Duck and Cover twins McCain and Graham beat the war drums UPDATE


Drudge Headlines Update: Boehner supports Obama military action in Syria… Developing…
Cantor jumps aboard…
First ‘rebels’ armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield’…
Pelosi tells grandson:  We’re at war…

Now our Rino twins are salivating at another war we just might get started and that could end in Armageddon. Now we have to save Obama’s credibility – really? What could go wrong? This is the same administration that told us Benghazi was over the infamous video. Just about everything could go wrong. During the holiday weekend, confined with several liberals in one of those “car rides from hell” listening to NPR, it was enough want to call it quits. Amazingly the Left thinks they have jammed up the GOP and “put it in the GOP’s court.” Saint Obummer some how is going to slide out from under the weight of his failed Middle East policy. Even better yet, the Progressives are war mongering citing “Right to Protect.” The same rhetoric that Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton have been spouting that has the Middle East ablaze. So now, I am starting to think they really do want a full-fledged war.

From the post:  Anti-Semite Susan Rice rises to NSA and Samantha Power moves to U.N.

 As John Podhoretz explains in the New York Post, the “reason” behind the Libyan military strike is not the traditional justification of “protecting the national interest.” It is a “new” standard called “R2P” or “right to protect.” This concept is being promulgated by the “one-world” order activists at the United Nations, like Samantha Power.

“R2P is an effort to create a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians.

In her career as a genocide expert, Power was an indefatigable proponent of R2P, and now on the National Security Council has been “trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward.” Hillary is her ally in this effort, it appears.”

Now, we have McCain and Graham out there setting up the GOP as war mongers once again. And Axelrod?

Axelrod  was in full  gloat:


Big  move by POTUS. Consistent with his principles. Congress is now the dog that  caught the car. Should be a fascinating week!

Consistent  with what “principles,” Dave? The principle that the president stood on when he  unilaterally and without congressional authorization took the country to war in  Libya?

What  Axelrod and many liberals are delighted about is that the GOP – especially in  the House – will now be in a similar position to where Democrats were in early 2002 with Iraq; the  prospect of political damage if they voted against war.

He  don’t know them very well, do he.

Jonathan  Strong at NRO:

GOP  sources say it is highly unlikely leadership will whip support  for the  proposal; such “votes of conscience” are typically left to  members’  discretion.

While  there is still plenty of time for Obama  to make the case for war, lawmakers are still seeking answers to big  questions, chief among them being what a  strike would accomplish.

That’s  true among Democrats as well. One Democratic aide says if the  “strategic  objective is to slap someone’s wrist,” that won’t exactly be   compelling.

Some  liberal commentators have reacted with glee that  Obama’s plan puts the  political onus on Speaker John Boehner. But the  initial reaction by Republican  insiders is that Obama faces far more  risk, since he would look profoundly weak  in defeat.

Read more: American Thinker

%d bloggers like this: