You are on page 1of 5

The decision as to whether to launch a Syrian War is not agonizing, as reflex-Ds such as Trudy Rubin incessantly suggest in defense

of BHO [Worldview: On Syria, no good option] and as reflex-Ds such as the Jewish Exponent publish an editorial and two op-eds that uniformly support BHOs bellicosityand as neither opts to recognize the possibility that this sudden event is actually a direct consequence of the Obama Doctrine [RETREAT] during the past half-decade; his upcoming interviews and speech will probably not alter the devastating whip-count appreciably [as per lefties @ WaPo, AP, Think-Progress], yielding such a bad situation in the House that its possible D-Senators wont pass it [lacking the desire to be hung-out-to-dry when anticipating a courageous defense of BHO would have to be mounted subsequently, noting Reid faces double-digit Democratic defections and Pelosi Warns BHO May Not Have House Votes]. BHO wont be able to use this vote to bash Congress due to bipartisan opposition; this could presage domestic-side retreat as well, just in time for the upcoming Defund ObamaCare wars [intra-GOP, and inter-party]which have monopolized prior blast e-mails during the past month.

It may be recalled that the essay this physician co-authored with Dr. Sherkoh Abbas [The Kurds can lead a reborn Syria, at peace with all of her neighbors ] detailed the Third Way to perceive the current conundrum; it has been published in Israpundit, on the homepage of the Kurdistan National Assembly, and now on Doznewsand it is going to appear [pending] in the Jerusalem Post and [in a revised hard-copy incarnation] in the New English Review. This constitutes a full-court-press effort to maximize the necessary awareness of the need to support non-Islamist rebels who, until recently, BHO has been ignoring [while supporting entities aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood]. Thus, rather than bash BHO, this constitutes an effort to help him choose wisely, and it must be noted that other voices in the wilderness who have been clamoring for YEARS regarding the need to have paid attention to the Kurds include Joseph Puder, Jerome Gordon, Ted Belman and Jonathan Spyer[as other pundits have ignored them].

Obviously, a tremendous amount of information has been culled from the Internet during recent weeks, and it is difficult to envision how to format its presentation in this venue; thus, lengthy pieces are to be provided in a series of blast e-mails, with extensive commentary reserved, to follow the data-dump. These recitations cannot be viewed as dicta regarding how America must approach the Middle East,

inasmuch as many additional facets also remain under-reported [e.g., the essay in front page mag by joseph-puder addressing why any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs must include Jewish refugees from arab lands]. Nevertheless, recalling the concept that these problems with BHO are categorized nominallyfor they actually constitute fingers connected to a solitary handit is noted that two essayists have claimed answers-on-benghazi [a foundational component of the Scandal-Sheet that has animated these blasts] will emerge when the benghazi-syria-connection is explored.

Over the years, this physician has been placed into the position of channeling points made in an essay written in defense of Sarah Palin, and illustrative of her insights is her analysis [so-were-bombing-syria-because-syria-is-bombing-syria and-im-the-idiot?] which encompasses so many superb observations [and states them so succinctly] that its entire punch is presented [rather than relying upon the reader to use a hyperlink]: * President Obama wants America involved in Syrias civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic al-Qaeda affiliated rebels. But hes not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Havent we learned? WAGs dont work in war. * We didnt intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but well now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House were not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require too much of a commitment. * President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasnt enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be? * The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obamas advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that hes reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isnt about protecting civilians, and its not been explained how lobbing U.S.

missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians? * We have no clear mission in Syria. Theres no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And wheres the legal consent of the peoples representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded. * Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. Its nonsense to argue that, Well, Bush did it. Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for his wars, ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of Americas vital interests being at stake. * Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his red line promise regarding chemical weapons. * As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who cant recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting Allah Akbar at each other, then let Allah sort it out. These are the introductory/conclusory points made surrounding this essay: They promised us that, if we voted for Mitt Romney, wed have an incompetent foreign policy run by idiots and they were right. But they were right only because more people voted for Barack Obama. In the past year alone (and at an escalating rate in the last week), weve watched Obamas Syrian policy go from stupid, with his red line talk; to more stupid, with his insistence on a delicate yet muscular strike at a date and time to be announced; to idiotic, with a turnaround that sees him insisting that this urgent matter can only be handled by lengthy Congressional debate; to truly delusional, as when he denied ever drawing a red line in the Syrian sand. (Read More: Sarah Palins Donors Targeted & Harassed By Liberal Website.) Sarah Palin, who has a knack for getting to the nub of an issue, took to Facebook to describe exactly whats going on now, and what went on in 2008 when the American people were so afraid of an inexperienced

Vice President that they elected an even less experienced, not to mention socialist, President: (Read More: Sarah Palin: Holes In The Border As Big As Holes In The Amnesty Bill.) Sarah Palin may not have an Ivy League degree, nor does she have Hollywood fawning at her feet, but she has something Obama will never have: intelligence and common sense. (Read More: Bill Maher Rips Sarah Palin: Who Could Make This Show Dumber?) As for Mitt Romney, who tried to defeat Obama in 2012, he warned Americans that Obamas approach to the Middle East would end with disaster in Syria, and he was right, just as he was right about the problems that would come about from ObamaCare. Americans were warnedand they didnt listen. Now they pay the price.

Compounding the sales problem confronting BHO is the comment just heard on the radio by Kudlow, who characterized BHOs speeches as recalling pitches by stockbrokers who werent truly convinced they were hawking a quality product; even MSNBC Thought Obamas Syria Speech [in St. Petersburg] Was Embarrassing & Unconvincing. Indeed, as a majority of congressional-vets-line-up-against-actionin-syria [except petraeus], 70% of Americans Don't Want US to Arm Syrian Rebels. As will be detailed, controversies swirling around Syria allow people to channel pent-up angst regarding BHOs leadership.