Bombs over Baghdad!
Yeah! Ha ha yeah!
Don't even bang unless you plan to hit something
Bombs over Baghdad!" ~Outkast~
Ok, maybe not Baghdad, but you get the point.
I am not riding with O with these bombs over Syria scenario, although I understand why he is doing it. If you are the most powerful man in the free world and you tell someone not to cross a line and they cross it, you will look like you are just selling woof tickets if you don't act. But hey, maybe you shouldn't have drawn that line in the first place.
Where were we when Hutus were slaughtering Tutsis in Rwanda? (I see you Bill. Monica got more attention than the Akazu.) If America has a conscience and cares about mass atrocities and genocide, what prevented (or is preventing) us from acting in Sudan? (O, that question is for you.)
Still, I don't want to hear s*** from all the George Bush apologists and cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. In fact, if you were not as vocal and outraged about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you need to shut the hell up now. These folks have the audacity to be outraged that O wants to go all Gap Band on Syria but they were either silent or they supported the war in Iraq.
The wingnuts rationalize their pretzel logic by saying that they trust one commander in chief but not the other. They oppose this guy because they hate him so much, not because they thought it out and it is the right thing to do.
They oppose him for one crass reason: politics.
Some even went as far as to use this crises in the Middle East to do a little fund raising.
"As your voice in Washington, I will continue to listen and take a stand for you. Donate today to stand with me to strongly oppose military action in Syria," reads a fundraising pitch Grimm sent around to supporters.
An email asks supporters to donate $25 ore more to "stand with" the congressman in opposing "President Obama's plan."
Grimm made headlines Thursday when he shifted positions on Syria.
Initially in favor of military action, he said that he withdrew his support because Obama "showed his hand when he should have kept it close" in deciding to pursue congressional approval for military action before moving forward with attacks.
"Now that the [President Bashar] Assad regime has seen our playbook and has been given enough time to prepare and safeguard potential targets, I do not feel that we have enough to gain as a nation by moving forward with this attack on our own," he said in a release.
In the fundraising email, he further explained his position and accused Obama of "failing to show strength" on Syria.
"President Obama has failed to show strength at this critical moment in time. While the debate in Congress continues, our nation’s credibility grows weaker and weaker. After much deliberation and prayer, I have decided to withdraw my support. I do not feel that our country has enough to gain by moving forward with this attack," he said.
The chances of a resolution to approve the use of military force in Syria passing the House look slim at this point, with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike expressing opposition." [Source]
For those of us who are morally and ideologically consistent, we opposed the last war and we oppose anything resembling another one. For the rest of the hypocrites and charlatans who are now embracing a dove like persona; we call bull s**t!
*Rwanda pic from EarPluggin.blogspot.com
0 Comments