Like a majority of Americans, I have been opposed to an attack on the government of Syria ever since President Obama said it would be a good idea. After all, any good idea coming from this administration can't really be good, can it?
What got me having second thoughts is the fact that a majority of Americans feel the same way I do. A majority, albeit a small majority, elected Obama for a second term, right? I certainly wasn't part of that crowd. In fact, in most situations, I am not part of the vocal majority, while maintaining my membership in the silent majority crowd.
So, what's different about this issue? 100,000 Syrians had already been killed by rockets, bombs, missiles and bullets during the reign of terror by the Assad Regime. Was that ok? After all, the majority of Syrians voted to give Assad the presidency. A bunch of rebellious protestors decided they didn't want him to be their leader any longer, and instead of waiting for the next election, they organized and decided to use force to kick him out.
As it is with many rebel organizations, they were outgunned by Assad's Syrian military. Seeing an opportunity, a bunch of terrorists, known to us as Al Qaeda, joined the rebel protestors, and together, they were wreaking havoc with Syrian government forces.
Then, it is alleged (a word I almost never use because it is, for all practical purposes, a useless word) that the Assadians (I like this new word that I created) unleashed some poison gas, chemical weapons, on the protestors. The sarin gas attack in late August left 1400 dead. And, as has been pointed out by every newsman with a computer, and every politician from sea to shining sea, almost 500 of the dead were children.
Being a skeptic of the Obama Administration, I questioned, and will continue to question, every claim any person associated with Obama makes. For that, I do not apologize. Perhaps all of us should do that, to some extent, with EVERY political leader we have. I question whether Assad actually used the chemicals. What did he have to gain? 1500 dead people? He had already killed 100,000. And, we didn't bat an eye. After all, that was a civil war, and we didn't have a dog in that fight. The battle remains an internal war, but now it's claimed that those dreaded chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, were used. The same type of weapons of mass destruction that Hussein used against his own people.
I ask again, as so many other Americans, why would Assad do this? Is it some desire to draw the United States into a war? Is it an effort to lure our ships and men within range of the sophisticated Russian P800 anti-ship missiles he has? Or, is it, perhaps, an Al Qaeda plot to get the US (and, perhaps other nations) to help them out by attacking and weakening the Assadians?
I need hard evidence.
Why can't I trust our president? That's the core question for me. George W. Bush may not have been the brightest light bulb in the hardware store, but I trusted him. He made his share of mistakes, but I do not believe he needed a war to add to his accomplishments. That was a hand he was dealt, and those cards were on the table prior to his presidency. I still believe that Hussein had a lot of weapons of mass destruction, just as the intelligence communities (ours and others) said. Our mistake was warning Hussein that we were coming to get those weapons unless he turned them over. And, lo and behold, we couldn't find them when we arrived.
So, again, I ask myself. Why can't I trust this president?
Maybe, just maybe, it's because of his lack of experience in the real world. Maybe it's that he has no military experience. Maybe it's because his staff of experts don't appear to have a lot of expertise. Or, maybe...just maybe...I am still miffed about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi a year ago, an attack that today remains un-avenged. We have arrested no one. We have killed no one. We have... well, the Obama administration lied to the American people, it lied to the world.
It is well known that once a cop gets caught lying on the witness stand, his future appearances on the witness stand will come with a question from the defense attorney: Mr. Officer, have you ever lied before? Of course, that will be followed up with, Mr. Officer, why should this court, why should this jury, believe you now?
Mr. President, Ms. Susan Price, why should we, the American public, believe you today? How can we trust you? Or, should I...and the rest of real Americans...decide that for the good of society, for the good of the world, it is better to back the president's efforts to take the wind out of the sails of what is obviously an evil man, a man named Assad. Maybe it is time to take action. Maybe it's time for Americans to get behind the president, and hope that, this time, he's got it right, that he's telling us the whole truth, and that his intentions are not political.
Personally speaking, though it's too late now, I would have preferred that we had used the 1960 and 1970 tactics of the guys at Langley. One well-placed hunk of lead and it would have been "situation resolved". And, no one would have been able to trace it back to any specific nation.
Mr. President, just some advice for future use.
What got me having second thoughts is the fact that a majority of Americans feel the same way I do. A majority, albeit a small majority, elected Obama for a second term, right? I certainly wasn't part of that crowd. In fact, in most situations, I am not part of the vocal majority, while maintaining my membership in the silent majority crowd.
So, what's different about this issue? 100,000 Syrians had already been killed by rockets, bombs, missiles and bullets during the reign of terror by the Assad Regime. Was that ok? After all, the majority of Syrians voted to give Assad the presidency. A bunch of rebellious protestors decided they didn't want him to be their leader any longer, and instead of waiting for the next election, they organized and decided to use force to kick him out.
As it is with many rebel organizations, they were outgunned by Assad's Syrian military. Seeing an opportunity, a bunch of terrorists, known to us as Al Qaeda, joined the rebel protestors, and together, they were wreaking havoc with Syrian government forces.
Then, it is alleged (a word I almost never use because it is, for all practical purposes, a useless word) that the Assadians (I like this new word that I created) unleashed some poison gas, chemical weapons, on the protestors. The sarin gas attack in late August left 1400 dead. And, as has been pointed out by every newsman with a computer, and every politician from sea to shining sea, almost 500 of the dead were children.
Being a skeptic of the Obama Administration, I questioned, and will continue to question, every claim any person associated with Obama makes. For that, I do not apologize. Perhaps all of us should do that, to some extent, with EVERY political leader we have. I question whether Assad actually used the chemicals. What did he have to gain? 1500 dead people? He had already killed 100,000. And, we didn't bat an eye. After all, that was a civil war, and we didn't have a dog in that fight. The battle remains an internal war, but now it's claimed that those dreaded chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, were used. The same type of weapons of mass destruction that Hussein used against his own people.
I ask again, as so many other Americans, why would Assad do this? Is it some desire to draw the United States into a war? Is it an effort to lure our ships and men within range of the sophisticated Russian P800 anti-ship missiles he has? Or, is it, perhaps, an Al Qaeda plot to get the US (and, perhaps other nations) to help them out by attacking and weakening the Assadians?
I need hard evidence.
Why can't I trust our president? That's the core question for me. George W. Bush may not have been the brightest light bulb in the hardware store, but I trusted him. He made his share of mistakes, but I do not believe he needed a war to add to his accomplishments. That was a hand he was dealt, and those cards were on the table prior to his presidency. I still believe that Hussein had a lot of weapons of mass destruction, just as the intelligence communities (ours and others) said. Our mistake was warning Hussein that we were coming to get those weapons unless he turned them over. And, lo and behold, we couldn't find them when we arrived.
So, again, I ask myself. Why can't I trust this president?
Maybe, just maybe, it's because of his lack of experience in the real world. Maybe it's that he has no military experience. Maybe it's because his staff of experts don't appear to have a lot of expertise. Or, maybe...just maybe...I am still miffed about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi a year ago, an attack that today remains un-avenged. We have arrested no one. We have killed no one. We have... well, the Obama administration lied to the American people, it lied to the world.
It is well known that once a cop gets caught lying on the witness stand, his future appearances on the witness stand will come with a question from the defense attorney: Mr. Officer, have you ever lied before? Of course, that will be followed up with, Mr. Officer, why should this court, why should this jury, believe you now?
Mr. President, Ms. Susan Price, why should we, the American public, believe you today? How can we trust you? Or, should I...and the rest of real Americans...decide that for the good of society, for the good of the world, it is better to back the president's efforts to take the wind out of the sails of what is obviously an evil man, a man named Assad. Maybe it is time to take action. Maybe it's time for Americans to get behind the president, and hope that, this time, he's got it right, that he's telling us the whole truth, and that his intentions are not political.
Personally speaking, though it's too late now, I would have preferred that we had used the 1960 and 1970 tactics of the guys at Langley. One well-placed hunk of lead and it would have been "situation resolved". And, no one would have been able to trace it back to any specific nation.
Mr. President, just some advice for future use.
Okay, while I agree with your stance on Syria- I oppose engagement as well. There are some serious issues with your reporting. Bashar Al-Assad has ruled over Syria since 2000 after his father died. Your view that the rebels could have simply, "waiting for the next election" is completely misguided. He ran unopposed supposedly gaining 98% of the vote in 2000, then again in 2007. The Assad regime has ruled over Syria for almost 50 years after Hafez al-Assad initiated a coup in 1970. Your claim that, "A bunch of rebellious protesters" have called for Assad to step down doesn't even scratch the surface of reality! Aside from the domestic Syrian opposition; the United States, Canada, the European Union states and the members of the Arab League have called for al-Assad's resignation from the presidency. 137 different nations have voted in the UN general assembly to condemn Assad and the Syrian government. Nothing you stated are reasons not to engage in intervention; rather it spoke of why we can't trust the President. If you want to express valid reasons to oppose intervention I can name quite a few; calling Assad the legitimate democratically elected leader of Syria isn't one of them
ReplyDeleteAs you are aware, Roel, I regularly toss grenades to get reaction. Your observations are appreciated. And, yes, Assad is scum. I still remain unconvinced that the scum used gas. What did he have to gain from doing so? Why should the US be involved in a perpetual Mid-East war that does not threaten us? There is no simple way to explain the Mid East Mess. And, there is no solution to the problem or the issues. And, there is no side we can take that will end positively for the US.
ReplyDelete