We Are Damned if you Do

Whatever is said or done, you have to admit that Obama is a shrewd Alinskyite. He has flip-flopped on his stance regarding the need for congressional approval for intervention with Syria. This will  put congress in his "hot seat." If they vote for an unpopular strike, congress will be blamed. If they vote against a strike, Obama will color Congress as oppositionists, simply opposing everything he is trying to accomplish. As usual, it takes the onus of responsibility away from Obama and puts it elsewhere. Nothing is ever his fault. His next autobiography should be entitled: "Profiles in Cowardice."


In yesterday's secret Congressional briefing, neither Obama, Biden or anyone else in the upper rung of the administration were there to brief the members on the proposed strategy for Syria. The only purpose of the meeting was to make Obama's case for a limited "tailored" strike. (A tailored strike is one in which only certain targets are struck; women, children, and innocent folks will be unscathed as the cruise missiles will miss them.) Bashar al Assad will ensure us that no children will be in the areas where Obama has alluded that we will be striking because as we know, Assad would never place children in harm's way. Our Community Organizer in Chief is a less than brilliant military strategist. 

Obama will be meeting today with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, our two head RINOs. He has wasted no time because children and other innocent civilians are dying in Syria, as they have been for the past two years, and this simply cannot wait any longer. And lest we forget, he has some golf scheduled and then it's off to the G-8 Summit where he will bond with comrade Putin.

Kerry's anti-Vietnam Speech

From what I've said here, you might have concluded that I want the US to attack Syria--I don't. I believe that by striking the Syrian regime we will be helping the al Qaeda rebels. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation--or so it appears. I believe that we should do nothing at this time. 

First of all, I'm not convinced that it was Assad who used the chemical weapons--he might have but we don't know for certain. I know of one person who had been in Syria, her homeland, and returned just two days ago. She may be biased but firmly believes that it was the al Qaeda rebels who launched the chemical attack in order to win sympathy with the global community. There is no proof to dismiss her belief. (Of course she also believes some crazy things like Israel was to blame for all the wrongs in the world, 911, the other 911, and probably future 911s.)

Second, even if Assad did gas his own people, I believe that as horrible a deed as it is,  he is actually the lesser of the two evils--at least his regime has protected Christians in Syria against those who are now representing the rebel cause. The same rebels who have torched churches, killed Christians for the crime of being Christian, and who think a couple of public beheadings is a way to send a message and entertain their barbaric nature at the same time.

Finally, the United States did not intervene when Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons back in the 80's. What's the difference between then and now? Why have we waited all this time when there seemed to be as much prior evidence months ago that chemical weapons were being used? Obama did not act then but is trying to sound like a humanitarian with his current statements.

I believe the answer to that can be summed up in one word: politics. That has always been the real consideration for anything Obama decision he makes: what's in it for him.

Happy Labor Day. Enjoy your day.

Tweet