On Monday the Washington sage Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, “Shadow of a Doubt” regarding the potential strike on Syria and how, in her opinion, things in Washington seem to be completely upside down.
She expressed it as a “bewildering time here.” She did make a couple of good points although mostly and typically it was trashing all Republicans and those on the right.
She described Nancy Pelosi as “the hawk urging military action.” She does have a good point. When was the last time Pelosi urged action against anyone other than conservatives and the Tea Party?
She described the Republicans as “squeamish about launching an attack” and “top generals going pacifist.” Although she makes no distinction, I will. Republicans are squeamish about virtually everything. They’re afraid of their shadows or at least the shadows of Democrats (and illegal aliens). Conservatives on the other hand are not squeamish. They/we just require the facts before taking action, the real facts.
Dowd characterized former ambassador John Bolton as a “dove who doesn’t think we should take sides” who wishes for more intelligence.
I always knew John Bolton was a smart man. We shouldn’t take sides in a civil war that we have no interest in or threat from. And as far as intelligence goes; there’s been plenty showing that Assad did not initiate the chemical attack. That it was in fact the “rebels” (terrorists) that released the chemicals, possibly what they call “kitchen Sarin” gas. I wrote about this.
Of course, Maureen makes no mention of the fact that the terrorists may be setting up the dictator Assad. That’s assuming she’s even heard the contradictory evidence. After all, most of these elitist liberal columnists live and work in a bubble, speak to and read only those of like mind. How would she know?
She explained that “many around the president are making the case that if he doesn’t stand firm on his line in the sand … he’ll look weak and America will lose face and embolden its foes.”
Well Maureen, it’s a bit late for that. His foes, along with the rest of us, already see him as weak due to the fact that he is. Terrorists, regardless of affiliation, know full well how to “play” the West to achieve their ends. Whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or a subsidiary group, they understand how to move liberal Westerners to action.
She then goes on a typical tirade comparing Bush and Iraq to Syria. The whole “Bush lied and people died” nonsense. Years later, and Bush derangement syndrome still lives.
She describes how John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as senators both voted to invade Iraq and then came to regret it. She neglected to remind us that many liberals originally rejected the notion of an Iraq invasion. Yet when public opinion turned against them they didn’t want to appear weak so they asked for a do over and then voted for it. Way to stick to your guns!
She explained how Democrat hack Robert Menendez of New Jersey “opposed the Iraq invasion but supports a Syrian smackdown.” Funny how that works. It just goes to show that everything is political with these people.
Dowd quoted Menendez asking John Kerry if the administration would accept a “prohibition for having boots on the ground.” It seemed a rather obvious attempt at coaching. Kerry explained that “it would not be preferable” but could not rule it out.
She reported that Kerry said if WMD “fell into the hands of Al Nusra or someone else” ground troops might have to be deployed.
Well, from the evidence coming in, it appears they already have some form of chemical weapons.
Dowd closes in typical liberal fashion stating, “It’s up to president Obama to show Americans that he knows what he’s doing, unlike his predecessor.”
As most are well aware, I am no fan of George W. Bush, but it’s been painfully obvious for years that Obama, his advisers, and cabinet are utterly clueless. We cannot afford a buffoon like him leading us into armed conflict, although regardless of the outcome, it will be reported by Dowd as a smashing success for Old Blood and Guts Barack.