I believe the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
Last week President Obama concluded that the Syrians had used chemical weapons and administration spokesmen stated that the US had decided to respond militarily. Those spokesmen did not include the President.
Then the British voted against military participation, partly because of the mistaken statements made by US officials at the start of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons.
Secretary of State John Kerry then spoke for the administration and said 1,429, a precise number, had been killed by the most recent chemical attacks.
Then President Obama confirmed that he had decided to militarily attack Syria-but wanted congressional "authorization."
Then the State Department presented the evidence to the Russians. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, describing Kerry as his "good friend" said he wasn't convinced.
Then administration spokesmen said the President's intent by the planned air attacks was to "punish" Assad, not to stop the chemical attacks.
Then Senator John McCain said he would not support a military attack that would only give the President political "cover," as the punitive attack would, and that would not stop the use of chemical weapons.
Then the President invited Sen. McCain to the White House.
Today, France stated its belief that "at least 281," not Kerry's 1,429, had been killed.
I still believe that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. An American military attack on Syria is only justified if done with the intent to aid the Syrian people. Neither American foreign policy generally nor this proposed Syrian policy is based on an intent to aid another people. Both are based on what is best for America. I oppose an American military attack on Syria that is done with intent to further American interests or "core national interests" or to "punish" Bashar al-Assad. None of those, all used by the President or his spokesmen, are justification for American military intervention here. I oppose an American military attack because I want America to have less influence in the world. President Obama has shown himself here to be incompetent which has lessened American influence. In this instance I support the President in his incompetence for the reason stated.
Last week President Obama concluded that the Syrians had used chemical weapons and administration spokesmen stated that the US had decided to respond militarily. Those spokesmen did not include the President.
Then the British voted against military participation, partly because of the mistaken statements made by US officials at the start of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons.
Secretary of State John Kerry then spoke for the administration and said 1,429, a precise number, had been killed by the most recent chemical attacks.
Then President Obama confirmed that he had decided to militarily attack Syria-but wanted congressional "authorization."
Then the State Department presented the evidence to the Russians. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, describing Kerry as his "good friend" said he wasn't convinced.
Then administration spokesmen said the President's intent by the planned air attacks was to "punish" Assad, not to stop the chemical attacks.
Then Senator John McCain said he would not support a military attack that would only give the President political "cover," as the punitive attack would, and that would not stop the use of chemical weapons.
Then the President invited Sen. McCain to the White House.
Today, France stated its belief that "at least 281," not Kerry's 1,429, had been killed.
I still believe that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. An American military attack on Syria is only justified if done with the intent to aid the Syrian people. Neither American foreign policy generally nor this proposed Syrian policy is based on an intent to aid another people. Both are based on what is best for America. I oppose an American military attack on Syria that is done with intent to further American interests or "core national interests" or to "punish" Bashar al-Assad. None of those, all used by the President or his spokesmen, are justification for American military intervention here. I oppose an American military attack because I want America to have less influence in the world. President Obama has shown himself here to be incompetent which has lessened American influence. In this instance I support the President in his incompetence for the reason stated.
