Indescribably Hypocrisy
I can't help but feel that those who support Obama are afraid to be honest about his warmongering.
I also can't imagine why he thinks a missile strike on Syria will help anything. What are the possible outcomes:
1. collateral damage (the world's worst euphemism since "friendly fire") that will be worse than the tragedy caused by the chemical weapons.
2. Assad emboldened to do more gassing
3. Escalation
4. Israel threatened
5. Other Arab/Muslim nations angered
6. The possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Quaeda, and such rebel groups will take over and kill more people in the middle.
If he is trying to paint this as: "Assad did a bad thing, let's punish him," that is so simplistic and naive that either he is incompetent or thinks we are fools (both are possible). Assad will not be punished by this move. Worse, we do not understand the whole situation in Syria--who is fighting who. It is not a bunch of freedom fighters trying to oust a dictator. It's much more complicated, and it's unclear to most people who are behind the "rebels." Assad is horrible but the alternative is worse.
I never had a strong feeling about the Iraq war, but if that was wrong, this is wrong. Which goes to the title of the post. Those who protested the Iraq war, which they had reason to do, are silent about this because of their slavish loyalty to Obama because he is--what? Ed Asner has gone on record to say it's because they don't want to be seen as "anti-black," which is incredibly stupid, as well as racist and hypocritical. They are saying they cannot see Obama as anything but a black man and that he is not worthy of being judged by the same standards as a white man (ironically he is equally both).
Of course, maybe this is posturing to make Iran and even Syria straighten up, but it's quite a bit of brinkmanship. If he does it without Congressional approval, maybe even the hip-hop artists will start criticizing him.
I also can't imagine why he thinks a missile strike on Syria will help anything. What are the possible outcomes:
1. collateral damage (the world's worst euphemism since "friendly fire") that will be worse than the tragedy caused by the chemical weapons.
2. Assad emboldened to do more gassing
3. Escalation
4. Israel threatened
5. Other Arab/Muslim nations angered
6. The possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Quaeda, and such rebel groups will take over and kill more people in the middle.
If he is trying to paint this as: "Assad did a bad thing, let's punish him," that is so simplistic and naive that either he is incompetent or thinks we are fools (both are possible). Assad will not be punished by this move. Worse, we do not understand the whole situation in Syria--who is fighting who. It is not a bunch of freedom fighters trying to oust a dictator. It's much more complicated, and it's unclear to most people who are behind the "rebels." Assad is horrible but the alternative is worse.
I never had a strong feeling about the Iraq war, but if that was wrong, this is wrong. Which goes to the title of the post. Those who protested the Iraq war, which they had reason to do, are silent about this because of their slavish loyalty to Obama because he is--what? Ed Asner has gone on record to say it's because they don't want to be seen as "anti-black," which is incredibly stupid, as well as racist and hypocritical. They are saying they cannot see Obama as anything but a black man and that he is not worthy of being judged by the same standards as a white man (ironically he is equally both).
Of course, maybe this is posturing to make Iran and even Syria straighten up, but it's quite a bit of brinkmanship. If he does it without Congressional approval, maybe even the hip-hop artists will start criticizing him.
Comments