- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Wasn’t Barack Obama dead set against getting involved militarily in Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had widely used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds in his own country?
Wasn’t Obama one of those U.S. senators who said there just wasn’t enough proof that Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, opposed the war from the start?
Wasn’t Obama the presidential candidate who touted his antiwar record in his contest with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2008?
Of course, it’s all true.
Obama was either disingenuous then or has changed his mind about getting militarily involved in the Middle East – supposedly over the issue of chemical weapons, chemical weapons that probably got to Syria from Iraq.
But it’s much worse than that.
There are no good guys in the conflict in which Obama is about to take sides. There are only bad guys and worse guys. And which side do you suppose Obama has chosen? That’s right. The worse guys – the really, really bad guys, those actually allied with al-Qaida.
And now there is credible evidence to suggest it wasn’t the authoritarian Syrian government that used chemical weapons against its own people, including its own soldiers. More likely, it was Obama’s al-Qaida friends who are trying to topple Bashar Assad’s regime.
Perhaps even more importantly, Assad actually represents a better alternative for religious minorities in Syria and the Middle East generally, just as Hosni Mubarak did in Egypt and Moammar Gadhafi did in Libya. There aren’t many places left for Christians to run in the Middle East – Egypt and Syria were among the last bastions of tolerance. The Muslim Brotherhood offers nothing but persecution and death for them.
Is this duplicity, stupidity or something else?
I suggest it’s something else.
Now, don’t get me wrong and think I am some kind of apologist for Bashar Assad. My record is clear on that. Assad is a monster. Like his father Hafez Assad, he’s got plenty of blood on his hands. I don’t think he’s above killing his own people and has done plenty of it.
But think about this rationally.
Assad is fighting for his life and his power right now. He probably wouldn’t last a day longer if it weren’t for the support of his allies – Iran and Hezbollah. But would he be the first suspect to come to mind to gas his own troops? What kind of sense does that make? And if he did it to throw suspicion on the U.S.-backed rebels, wouldn’t he do it more convincingly? Why does the Obama administration assume Assad is responsible?
The answer to that question is easy: Obama bet on the rebels in Syria fully knowing they are led by Sunni terrorists, including al-Qaida. Now there’s no turning back.
Why did he bet on them? The same reason he did in Libya and Egypt and will again and again. It’s a New World Order game in which the U.S. and its European allies make over the Middle East with talk of an “Arab spring” – and the media eat it up with a spoon and fork.
That’s what we’re doing in Syria.
And it will end badly – just as it did in Egypt and Libya, where other authoritarian leaders were deposed in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood whose goal is nothing short of restoring the glory of an Islamic caliphate.
For those who don’t know their history, Islam conquered much of the known world and created one of the biggest and longest lasting empires in the history of the world – lasting from the seventh century until the early part of the 20th century. It was merciless in its expansion and was a plague on the civilized, peace-loving nations, including the U.S., until it was defeated in World War I.
That’s what our “allies” in Syria want to recreate.
That’s what your tax dollars are paying for.
That’s why Benghazi happened and was covered up, successfully so far, beginning just about a year ago.
And that’s why U.S. policy in Syria must be challenged.