“As evil plans go, it doesn’t suck.” — Wesley Wyndham-Price
I think that should be our motto as we go forward with the inevitable bombing of Syria.
That seems to be the standard now for deciding whether we should send our military to raze the buildings and salt the fields in some far-off country that hasn’t actually done anything to us or even threatened us.
Our leaders — and I use the term very loosely — can’t even muster Britain and France to our side in Syria. Britain is normally ready at the drop of a hat to bomb anyplace that doesn’t feature fish ‘n’ chips on their pub menus, and while France isn’t much into fighting these days, they usually can be counted on to send some planes and a shipload of fancy cheese platters for our boys.
By comparison to the Iraq War, which still gives liberals irritable bowel syndrome, this much-anticipated production of the Syria War is lame.
At this point in the buildup to Iraq, the Bush White House had satellite photos, Powerpoint presentations, a stack of U.N. resolutions that Saddam had defied, the support of two dozen countries, an officials policy of “regime change” signed by President Clinton and the agreement of much of the American public. And don’t overlook a line of spiffy T-shirts and hats.
So far, President Obama has a top secret “irrefutable” report nobody’s seen, the support of his rapidly shrinking zombie horde, the backing of Nancy Pelosi, and a list of incredibly weak reasons for killing a bunch of Syrians.
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said this weekend, “nobody is rebutting the intelligence; nobody doubts the intelligence” that is being used to justify attacking Syria. Also this past weekend, the German media were all aflutter with a report that German intelligence has high-tech surveillance evidence that proves Bashar Assad not only didn’t order the gassing of civilians but that he has even rejected multiple requests from his generals to use poison gas.
McDonough also said that a compelling reason to go to war in Syria is so that we can send a message to Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons.
You know what would really send a message to Iran? Bombing Iran. But that’s off the table because Iran is a lot scarier than Syria.
Also, the Saudis haven’t offered to pay us to take out Iran like they have with Syria. Over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry said the Saudis have agreed to support a military strike.
No kidding? So, you mean that all that money the Saudis pumped into funding the Syrian “rebels,” training their al-Qaeda leaders, supplying arms and, according to one report, providing the gas canisters that the rebels used to frame Assad’s government for killing 1,400 civilians wasn’t just a fluke?
Golly, that would also imply that the Saudi government’s offer to give Russia control over much of the Middle East’s oil in exchange for abandoning Syria was also done on purpose.
It’s almost like the whole Syrian civil war and the White House’s push for a military attack was all part of a Saudi plan to get rid of its rivals for power in the region and clear the way for a new Muslim caliphate.
So far, most people aren’t buying into the scheme, even among liberals.
Remember those Iraq War bumper stickers, “No Blood for Oil”? Well, Operation Pay Back the Saudis for Getting Me Into Harvard has generated so much contempt that bumper stickers are appearing that say “No Blood for Whatever the Hell Obama Thinks Is In Syria.”
The president has failed to articulate any cogent arguments for attacking Syria beyond an emotional appeal about the horrors of chemical warfare. What passes for logic at this White House does not hold up: Killing Syrians is bad; therefore we must kill Syrians to send the message that killing Syrians is bad.
At least in Iraq we were trying to kill al-Qaeda, not coming off the bench to win the game for them.
Some people see biblical prophecy at work in the Syrian conflict. I’m not qualified to assess that idea, but it is fair to say that Obama and his courtiers seem hell-bent on bloodshed.