It was just a matter of time before someone played the race card regarding U.S. intervention in Syria, and specifically Obama’s decision to go to Congress to seek authorization. It seems the executive branch has already decided to attack Syria, and they don’t really feel obligated to seek Congress’s approval or disapproval. Obama wants a pat on the back for going to Congress, but it’s not going to earn him any points, because he’s dead set on starting another war, regardless of what the Congress says.
While Bill Maher has been an avid Obama supporter, he has also been a little critical of the President at times, especially on civil liberties and war. But he thinks that Obama “restored the Constitution” regarding war powers when he decided to go to Congress first. And he said that tea partiers won’t appreciate that since Obama’s black.
Here’s what he tweeted:
“Kudos to Barry for restoring constitution re war powers. Tea People shld luv it but of course wont cuz President Blackenstein did it.”
So, is this why they didn’t like it when Bush sought the Congressional passage of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)? Because he’s white? What does a president’s skin color have anything to do with the decisions he makes? So what if Obama’s half-black? I wouldn’t like what he’s doing with Syria if he were all white. And to me, it’s not a silly partisan issue either. I wouldn’t like what he’s doing if he were a Republican.
For that reason, I’m not a Bush apologist when it comes to foreign policy. I’m not going to say, “Well, at least Bush came to Congress to get permission to occupy a foreign country.” The Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war and issue letters of marque and reprisal. The AUMF was neither.
It was supposed to authorize the President to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the terrorist attacks on 9/11, something that a letter of marque and reprisal would have accomplished. So then why did the U.S. decide to go into nation-building and occupation of countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? Because 9/11 was a crisis that those in power dared not let go to waste. It has served as the one excuse for every degradation of freedom that we have experienced here at home and for every military invasion and foreign occupation since.
My opposition to Obama on Syria has nothing to do with his being half-black or his being a Democrat. And I don’t care that he’s asking Congress for permission, especially since he’ll do what he wants regardless of what they say. Like Ron Paul said recently, starting a war in Syria would be a “reckless and immoral” use of our military. It would be just as reckless and immoral if it were President Romney wanting to intervene.