06 September 2013
FYI, MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICA HELPS GOOD GUYS!
FYI, MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICA HELPS GOOD GUYS!
by Andy Weddington
Friday, 06 September 2013
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." Will Rogers
It's not about Syria's president.
It's about America's president.
It's about America's president's 'just can't help himself' propensity for reckless vocal noise vice wise silence (a burdensome truth).
It's about America's president's inarguable lack of integrity (a distasteful truth).
It's critical America has it straight (the truth)...
Last September 11th President Obama failed to send our military (at the ready) to help Americans - good guys - under attack by terrorists - bad guys - in Benghazi, Libya, for some seven hours, that resulted in the deaths of four; including our ambassador.
To date, President Obama has yet to tell the truth as to his whereabouts and activities that evening and his sickening and unconscionable decision (to abandon Americans on a battlefield).
In fact, knowing the truth about the attack, President Obama lied about Benghazi; from the onset and repeatedly in prepared words. Still he's not clean.
Politicians and integrity may be diametrically opposed but in a president, at least an American president, it's intolerable.
President Obama's decision served to embolden foes and others.
President Obama's integrity is again in question as the record reflects he cited a "red line" crossed if President Assad used chemical weapons. Now he denies saying such (roll the video and pull the transcript) while trying to redirect intent and shift responsibility. If only for silence.
Chemical weapons or not, and as awful as the situation, American lives are not at issue in Syria.
And Mr. Obama wants to use our military (at the ready) to strike, to attack?
Why?
Who - good guys - does he aim to help?
He wants to punish President Assad?
For what - that's of strategic concern to our national safety and security?
The American public is saying no.
Congress best not authorize attack.
Back to the opening thought of Mr. Rogers.
As to Benghazi, President Obama's judgment was bad.
His bad judgment magnified by lying.
Why now should anyone believe President Obama?
For that matter, why should anyone believe anything President Obama has said or will say?
Integrity and credibility are blood brothers.
Ah, but experience President Obama now has.
Might good judgment be expected?
In closing, this time President Obama has opportunity to use the same words, ironically, but to get it right.
"Sir, order our military (at the ready, again) to...
"Stand Down.""
Post Script
That Senator John McCain (R, AZ) was photographed playing video poker on his phone earlier this week during a meeting on this matter is dereliction of duty. His dumb defense in a tweet citing a long meeting and boredom proof enough he's an inept embarrassment who needs to retire - immediately!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Andy .... I agree with you about McCain.
I'm confused about Syria. On the one hand, I believe we should just leave them to their killing. On the other hand, I believe there should be international laws about war that are enforced. This is what the United Nations is supposed to do.
You won't agree with me on this but I believe Obama didn't go ahead and strike because he knew the R's would impeach him if he did. He is always in a no-win situation. They're just waiting to pounce and that's not right. Our politics are destroying us, not an external enemy.
At the root of Mr. Obama's problems - "no-win situation" - is lack of integrity. There is no justifiable reason to strike Syria - w/ or w/o consent of Congress. Yes, let the UN sort it out. As for impeachment, that should have already happened (i.e., Fast & Furious; Benghazi; spying/targeting AP/Fox News reporters; IRS targeting American conservative groups; etc.) Being black his salvation; wrongly.
One man's opinion
While any vote on US involvement in the Syrian conflict would be highly politicized at this juncture, I would consider US national interests, the past twelve years US active involvement in the region, the results of the various "Arab spring" events in the region over the past four years, and the lack of clear understanding and insights into the region by the USG as the overarching considerations for the upcoming vote.
With respect to Syria, either side is sufficiently desperate and sufficiently ruthless to have used CW against perceived enemy strongholds, or to terrorize "undecideds" into compliance with their will. Also, after both sides have used rockets, artillery, and mortars against "civilians," the CW use was neither unprovoked nor marked a fundamental shift in the course of the revolt. Finally, as the US has experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is very easy for either the incumbent regime or the insurgents to make a group of dead insurgents look like a group of dead "innocent civilians" -- just remove their weapons and bring in some dead oldsters, women or children [of which there are sadly no shortage, since the fighting is occurring in densely populated residential and commercial areas].
The results of the US "engagement" and investments of American blood and treasure have neither prevented the turmoil in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan nor have they resulted in any tangible benefit to US national interests or national security to date. Syria resembles Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002 in that the US government has almost zero presence in or insights into the existing regimes or the major opposition groups in the country.
That, much like the US' involvement in the rest of Islamey over the past decade-plus, any Syrian involvement would only serve to waste more expensive, hard to replace US resources while increasing the reach and power of groups hostile to the US.
The bottom line remains that NEITHER side in Syria warrants ANY Western support -- as the British Parliament wisely recognized, and as our Congress should clearly communicate to the President.
Post a Comment