Obama's War

The opposition to Obama's war is speaking. Is anyone listening?

It is interesting that Obama and his cohorts were strongly opposed to the Bush wars for far less significant reasons than folks ought to now be opposed to Obama's desired actions. At least with the Bush wars, there was some connection to direct terrorism against the United States after 9/11 as well as a long-time enemy in Hussein. Even if you were not in favor of the escalation into Iraq, there was a link between Hussein and the support of suicide bombers. Was that a direct threat to the U.S.? Probably not.

But what direct threat is Assad to the U.S.? Given the grotesque instability of the middle east, does it not make sense to simply let the dogs fight it out instead of attempting to grab the worst one by the ears? How can you tell which one is worse in the midst of the dogfight? Seems like we keep picking the wrong one.

Barak Hussein Obama wants to create a strongman enemy in Assad but to what end? Obama seems to keep picking the side of our currently stated enemies against the newer enemies. He picks Muslim extremists backed by Al-Qaeda links and Muslim Brotherhood ties. That was the case in Egypt, good job Barak, and is clearly now the case in Syria (though John Kerry says only 15-20% of the rebels are the really bad guys), two for two. This makes no sense at all. Maybe Obama's plan is to keep everyone confused on foreign and domestic soil so he can continue his relentless pursuit of socialist politics here at home? Let us pray his strategy, whatever it is, backfires, so that we can all see that the emperor wears no clothes.

This is what Rand Paul had to say about it. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/