- Text smaller
- Text bigger
I can’t believe what I’m hearing in Washington these days.
Did John Kerry, who achieved national fame as an anti-war protester, really say that the Arabs have agreed to pay for the overthrow of the Syrian regime?
Did the man who opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein after he voted for it in the U.S. Senate become the No. 1 war hawk in the country?
Did the man who accused U.S. military men in Vietnam of routinely committing all manner of atrocities a la Genghis Khan suddenly come to the conclusion that missiles are more discriminating in their destructive power than soldiers with consciences?
Honestly, the hypocrisy of the political left is so thick and so blatant, I can’t believe duplicitous, double-talking monsters like Kerry and Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are even taken seriously anymore.
Why does anyone believe anything they say?
Please don’t tell me they are anti-war. They are anti-war only when it suits their purpose. They are anti-war only when the going gets tough. They are anti-war only when they are not running things. They are anti-war only when it is convenient for them. They are anti-war only when it is politically expedient for them.
There is no principle in them whatsoever.
They are liars – pure and simple.
I can almost understand John “the poker player” McCain. He never met a war he didn’t like. I get that. He’s dead wrong. But at least there is some consistency. He’s a hawk. On Syria intervention, his only question is whether lobbing some cruise missiles at unspecified targets is doing enough. He doesn’t know good guys from bad guys or bad guys from really bad guys. He’s become a walking anachronism. But, give him his due, he’s consistent – even if he’s consistently wrong.
How does one begin to comprehend the newfound machismo and phony bravado of the Obama inner circle?
How does Kerry, after dining so famously with Bashar Assad, his wife and Teresa Heinz-Kerry and characterizing the Syrian leader as a positive force for peace and stability in the Middle East, now enthusiastically call for bombing him?
I’ll tell you how.
And since I said it others have come suddenly come to the same conclusion.
The Saudis are demanding it.
Kerry as much as admitted it when he said “the Arabs” are willing to finance the whole war with Syria. What Arabs do you think he means? It’s not Jordan. It’s not Egypt. It’s the oil sheikhs.
And we all know when the Saudis speak those who listen and respond adoringly wind up as wealthier men after they leave their temporary elected or appointed political offices. It’s a better deal than the K Street lobbyists offer.
Jimmy Carter is no longer farming for peanuts after doing their bidding.
Bill and Hillary Clinton no longer have to worry about writing any more unjustifiably big-advance, low-selling books.
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush certainly don’t have to worry about where their bread is buttered.
And we all know Kerry, who twice fell in love with and married heiresses, is always looking for opportunities for more personal wealth.
Could it be that simple?
Just study Occam’s razor, the principle that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is probably right.
That leads me to conclude that these men and women are content with the hideous, almost unspeakable notion that the U.S. military can and should be used as a Saudi mercenary force if it is in their best personal interests.
I know it’s almost too unbelievably horrific to imagine, but try to explain why American leaders are seriously debating a wildly unpopular military attack on a faraway nation that poses no threat to U.S. security and is disconnected with any U.S. vital interests.
This is what Congress should be investigating. This is what Congress should be holding hearings about. This is what Congress should be debating – not whether to authorize an attack Syria, but why the executive branch is so determined to do so, with or without Congress’ approval.