Yesterday I saw the Drudge cherry when it first popped up, declaring the United States was going to start offering military support to al Qaeda in Syria.
That’s right. I’m not going to refer to them as “rebels,” because that’s called a “euphemism.”
The people fighting Assad aren’t patriots who want to bring liberty. They are Islamsist who want to bring the tyranny of Sharia law.
Need evidence? Don’t take my word for it:
A Syrian rebel group’s April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.
This is who we’re providing military support to?
Well, right after the Drudge cherry hit the Internet, I was told it was time to go to little league. As I was driving to the ball park, I was listening to Mark Levin, who was making a great point. Why now?
We’re told it’s because Team Obama now has multiple sources telling them Assad used chemical weapons, and that’s the red line. That’s the game changer.
But, Levin points out, that dog won’t hunt:
Fox News White House Correspondent Ed Henry started his questioning by asking the president, “Do you risk U.S. credibility if you don’t take military action?” During an explanation of the Syrian conflict as it currently stands — a direct response to this question — the president used the words “game changer.”
As Mediaite notes, Henry then questioned whether a “game changer” would mean that the U.S. military would intervene. Obama responded with the aforementioned idea that the government would need to “rethink the range of options” the U.S. — and international community — has to rectifying the situation.
Just because they used chemical weapons doesn’t mean America will respond with military force. And they didn’t know for sure chemical weapons had even been used.
That was back in April.
We’re told now they’ve confirmed the use of chemical weapons by Assad.
Who do they have gathering intelligence now? Those speed demons at the Cincinnati IRS office?
Are we to believe that it actually took them this long to verify this intel?
Or is there another reason we’re now about to get into another war in the Middle East?
How many scandals is Obama dealing with right now? Like eight?
What better time to shout, “ISLAMIC SQUIRREL” and “fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.”
Those are George Bush’s words. But he wasn’t talking about Obama. He was talking about this guy:
Remember Monica? Remember the attack on Sudan?
It wasn’t out of the question then, and it’s not out of the question now:
President Obama is facing far more scandals now than Clinton was then.
And considering back in April there were reports Syria crossed Obama’s “red line,” it makes me wonder why we waited until now to take action.
Is Obama wagging the dog? Probably.
But even if he isn’t, backing al-Qaeda in Syria is a bad decision.
Especially when you consider the fact that Russia wasn’t backing the camel’s butt like they are this time.
Wag the dog or not, Obama couldn’t be more inept regarding his handling of the situation in Syria.