We are only two weeks away from the anniversary of 9/11 and how far we have come. The Obama administration has been making the case for using cruise missiles to strike Syria. Unlike 12 years ago, when the U.S. entered Afghanistan or in 2003 when the U.S went to Iraq to prevent Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (which were never found), this time, American's aren't buying it.
Two polls conducted this week make a strong point about how the majority of American's feel about the U.S. carrying out cruise missile strikes against Damascus. The first poll, conducted by Reuters found that only 9% of Americans support any U.S. intervention in Syria.
The second poll, conducted by NBC News finds 79% Americans, including nearly 70% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans say President Obama should be required to receive authority from Congress before taking any action against the Syrian regime for its suspected use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war.
It is important to note that the demand for the President to receive "authorization" follows the Constitution, but is not something President's have done since WWII. This is a significant shift and one that likely reflects an American electorate that no longer believes whatever claims its government makes about the need for military intervention.
So what has changed over the past 12 years since September 11, 2001? Could it be that the rise of alternative media, over the past decade, has provided a much stronger voice in balancing information for the American people?
For example, Monday Secretary of State John Kerry made the case that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime was "morally wrong". He went on to insist that the only force in Syria with access to chemical weapons is the Assad regime. Secretary Kerry is of course, wrong. As we pointed out, Kerry ignored the fact that al Nusra Front the Syrian wing of al Qaeda in Iraq was caught with 2kgs of sarin gas.
Sec. Kerry's claims along with claims by the rest of the Obama Administration have done little to nothing to shift the views of the American public. The national media have not been the one to challenge erroneous claims about chemical weapons, nor have the national media provided much coverage of the strength of the al Nusra Front in Syria. The alternative media have.
Now, with the British Parliament voting down action against Syria, and virtually no support around the world. President Obama is left in a tough position; a position that no President has found himself in some time. That position, one where an increasing number of people have access to good information about what is happening in the Middle East, and more importantly an American electorate that is becoming increasingly educated about U.S. foreign policy that doesn't make much sense. It is a position President Bush did not find himself in as he led the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is a position American presidents will hopefully find themselves in going forward.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.