SONICFROG DOT NET

This Really Is TheBush Years All Over Again. (except Bush did it better… sort of)

Here’s the push from the Obama administration to bomb Syrian – Some quotes from the mouth of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as he tried to sell the bombing of Syria on “Meet The Press”:

“This is an opportunity to be bold with the Iranians,”….

And

“Our troops have not been subject to chemical weapons attacks since World War I”

And

“We have to make sure that for the sake of our guys – our men and women on the front lines – that we reinforce this prohibition against using chemical weapons.”

First point –  We had, you know, 100,000 plus troops on the ground in the country right next door to Iran, and we had at one point openly discussed the possibility of invading Iran from Iraq to affect regime change, yet they continued to invest and build up their nuclear program. Do you REALLY think then that dropping a few tomahawk missiles on Syria will make the Iranians suddenly shudder and behave the way we want them to????

Me neither.

If you want to be bold with the Iranians, be bold with the Iranians. Being stupid with the Syrians is NOT being bold with the Iranians, OK.

Point number 2 – Um, are you saying we are going to have boot on the ground then? Because, if we’re not there, our  troops will not be subject to chemical weapons attacks then, would they.

I was of the understanding we’re not going to have any boots on the ground.

Point three –  That’s nonsensical.  IF we have boots on the ground in a country, whether or not they have chemical weapons or not, we’re more than likely going to be bombing them.  So how is bombing a country where we have no boots on the ground going to stop a country that we’re at war with from using em if they got em?????

Jeez. If this is the reasoning being used to try and convince Congress to follow the President into war, then I would half expect him to lose even more support after this….

Then again… It IS Congress we’re talking about. Yes, you may have a lot of Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s out there, who said this:

“I haven’t heard that Assad wants to use the weapons against us; I haven’t heard that he wants to use the weapons against our allies (or ) that he’s moving them to terrorist organizations.”

“The minute that one of those cruise missiles lands in there, we are in the Syrian war. It’s a civil war and we’re taking sides with the [al Qaeda linked] rebels,”

There is a Congressman like Rep. Tom Cotton,  who has said he strongly supports military action and wants to go even further and topple the Assad regime to achieve “an ultimate victory in Syria” with “a pro-Western, moderate native Syrian government” taking Assad’s place..

Yeah, because that’s been so successful the last two times we tried it! At least the Bush administration could count on the naiveté of the world to float that proposition and make it sound like it might be a doable idea. Well, thanks to them, we know from experience that’s a pipe dream!

What is this guy smoking? (I’m not sure that I want some this time… no. I’m pretty sure I don’t)

And one more thing.

What the hell is this nonsense that we can bomb Syria while they are in the middle of a civil war and NOT become a part of that war? Secretary of State  John Kerry has said this over and over again.

I have two word for him……

—  PEARL HARBOR! —

And remember, that was an act of bombing a specific military target. It was an act of war to us, wasn’t it? Why would that be different for the Syrians? Because we SAID SO?????

Interesting that I didn’t hear any of the Senators in opposition to Kerry’s arguments and rationals bring this up. I give full credit to the wonderfully incisive Dan Carlin for pointing out this obvious point in his “Common Sense” podcast, “An Army Of One“.