In a completely expected yet disappointing moment, a wide range of Democrat and Republican fools have united in support of war.
It's hard to know precisely where to begin with this wrap-up as there is rampant stupidity on both sides of the political aisle but let's start with a preposterous statement by Secretary of State John Kerry who said Congress Faces 'Munich Moment'.
Secretary of State John Kerry told House Democrats during a Monday conference call that they face a "Munich moment" as they weigh whether to approve striking Syria to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons, two sources with knowledge of the call told NBC News.
The phrase is a reference to the 1938 Munich Pact that ceded control of part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany -- a moment that history has harshly judged as an appeasement of Adolf Hitler that preceded World War II.
Kerry's Preposterous Comparison
Five Simple Facts
- Syria has no desire to rule the world
- Syria did not invade any other countries
- Syria is not demanding territory as the price for non-aggression
- This is nothing like the 1938 Munich Pact that ceded control of part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany
- Kerry looks like a complete fool (as well as an Obama tool) to make the comparison he did
Rush to War
In this mad dash to war please note that John Kerry says US tests prove sarin used in Syria attacks
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, on Sunday strengthened the case for military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime after announcing that tests conducted on gas attacks in Syria had proved positive for the nerve agent sarin.
Sarin Used? By Whom?
Let's assume that sarin was used. Not once did Kerry say who was responsible. So who was responsible?
As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week's chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.
The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad's guilt was "a judgment … already clear to the world."
However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
"My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry," said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a "tube-like structure" while others were like a "huge gas bottle."
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Propaganda On Both Sides
Given the propaganda on both sides, it is arguable as to whether the above story is true or not. Regardless, the story is plausible.
More importantly, precisely what business is it of the US to rush to war over uncertain facts?
Is poison gas really any worse than tens of thousands killed in African slaughters by machetes and other means?
To those who died, what difference does it make?
The Difference Is Oil
The US is in Syria for two reasons.
- Warmongers promote war on the flimsiest of excuses every chance they get
Were it not for oil, the warmongers probably would not have succeeded in this case. Oil is the only real difference between this case and numerous slaughters in Africa in which the US stood by and did nothing.
Boehner Caves In
As totally expected by any rational thinking person (especially in light of Boehner caving in to the whims of Obama on numerous budget issues) Boehner's Aboard: Obama Gains Syria-Strike Support
President Barack Obama gained ground Tuesday in his drive for congressional backing of a military strike against Syria, winning critical support from House Speaker John Boehner while key Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed to back a no-combat-troops-on-the-ground action in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
Warmonger McCain Leads the Charge
On September 2, McCain said Congress Must Support Obama on Syria Action
Republican Senator John McCain said Congress must back taking action against Syria and that a failure of lawmakers to act would be "catastrophic" for U.S. interests in the region.
Catastrophic? How? Why? Is Syria a threat to the US? If so, in what way?
McCain Caught Playing iPhone Poker During Syria Hearing
Syria is so much a threat that McCain Was Caught Playing iPhone Poker During Syria Hearing
As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) "passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing."
Yes senator, this is a scandal. If you were a Democrat, Fox news would be trumpeting the story for days if not weeks.
McCain learned nothing from his six years in captivity in one of the stupidest wars in history. And because of his captivity, he is the ideal spokesman for the defense industry warmongers.
Who better than McCain to fire the often heard charge "weak on defense"
McCain Fake Patriot
McCain is the gold medal winner in the "fake patriotism" contest.
Getting shot down in a war that the US should not have been involved with in the first place does not make one a hero.
Squandering taxpayer money in other senseless wars does not make one a hero either.
The simple facts of the matter are: this is another mad rush to war, on trumped-up evidence, for no good reason even IF the evidence as portrayed was correct.
Yet, here we go again, in another mad dash to war, this time with Obama siding with war-mongering McCain, and Boehner caving in to Obama (as he always does, on every issue).
Recall that Hillary Clinton caved in to Bush (and likely lost the nomination to Obama because she would not admit an error).
What if Romney Won?
Would things be any different if Mitt Romney won the election?
Given the Democrat strangle hold on the Senate, it is 100% certain that Obamacare would not have been repealed. Most legislation in Congress would not have been any different.
The biggest difference under Romney, is that we would probably be in a trade war with China and a real war with Iran. Would that be better?
If you conclude war was likely no matter who won, you conclude correctly. If you sense I am disgusted with both political parties, you sense correctly.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.