Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

It's a Doozy of a Dosey Doe Heard Round the World Thing

Dear America,

G appears, then disappears; she pops in, then out...do the hokey pokey and we turn ourselves about, that's what its all about [clap, clap].

Just think of it as me, G, embracing a rather uncommon, seemingly under-rated, modus operandi  these days -- the posturing of a stellar post once in a blue moon in unison with a few rockets red-glare, the ever-so-lovely and lively element of surprise.

Surprise!  Just when you thought she was a goner...she's baaaack...boom.

This Syria thing is a hot mess; even still, the perverted, welcome distraction (however ugly) saves me from my own life, which at this point is almost unrecognizable.   

But honestly -- Syria now?  I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, with the help of a perfectly undefined army of unknown rebels, or with four destroyers and two aircraft carriers just offshore...

I mean, look at the track record over there...
Come on.
We can't be serious...
We've had no winners: Iraq, not; Afghanistan, not; Egypt, not; Libya, not.  This Arab Spring, as predicted, is more like winter in Siberia.

Mr. President-is-In -- Nope, he's-Out -Obama has made a mockery of both our military might and our foreign policy.   And you know how I know?  Let's review.  We'll begin with simply the latest from the Associated Press:

Obama set the fast-paced events in motion on Saturday, when he unexpectedly stepped back from ordering a military strike under his own authority and announced he would seek congressional approval.

Recent presidents have all claimed the authority to undertake limited military action without congressional backing. Some have followed up with such action.

Obama said he, too, believes he has that authority, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said during the day that even Congress' refusal to authorize the president wouldn't negate the power of the commander in chief
If President Obama feels he has the full authority to intervene and "undertake limited military action without congressional backing," why not go for it?  Why the hokey pokey when you ARE, as you say, the Leader of the Free World -- aka King of Everybody?

Not to mention, this girl is still confused as to the mission.  What's the goal if it's not about getting Assad out now?

Here's some stunning Assad observations --  from John Kerry, going back to 2011--  and courtesy of The Weekly Standard in a post by Daniel Halper from December 21, 2012, that declares right from the start "Assad is now under fire for mass murdering his own civilians, as he fights an internal war to keep his position of power. Even Obama has called for Assad to go."):

"Well, I personally believe that -- I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to -- the last several trips to Syria -- I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward."

But please, don't take my handpicked nuggets as the end all -- go to the source, here, and check out the pictures documenting cozy dinners, chats in big chairs, and all.

No, no, I got a better idea.
Let's recap a little more of the history leading us up to this moment in time, this moment when our "commander in chief" dosey doe's from that was then, this is now, and it's more important to act, to do something, anything, to save face over a self-imposed blurred red line.

For this kind of action, we go to Reuter's -- and a detailed post from July 27, 2013 with the headline, "INSIGHT - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages,"  by Matt Spetalnick and Warren Strobel.

Is that not the greatest thing since musical chairs, or what?

And just so you know -- we can't continue here until you have read it.  So if you decided to fake it till you make it through the day, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars and go back two spaces; great insight awaits; I'll wait...

Now, let's cue Carney, like stat, like yesterday, and before I change my mind:

"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."  August 27, 2013, Reuter's

Oh okay, Jay.

I think I get it now.   We want Assad to leave, but just not by force (at least, not by American forces leading the way and without a European entourage).

Here's General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."  [Translation: this is a huge unknown...offering up ideas synonymous with retaliation possible, al Qaeda and Hezbollah extremists taking advantage of the chaos, large scale  civilian casualties...]

The problem with the president of the United States of America -- as it pertains to this issue of Syria, anyway -- is that his first inclination was to get the support of the world to go into Syria in order to leave a mark, charge a warning across the bow, not to mess with chemical weapons.  When the president didn't get it, he cowered and quickly buried himself with second thoughts.  It was only then, after a walk, no less, that he came to the realization, oops, maybe I should seek authorization from congress.  [Can't have this kind of decision coming back to bite me]  Duh, dosey doe and away we go; do the hokey pokey as he turns himself around, that's what its all about.  [clap, clap]

Hello -- just a girl to Commander-in-Chief -- didn't you hear?  The Military has concerns about Syria!  Will you accept the role to lead to the level of a certain George Washington, for even Dempsey has doubts?

And why sixty days?  What is it you plan to accomplish within sixty days?  And how can you be so sure it's enough time?  What if this plan of yours doesn't go so textbook cut and dried?

If you don't plan on targeting the chemical weapons from the air, what are we targeting? 

If it's not about regime change, what's the point?  Why not?  We've done it before...Mubarak...Saddam...Gaddafi... How do you solve a problem like Syria without taking out the guy who pushes the chemical weapon button in his day job?   And how do you plan on making nice and keeping the [Nobel] Peace [Prize] with the countries siding with Assad -- like Russia?

And how strange it is --  that John Boehner, Eric Cantor, are supporting this kind of misguided international misstep.   Are you kidding me?  Let Obama stand on his own two feet with this decision.  What part of this sounds like a good idea?   I'm dizzy with disgust. [but here's five reasons to think twice about it...congress]

Something tells me at the rate we're going, a big fat oopsie-daisy muttered out of the lips of our fair leader is expected sometime before the end of the first week of November, give or take another round of hokey pokey and perhaps a dosey doe or two.

Make it a Good Day, G

1 comment:

  1. Public does not know this: Attacking Libya has sinister agendas beyond trading ambassador for sheik and setting up sending Libya shoulder missiles to radical (normal?) Islamists, but to unilaterally disarm the Navy by causing shooting cruise missiles with no $$ for replacement ... Syria will complete the leadership policy of US disarmament thru the muzzle as happened in the 70s and 90s. Deploying ships have to wait for deployed ships to return their missiles before deploying because there is no $$ to buy replacement, let alone new, missiles