“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” - Sarah Palin
* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting
the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda
affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what,
what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on.
Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.
* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically
slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the
tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though
according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the
chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a
President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form
of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our
invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from
using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will
* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians
tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But
President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a
heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted
sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained
how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we
really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more
* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no
explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today
amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent
radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no
business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal
consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have
already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly
agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval
before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did
it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a
coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama
says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital
interests being at stake.
* Bottom line is that this is about
President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise
regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are
dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a
Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting
Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides
shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.
- Sarah Palin (Link)