and George H.W. Bush argued in Panama); and time is not of the essence. Given different circumstances, future administrations might dispute the premise that presidents have to look to Capitol Hill before ordering the military into combat.

Finally, if the White House is hoping a vote on Syria will protect Obama politically in the event a military attack goes wrong, it should prepare to be disappointed. A vote for war has never stopped members of Congress (or the American public) from turning on a president when things go badly. Just ask George W. Bush.

Posted in Congress, Defense, Diplomacy, Politics, Public Opinion, The White House Share

Post a Comment No Comments

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Every POTUS since Woodrow Wilson has been surrounded by Council on Foreign Relations members who turn him into a CFR puppet. Eighteen Secretaries of Defense including Hagel, twenty-two Secretaries of State including Kerry, eighteen National Security Advisers including S. Rice, eighteen CIA directors and eighteen NSA directors are CFR members. About 400 other unelected government officials are CFR members. Elected officials like CFR Senators McCain and Congress work together to fix congressional votes. CFR member corporations buy elected representatives in both houses by lobbying. CFR members like Ginsberg, O’Connor and Stevens fix Supreme court judgments to grant personhood to CFR member corporations & legalize their bribes. These facts can be verified here . Your article says nothing about the great deal of influence the Council on Foreign Relations wields in declaring war. You imply that a CFR POTUS puppet not congress should be the one who decides to go to war. Besides running the Government the CFR controls the media. It uses the media to shape public opinion using propaganda techniques developed by CFR founding father Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. The first rule of CFR disinformation is to see no CFR evil, hear no CFR evil, and speak no CFR evil. The CFR role in declaring war in the United States is missing from your commentary because you are a CFR propagandist not a legitimate journalist. Shame on you James M. Lindsey.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR’s guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “The CFR is the Devil in The Details of War

  1. Pingback: The Council on Foreign Relations Neocon Con | tomjefferson1976

  2. @honestcharlie

    Reblogged this on THE ABSURD TIMES — STILL and commented:
    This is worth following.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s