Lindsey Graham asks a good question: "If we can't properly handle chemical weapons in Syria, how are we going to respond to the nuclear threat in Iran?" Well, that's a good point, but the answer is: "The same way we've responded to the nuclear threat in North Korea."
Let's face it: We're at a time when we need a very strong leader in Washington. The sad part about it is that, with the exception of some recently retired military types, I don't see that kind of leadership in either party. We've degraded ourselves to being a nation of weenies.
Now then, does that mean that I agree with Graham that we should go bomb the hell out of Assad's military assets? Should we so cripple him that a rebel victory is virtually assured. If so, what is our game plan for dealing with Al Qaeda when they take over? What is our game plan for dealing with Russia if they intervene or with an Israeli tragedy if Iran or Syria send missiles there?
Let me be candid: The last place on the face of this earth I want to be is in a foxhole next to Obama. He has proven himself to be incapable of dealing with the enemy. With the situation being as volatile as it is the the Middle East, we have no business firing a B-B gun over there until we get our own ducks in a row and that is not going to happen without a regime change in the White House.
And, at this stage of the game, any action on our part must be seen as an act of war. If you're going to war, you want someone in charge who is well-acquainted with the subject matter. Obama should stay out of Syria and deal with the domestic war instead... The Benghazi Massacre, I.R.S., N.A.S., D.O.J. ad infinitum.
That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment