France, the oldest ally to America ? For what ?
Remember Snowden’s leaks and the outrageous reaction of French president asking for American explanation immediately. This was cause to the boycott of the US-EU summit, days after.
Today, America is so desperate that they are ready to accept any offer from anywhere, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia officially backing Syrian rebels, financially and military. Add France to the list and you have got it all.
U.K . was triple-right rejecting the hasardous intervention planned before. By now, the operation would already have taken place. The urgency of reconvening the UK parliament, 4 or 6 days earlier was that moment of decision taken. A yes from the UK MPs would have conforted president Obama to strike.
The non-expected U.K. no votation is the worst nightmare to Obama.
A second vote of the UK MP’s is excluded. UK is not going to play the kind of democratic game the EU and the Eurozone are familiar to : each time the people have opposed any move by referendum, they were called back again and sometimes cut down with a Parliamentary vote. France was the King of that game.
Consequently, european people feel like being hijacked and obliged to follow a direction imposed upon them. The resentment of european people – some in France asking to get out of the EU and the eurozone – is as bright as the sunshine.
Now, America is presenting the president a challenge with Death. Republicans can vote « No » just to bring the president down and enjoy the pleasure of it. They can also vote « No » as UK MP’s for unsufficient evidence. A no vote from the Republicans would be a double blow. American people are mostly opposed to the strike.
Does this mean the Republicans have a soft job ? Not that much. A Yes vote is also risky while a no vote brings short-term earnings, such as humiliation, it is not sure this could not hit back in the middle-longer term… in 2014. Anyway, what counts is a sincere vote, in accordance with personal beliefs.
The game is wide open and can lead to Death for the two sides.
The UN would tell if chemical weapons were used but not who did it ? How is it what the UN’s investigation team on the ground can not tell, France and America and Saudi Arabia can ? With precision ?
NATO’s position confirms America’s. The question here is simple : America should come out with « incontrovertible proof » matching the UN’s team. Thereafter, we will have a clearer picture and act in consequence.
As to France and America’s friendship, French people miss no occasion of mocking any leader close to America- During his tenure, Sarkozy for instance was mocked by the socialist party for his transatlantic friendship. Those are the same pactising today with America.
Mon Dieu, how things change! Opportunely. Things are getting interesting : the masks are off !
Did you know that Noumea was the advanced-post to Hiroshima Nuclear bombing ? Interesting.
From Mehdi’s Morning Memo : Earlier in the morning.
1) ‘WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BOMB’
Obama, say his friends and supporters, is a ‘reluctant warrior’, the ‘anti-Bush’. Really? Yesterday, theGuardian reports on its front page, a day after the president « vowed to put any intervention in Syria to a vote of both the Senate and House of Representatives, [Secretary of State John] Kerry said the administration was confident of winning a motion of the kind that David Cameron unexpectedly lost last week. ‘We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,’ Kerry said, but he stressed the president had the right to take action ‘no matter what Congress does’.
No matter what Congress does? Huh? Then why bother going to Congress and asking those « pesky elected representatives » (copyright: Douglas Carswell MP) for their views? President Obama should have a word with Candidate Obama, who remarked in 2007, in an interview with the Boston Globe, « 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 to the nation. » The then junior senator from Illinois added that a president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense ».
President Obama announced his decision to go to Congress – which returns from its summer break next Monday (9 September) – in the Rose Garden on Saturday evening, specifically citing Cameron’s defeat in the Commons on Thursday evening as a factor in his (belated) decision to consult with lawmakers on Capitol Hill before ordering any air strikes. (The New York Times reports that Kerry, who claims to have evidence of sarin use by the Assad regime, began a « lobbying blitz » of Congress over the weekend: « Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, the administration presented classified intelligence to any senator or House member who wished to attend. » )
Two points are worth considering here: 1) Who says the British parliament is irrelevant? That the votes of MPs don’t matter or don’t have influence on the international stage? If only the Commons had voted down Blair’s Iraq motion, too, back in March 2003. Who knows what effect that would have had on hawks and doves in the United States a decade ago. 2) With the US Congress expected to meet no earlier than next Monday, and the French parliament debating Syria on Wednesday, questions once again have to be asked as to why a (melo?)dramatic David Cameron insisted on recalling parliament four days early to hold an ’emergency’ vote on Syria – which he then promptly, and humiliatingly, lost by 13 votes.
Meanwhile, despite George Osborne’s insistence on the Andrew Marr show yesterday that « Parliament has spoken » and Britain would play no part in any attack on Syria, the Times reports on its front page that two former party leaders (Tory Michael Howard and Lib Dem Paddy Ashdown) and a former foreign secretary (Tory Malcolm Rifkind) have « urged the Prime Minister to seize on President Obama’s decision to delay military action » and « reverse his decision to rule out military intervention in Syria.« . Huffpost.
Late in the day. GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Monday after meeting with President Barack Obama that congressional rejection of a resolution authorizing U.S. military force in Syria would be « catastrophic, » adding it would « undermine the credibility of the United States and the president of the United States. »