Dovish Liberals Morph into Bloodthirsty Hawks

"We came. We saw. He died." -- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton upon hearing of Muammar Gaddafi's death. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barack Hussein Obama: describing how Liberals should treat Conservatives

"We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That's why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to...serve as Al Qaeda's Air Force. I'll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don't give weapons to people who hate you. Don't give weapons to people who want to kill you." --Sen. Ted Cruz An effort to revoke Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is currently over halfway to its goal of collecting 40,000 signatures. The Nobel Committee's decision to award Obama the Peace Prize for laughably lame reasons was always an ideologically driven act of myopic hubris, but it has increasingly become an embarrassing albatross for Thorbjørn Jagland and his fellow Norwegian committee members. Be that as it may, it has been interesting to watch the liberal elite and their propaganda outlets morph from cooing doves into shrieking hawks. According to a recent report "President Obama's liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria....," but no matter, the intelligentsia and other elites want war, need war, crave war. There are, after all, beaucoup bucks to be made, not to mention other alluring "benefits."

---

One might expect "soft conservatives" to be simpatico with the Obama regime's aid to Islamist elements in Syria, but the fact that normally anti-war liberals are vigorously banging war drums comes as something of a surprise. Julian Pecquet reports that "Former DNC (Democratic National Committee) chairman Howard Dean supports President Obama's call for a punitive military strike against Syria. ...Dean's support for punishing Bashar Assad's regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons is particularly noteworthy because the former Vermont governor was the most prominent Iraq war critic during the run-up to the 2003 invasion." Rather than post a "Who's Who" of pundits, politicians and propaganda outlets that favor US military intervention in Syria, I'll suffice it to say that a relatively small group of elites favor it, while an overwhelming majority of "we the people" strongly oppose it. To cut to the chase, a question of prime importance is "who stands to gain the most from the USA's military involvement in Syria?" If you guessed Israel you'd be wrong. Michael Snyder put it this way in a recent article: "If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting." No heavy lifting for the Saudis, they get others to do their grunt work. Hmm...Saudi Arabia? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you--well, maybe not so much. When you take into account Syria's cozy relationship with Iran and Hezbollah (same-same), and the longstanding animosity between Iran (Shia Muslims) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni Muslim) things start to click into place. Add in the collusion between the Far Left (yes that includes fascism) and Muslim radicals (birds of a feather and all that), the Syrian picture begins to come into focus. (To get a finely focused picture involves following a long and Byzantine trail connecting Big Banking, petrodollars, the US going off the gold standard, OPEC riches, the Muslim Brotherhood, Adolf Hitler, the CIA, Wahabism/Salafism, globalism, the Caliphate, and a plethora of other related elements). The federal government's and the intelligentsia's Alfred E. Neumanesque "What, me worry?" attitude toward radical Islam only adds to the confusing nature of the muddled Syrian situation. In a nutshell, Syrian President Assad = Bad; while Saudi/US backed rebels = Very Bad. US military intervention in Syria is a lose/lose scenario from the get-go. Here's an idea: require any politician that craves war with Syria to fight on the front lines--a few days should suffice. "We the people" would finally see an honest indication of just how vitally important to American interests war with Syria really is.