Mixed in with all the talk of going to war vs. not going to war, "pinprick" attacks, nauseating diplomatic details, and lecturing on morality, I was struck with a important flaw in our Apologizer-in-Chief's word choice.
About a third of the way into the speech, he began to explain why he believes we must act, and why it is incumbent upon him and the United States especially to take direct action. Here's what he said:
Did you notice the serious flaw?
But I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.
Click to read the entire transcript.
Anyone with a basic understanding of American government could tell you that we are not a democracy, but a republic - specifically a constitutional republic - and a republic is very different than a democracy.
How could a former
But in a republic, the majority rules only when selecting representatives to represent the interests of segments of the population in regards to the whole. To be clear, a republic form of government rests upon democratic principles; however, democracies can easily break down into "mob rule", whereas republics are founded upon the firm ground of the rule of law. I doubt that Obama and his liberal-progressive cohorts don't understand the difference. In fact, I think they understand it far too well.
In closing, I know most everyone else will focus on the subject of the speech: Syria, chemical weapons, and our response. But American's already knew the gist of the situation. Obama's speech lacked vision, purpose, direction, passion, and most importantly moral clarity. Without a doubt, chemical weapons are horrific tools of death and their use should rightly be condemned. However, I would not be surprised to see inaction and disinterest if the same number of people killed in the chemical attacks had died instead from gunfire.
So, Obama's argument for a response does not rest so much on the fact that killing occurred, but how it occurred. If that is the basis of our nation's moral argument for going to war, then our nation's time of collective moral superiority has long passed.