It’s interesting that the very same people who decried W.’s war on Iraq are now oh-so-eager for a less justified war on Syria. Peter Mullen cuts to the heart of the matter, and if you think I’m hard on Obama . . .
Is that crackpot Obama really about to fire Cruise missiles at Syria? . . . This is the bloke, you remember, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely two minutes after coming down from his Inauguration podium.
Yes, Assad is evil. Heck, I’ve hated his regime and that of his daddy long before it was fashionable to do so. But take a good look at the rebels, who are more of a danger to the U. S. not-so-by-the-way:
Everyone agrees that Assad is a nasty piece of work and guilty of terrible crimes against his own people. But take a look at the people opposing him. These number thousands of barbaric terrorists, jihadists, Salafists, members of psychopathic Sunni sects, would-be martyrs for Islam, more than half in love with uneaseful death. And if Blair was Bush’s poodle, Cameron and Hague are Obama’s lapdogs. When Vladimir Putin visited London recently for talks with David Cameron, he asked a pertinent question: “These people murder their opponents, cut them open, remove their livers and eat them. Are these the sorts of men you seek to supply with arms, Mr. Prime Minister?”
I’m no fan of Putin, but he has lately been getting into the habit of being more sensible than Obama. (I know. That's not hard. But credit where credit is due . . .)
Best let those lovely people fight it out:
The consequences of an attack on Syria are incalculable, and there is no rational foundation for such a reckless exploit. Assad is a devil but his opponents are all demons too. Leave them to it then, for if Satan be divided against Satan, how shall his kingdom stand?
Not to mention that Armageddon is in the neighborhood . . . in more ways than one.
If Obama were smart, he would stay away. If . . .