I happen to believe that the world and, yes, the United States should punish Assad for his chemical attacks on his people ... as opposed to the opinion of the vast majority of the American people. And I have just witnessed the President's press conference in St. Petersburg wherein it seems clear that, even if Congress does not endorse our bombing of Syria, Obama is inclined (at least rhetorically) to go ahead anyway (see: Mediaite Story).
The question then presents itself ... if I were a member of the U.S. legislature, why would I then go against the will of my constituents and back Obama when it may not make one iota of difference in what eventually happens? What's the purpose of all this legislative theater anyway? Is it just to delay things? Is it to provide Obama some rationalisation for his past inaction ... and justification for his previously ill-chosen words? Maybe it is just to change the subject from the myriad of Obama's domestic problems?
What is Obama's real rationale? What is the point?
3 comments:
Would you volunteer your son to go drop bombs (and maybe get shot down)? I wouldn't, so I oppose military action. I do not see how US interests are defended by an attack on Assad. Neither side is on our side. Haven't we invested enough blood and dollars in a vain attempt to impose our morality on people who will never accept our values?
Can I assume that you also opposed our interventions, in Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, etc. ... and that you agree with Sarah Palin, "Let Allah sort it out ..."?
Smartest thing she ever said. These are not our fights. I did approve of the attack on Afghanistan in response to 9/11 to get at al Qaeda/Bin Laden, but that mission got fuzzed-up. We should have exited during Obama's first term as he promised. There never was a valid reason for W and Cheney to go into Iraq. They dithered and gave him a year's notice to get rid of the Chemical weapons. (Guess where they are now?) I've been constant in that belief.
Post a Comment