My latest letter to our Congressional representatives: Vote “NO” on bombing Syria. There are those who say that the humanitarian justification in Syria is different than George Bush found in Iraq when he built the case to bomb Iraq. I agree. Here are the differences: 1. In Iraq there was a clear cut objective in removing Saddam Hussein. 2. There was a clear, well-conceived plan to achieve that objective. 3. George Bush spent the better part of a year building the case for a UN resolution in support for bombing. 4. George Bush built a coalition of 48 countries who supported bombing Iraq. 5. George Bush sought and got Congressional approval for bombing Iraq. 6. The possible negative consequences out-weighed the positive outcomes of such a limited strike. 7. The majority of people in the United States supported the operation. 8. There was a clear distinction between the forces that supported Saddam Hussein and those that opposed him. 9. Bush’s strategy of shock and awe achieved the result of removing Hussein in relatively short order. 10. It is a fact that Iran is pulling the strings in Syria and directing the extremist elements. 11. Given the lack of moral turpitude of the extremist elements, it is conceivable that they, at the direction of Iran, could have launched the gas attacks specifically draw the US into bombing Syria to create a pretext for Iran to attack Israel in retaliation, thus sparking a broader regional war. 12. It seems obvious to me that Iran is playing a geo-political game of chess rope-a-dope to draw neophyte Obama, who is playing checkers, into triggering a regional war to further Iran’s desires for expansion of their vision of a Muslim caliphate. None of these conditions exist in Obama’s plan to conduct a “proportional, limited strike” to “send a message” to Assad without changing the balance of power or altering the progress of the Syrian civil war.
Posted on: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 03:00:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015