Freedom is Work

No better time to post this than September 11.

That speech by Obama last night; what a crock! And by the way, I'm not a Republican. I'm an Independent Patriotic American. I love my country more than I love any single "man" - even a President with sinking poll numbers. Because I'm a patriot, I'm more saddened than anything at the prospect of my beloved country being in the hands of this weak and amateurish President for another 3 years and 3+ months.

In his speech last night, Obama mentioned the constitutional necessity to go before Congress for an urgent  vote in order to get permission to strike at Syria to help diminish Assad's ability to use nuclear weapons. While telling everyone just how urgent the situation is, he also requested that Congress delay that vote. Previously, he's also said he would attack even if Congress votes "No". Huh? WHAT? Besides - Since when did Obama start worrying about governing according to the Constitution? He's used executive fiat more times than I can recall to avoid the Constitutional requirement to consult Congress on a multitude of issues. I hope people realize that this is his effort to (1) get out of the corner he's painted himself into with oscillating statements about red lines and imminent military strikes and (2) to set up a scapegoat - Congress - if this all fails - as it ultimately will. Obama loves to blame anyone other than himself.

My second question is why we haven't been shown any proof that it was definitely Assad's men and not the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah/Muslim Brotherhood "rebels" who initiated these attacks? All we've been told is "We have intelligence that says..." etc. Really? WHAT intelligence, exactly? And by the way - what's the actual "end game scenario"? What's our "Plan B"? Will Syria just sit there as we pummel their towns and cities and kill the human shields they've placed in those areas we're most likely to hit? What happens with "world opinion" when the world's press publishes photos and videos of the dying women and children who are losing their lives because of "wicked American aggression"? What will you do, Mr. President, if your "targeted strikes" cause a massive attack on Israel or Jordan? What about when they attack Turkey, a NATO member? If that happens, your hollow promise of "no boots on the ground" will be impossible to keep. According to the NATO Charter, when one NATO member is attacked, a response is required from ALL NATO members. Now we're talking WWIII with Russia and possibly China taking sides with Syria and Iran.

So far we've "helped" rid Egypt and Libya of wicked dictators only to be replaced with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamists.. If Assad goes down he's #3. Those "rebels" (the same Muslim Brotherhood al Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamists) are waiting to take over. How are those other 2 working out for us? Nice and stable? Assad's no angel; we know that. But what exactly is the "imminent threat" Syria poses to American national security? Isn't that supposed to be the rationale for acts of war? No matter how small or large a bombing campaign might be it's still an act of war.

Where are we going to find the money for this exercise in futility and its offshoots? We're already crumbling under the weight of a $17 TRILLION debt! Just to keep those ships in a state of readiness in the Mediterranean Sea costs hundreds of millions of dollars - per WEEK! We cannot afford such waste when people in our own country are going to bed hungry. I almost forgot. Osama bin Laden publicly stated that al-Qaeda's  goal was to ruin America economically. Even in death, he and his maniacs are marching to victory - with an assist from America's amateurish President!

Another issue I have with this non-strategy of leading from behind is that he's aligning America with Russia as Russia suggests they "lead the charge" with respect to ridding Syria of the very chemical weapons which Russia and Iraq provided. Russia has already (1) denied there were chemical weapons used and (2) when that didn't work for them, they said the Rebels must have used them rather than Assad. Yet we're supposed to believe the Russians when they send the inspectors through the front doors of the munitions depots while Assad's guys are running out the back doors with the chemicals. Yeah. Right. I still remember how Iraq managed to impede the U.N. Nuclear Inspectors led by Hans Blik. That fiasco went on for some 8  years. Yet supposedly this time we'll be successful with Russia in the lead within a matter of weeks.

Obama told us how the "international community" is with us. Exactly who is he talking about? We're "backed" by France! No one else has offered any military assistance, even if needed. Britain, our strongest and closest ally, has refused. But fear not; Albania is standing strong with us - just not militarily! In contrast, the previous President - so widely ridiculed by the left - including President Obama, 2016 Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry - for going to war in Iraq AFTER consultation with Congress and with a 40 nation coalition. Bush was supposedly a fool as well as a very dangerous man for "going it alone". Only 40 nations were allied with America? What a cowboy that George W. Bush was! Then everyone on the left from Code Pink to moveon.org crowed about how right they were when no WMDs were found in Iraq. Of course they weren't found. They were moved to Syria in several convoys of trucks before the war began! We know that much from satellite photos. So now we're doing the "right thing" with one military ally by going after those same weapons with "limited strikes" while the mantra just a few tears ago was "Bush Lied; People Died"!

This President is more a threat to America's national security than any weapon or regime. God help us.