The Timing of this Syria thing is particularly disturbing. If the Republicans don't muster the party unity needed to Refuse to Fund ObamaCare, in just 25 days it's going to settle upon America's neck like a swarm of sabre-toothed, malarial mosquitoes.
Now all of a sudden we're expected to believe that Bashir Al-Assad for No reason whatsoever, other than knowingly provoking a possible Obama strike upon his regime's assets which is The Story currently taking up a Lot of ink in the press, has used chemical weapons he didn't need to use, in a civil war he was clearly winning.
Democrats who gave GW Bush nothing but guff over his Iraq invasion are now marshaling behind Obama to attack Syria.
But we Must Intervene Militarily for The Children™, and our Cruise Missiles are not actually Weapons of War. They're Love Weapons which are all programmed to not kill anymore of "The Children™".
We're smelling something here, and it smells like Start another War as a Distraction to sneak through a Stinker of a piece of Nation Wrecking Legislation that the American people have already overwhelmingly rejected.
The Admin explanation is the Cruise Missiles can degrade Assad's chemical weapons without starting a war.
So here's the quietus to That one from Ms Katie Pavlich.
Katie Pavlich | Sep 05, 2013
During a hearing in front of the House Foreign Relations Committee Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the United States would eventually need to put boots on the ground in Syria in order to secure stockpiles of chemical weapons. When pressed on the issue, Kerry quickly walked back the troops on the ground option and stated he was simply "thinking out loud" when he made the statement. A resolution passed by the Senate Armed Service Committee yesterday, leaving wiggle room for troops to be eventually placed on the ground in Syria.
Now, the Daily Mail is reporting the Pentagon knew a year ago that in order to effectively secure chemical weapons, at least 75,000 ground troops would need to be deployed.
For some perspective, at the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, just 63,000 troops were deployed.
So, what exactly is going to happen? President Obama has clearly indicated he's interested in a minor strike against Syria with no plan B should Bashir al-Assad be taken out of power. Senator John McCain wants to arm rebels in order to shift power away from Assad on the battlefield. Secretary of State John Kerry wants troops on the ground because realistically, that's the only way intervening in the civil war will be at least somewhat effective. He also wants the Saudis to bank roll for the whole thing.
The American people don't want intervention at all according to multiple polls.
The question now is this: What is the goal of the United States? To secure chemical weapons or to destroy them.
Thank You Ms. Pavlich and Townhall.
"What is the goal of the United States?"
The United States doesn't have a goal. The Obama Brigade does.
Create another distraction no matter how destructive it is in terms of loss of life and financial waste to expand and consolidate their hold on Power, and in this foreign misadventure cause a worsening of relations with Russia which will cause fallout for decades if Putin makes good on his threat to sell more of Russia's advanced Anti Aircraft hardware in the region.
ObamaCare, the parasite that just keeps on sucking.