As I mentioned on my streaming news show (“FULL-CONTACT With Erik Rush LIVE!”) earlier this week, the political landscape is looking more surreal every day. Like a cross between a low-budget science fiction film and the cartoonist’s conception of a bad acid trip, the incongruity between the information advanced by politicos and the press and the reality before us evokes a cognitive dissonance that truly boggles the mind. Even seasoned analysts are expressing almost universal confusion.

Lights flashing, bells ringing, rows of people running on elevated causeways, a glass jar of mayonnaise bursts across your face …


Exactly. The imperative for military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad offered by the Obama administration is apparent to no one, yet the president’s sense of urgency is palpable. When Secretary of State John Kerry spoke before America on Aug. 30 and made the case for pursuing Obama’s “limited” yet risk-laden campaign, he resembled the evil Inner Party operative O’Brien in Orwell’s “1984,” relating with utmost authority information most of us know to be untrue; the underlying message being that we must all come to believe it nonetheless. As pointed out by the New York Times, Kerry used the phrase “we know” 24 times in his attempt to validate the administration’s intelligence on the Syrian government’s alleged massacre of more than 1,400 people with chemical weapons.

Wholly leaving aside the risk involved in taking such steps (retaliation on the part of Iran and possibly Russia, and the threats of regional Islamist nations to attack Israel), the rationale for attacking the Assad regime cannot be justified on a logical or humanitarian basis. Logically, there is marked imprudence and arguable treason in ordering our military to intercede on behalf of those who are technically our enemies (in the Syrian rebels, some of whom are al-Qaida). Considering the Obama administration’s past comportment, the humanitarian argument is sheer hypocrisy.

The end of the string that could unravel the entire garment but which few choose to note is the fact that the very use of chemical weapons on the part of Assad is seriously in question. As reported first in WND last week, evidence exists that it was the anti-Assad rebels who carried out the sarin gas attack on a suburb of Damascus. Later, it was revealed that Carla Del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that the nerve agent sarin may have been used by rebel fighters earlier in the year.

Finally, ANI News Agency reported in January 2013 that according to leaked documents, “the Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”

Republican leaders ought to be greedily rooting through this information like starving hogs, rather than summarily capitulating to this president in the most disgusting display of spinelessness we have ever seen. Certainly ascertaining the truth of who committed any given war crime is essential, particularly in the face of conflicting evidence.

Many conservative pundits are running with the narrative of President Obama attempting to save face by moving forward with this attack, but I believe there is far more to it than that. While the president’s ego certainly rivals any I have ever observed in action, I don’t think that it is a sufficient explanation for his sense of urgency. The actual or underlying reasons may be complex and could involve an attempt to impede the progress of investigations into such “phony scandals” as Benghazi and the targeting of citizens and groups by the IRS and NSA. It might involve incidents attendant to these, such as the suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings or the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Or Obama’s haste to attack Syria might be a pre-emptive strike (no pun intended) against an enemy closer to home, perhaps one that is poised to engage him in another manner. It bears mentioning that the White House hastily released its forged long-form birth certificate just prior to the publication of Jerome Corsi’s book “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” While this maneuver only led to more questions and expanded investigations into Obama’s inscrutable origins, it certainly speaks to the president’s proclivity for haste and rash action as well as misdirection.

A lot could happen between now and the time Obama secures the green light to attack Syria from Congress. Could this be part of the reason for Obama determining to seek congressional approval after all? For example: There have been reports of the Muslim Brotherhood’s displeasure with Obama in light of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi being deposed; perhaps they expected more, shall we say, support from Obama in preventing Morsi’s ouster. Perhaps the recent reports coming out of Egypt identifying Obama as a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood are a thinly veiled threat.

Should Congress refuse to go along with Obama in striking Syria – even after telegraphing that they might – would leave Obama seemingly blameless in leaving the Muslim Brotherhood-supported rebels in Syria hanging.

Again – no pun intended, of course.


Should Congress give Obama authority to attack Syria?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.