Whose fault is it no one supports Obama on Syria? George W. Bush, of course

Here's my issue with Syria thing. Had we had not been lied to, had we had not, like, experienced a bunch of, like, utter BS about people, about, uh, nuc-, about, uh, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and a dictator doing this to his own people and the need for intervening, if we hadn't gone through that whole thing which turned out to not be true, to actually date it and completely, some of it completely fabricated we come to find out, uh, we would have intervened in Syria two years ago. We would have gone in there, we would have made sure that these, that these children were not gassed. That would have, we, you know, I can be pretty confident that we had not been in this never-ending conflict, two wars by the way for the last, you know, twelve years, we wouldn't have, we would have been, uh, much more likely to have gone in and done something about Syria.

Sitting in as Secretary of Defense is Chuck Hagel, who got his job because of his opposition to the Iraq War and attacks on Bush over WMDs, who will now be overseeing a new war over Syrian WMDs. Three anti-war doves will be leading a war that represents everything that they claimed to stand against. NBC reported that Obama officials were worried that the legacy of the debate over Iraqi WMDs would harm their efforts to get the United Nations Security Council on board with a Syrian intervention. But the legacy is the cynicism of prominent Democrats like Biden, Pelosi, Gore and Reid who turned their backs on the WMD consensus and clawed their way to power by undermining a war that they had supported. Democrats destroyed the credibility of American foreign policy under Bush. Now they expect that time and poor memories will have already washed away everything that they did. And if that fails, then even more cynically they are preparing to blame Bush yet again, this time for the refusal of Russia and China to sign off on their Muslim Brotherhood regime change plan for Syria. But Russia and China would no more sign off on an invasion of Syria than on an invasion of Iraq.

When President Obama took office, one of his first moves was to remove a bust of Churchill that Bush had been given by Tony Blair in the wake of 9/11. It was a symbol that Britain stood by America, and Obama’s disposal of it spoke volumes. The Anglo-American alliance was a relic of the Bush era, and would be swept away. Other swipes, such as Obama’s false reference to BP as “British Petroleum,” his declaration that America had “no stronger ally” than France, the senior State Dept. official who said about Britain, “You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment” and the fact that not a single senior member of the Obama administration attended the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, all give indications about how Britain is seen in Obama’s America. Yet the most galling snub to Britain comes in the form of the Falkland Islands dispute. Although British territory for centuries, and in the face of a population that consistently votes over 98% in favor of remaining British, Argentina have attempted to claim the Islands as their own. After losing a war against Britain in the 1980’s, Argentina adopted a new tactic, calling for ‘negotiations’ to the sovereignty of the Islands, hoping to at least get a chunk of the land. The Obama administration, speaking through then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sided against their best ally, and with Kirchner’s Argentina, demanding Britain sit down with Argentina and negotiate sovereignty of the British territory under the pretense of neutrality. All this contributes to a strong signal from the Obama administration that Britain is really not that important to America anymore.

Support Canada Free Press

VIEW Comments