Obama’s Syrian Propaganda Campaign
After doing an abrupt about face from claiming he did not need Congress’ approval to launch strikes at Syria, President Obama has been seeking Congressional approval. I don’t think it is so much that he is doing it to make it legitimate as much as he is doing it to try to make Congress look bad if a) they failed to approve it, or b) the strikes failed. In other words, he is doing it to cover his own ass.
The United States Senate is expected to rubber stamp the authorization, because, well, the Senate approves anything the President wants because they are retarded.
The House, on the other hand, is giving more opposition. Right now, speculation is that Obama doesn’t have the votes in the House, which is why he is about to launch a propaganda campaign to try to sway them.
By propaganda, I mean he intends to show a video of children getting gassed. While this is truly a terrible and horrific thing, once again, our favorite dictator and whipping boy is trotting out children to make his case.
The only question he isn’t answering is who released the gas? Lurch maintains it was the government, while Russia has sent a 100 page report to the UN saying it was the Syrian “rebels”.
Point in fact that the so called “rebels” are al-Qaida, our enemy.
But it doesn’t stop there.
On Tuesday, the President will address a skeptical nation on national tv to try to convince Americans, who are overwhelmingly opposed to any action in Syria by a margin of 71% against to 27% for a strike. That’s a hefty margin of 44%. People are tired of war. Afghanistan and Iraq are really in no better shape now than they were before we invaded.
The public is also overwhelmingly opposed to drone strikes in other countries, such as Yemen and Pakistan.
If doing this was such a good idea, then why does he need to drag out the propaganda to try to convince the House of Representatives, and the public that it needs to be done?
Protesters are (finally) beginning to appear outside of Lurch’s house in Boston.
We must act to show Assad that using chemical weapons is not acceptable. Just like we showed Saddam, who these weapons belonged to in the first place!
I’ve said before that Russia has a national interest in Syria, so they will do anything they can to defend the government there. Anything that brings us into direct conflict with Russia should be avoided, especially in the Middle East.
This is not a Republicrat issue. Both sides in the House are heavily opposed to it. Even Charlie Rangel, decorated veteran of Korea, is against it. If you’ve lost Charlie Rangel, your leftist base is slipping away.
Rangel asked a very good, rational question:
“[If] 98% of the nations on this Earth actually oppose the use of chemical weapons,” Rangel asked why, then, they’re all “asking our kids to put their lives in jeopardy?”
Right. Where are the rest of the 98%?
Lurch promises that this will be limited in scope. So, sending missiles to attack a sovereign nation isn’t an act of war? Does that mean that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor wasn’t an act of war?
How about flying airplanes into our buildings, killing 3000 people?
If it is to be so “unbelievably small”, it is likely to be impotent. So what’s the point? What happens if Syria launches the chemical weapons towards Israel? Israel strikes back, that’s what. Then what do we do, ignore Israel as Obama is wont to do?
Obama has bungled his foreign policy so badly that he has become the laughing stock of the world.
We were warned back in 2008 that he did not have the experience to be president. Unfortunately, the alternative was not much better, if better at all. I know Sarah Palin is loved by a great many people, but when I first heard she had been named as McCain’s running mate, my first reaction was “who????”
Obama is impotent, and the whole world knows it. The Democrats have become impotent, and the whole world knows it. Our politicians have become a bunch of conniving, self serving ass clowns. They look out for their best interests, not the interests of the nation.
Obama desperately wants to be seen a strong, but he is the weakest president since Carter (who in turn was the weakest president since Hoover, at least), and that’s saying something.
Does anyone remember the DNC, when the Democrats were touting how strong they were on defense and how they supported the troops, by showing pictures of Russian warships?
Maybe they honestly believe that the buildup of Russian warships in the Mediterranean is actually our buildup.
But answer these two questions, answer them truthfully and without the doublespeak and question avoidance of politicians.
Who really used the chemicals? The government or the rebels?
How does this constitute and immediate threat to our national security?
That’s what I thought.