Another Senseless Attack On Our Military At Home

Members of the United States Navy, relatives of those killed, and indeed many of us across the nation, are still reeling from the second multiple-killing perpetrated at a US Military facility in less than five years.  On Monday, an otherwise “ordinary” person walked into the Washington Navy Yard, was cleared through Security, and then walked into a restroom.  When he emerged from the restroom he immediately opened fire with a shotgun.  One of the first victims was a security guard, from whom Aaron Alexis obtained another weapon, a pistol.

When Aaron Alexis was finally killed by police about thirty minutes later, twelve people were dead and several others were injured.  With each passing day since this horrific killing, new information is unearthed indicating that Mr. Alexis should not have had a gun, should not have been allowed on government property, should not have had a military secret clearance, and should not have been awarded government contracts.  Just lately we learned that US Investigation Service (USIS), a private corporation that also does “contract” for the government, had completed a background check on Mr. Alexis (whose name I will never mention again in my blog).  USIS found no reason to deny a security clearance to the killer in 2007, even though the killer had committed a serious crime with a firearm in 2004.

There were several factors and circumstances that culminated in this criminal attack.  The killer was obviously an unstable person who slipped through the “cracks” in Seattle.  He also had a run-in with the law in Fort Worth (at least one).  He was involved in an argument that nearly turned physical while in an airport terminal in Virginia.  Since the argument was with a family member, no one notified the police.  The killer also had several contacts with various police departments in which he told officers that he heard voices, knew that people were following him, and believed that one or more of the people following him were “sending vibrations” into him.  Apparently none of this information was enough to restrict the killer’s access to military facilities or to revoke his security clearance.

Questions remain unanswered, and I will leave that to the police.  I hold up the people who lost loved ones, the Navy personnel who lost their colleagues, and the families of the two security guards who went down in the early moments of the attack, to the comfort only the Good Shepherd can offer.  And I thank the police, who endured what must have seemed like an eternity of suspense and fear as they hunted down the killer on that huge naval facility.  I can say from personal experience that it is a definitely a test of a police officer’s nerve, or anyone’s for that matter, to pursue a criminal in an unfamiliar area, knowing that the criminal has a shotgun.  Many times a handgun wound is not fatal, but MOST TIMES a shotgun blast is.  

I hope most of all that this, the SECOND multiple-killing on a “secured” military base, will finally catch the attention of the President, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, and whoever else of import there might be, and will call attention to the ridiculous fact our military personnel are not allowed to be armed on military bases, other than the military police or security units.  It is not necessary that EVERY soldier on a base be armed, but it borders on insanity that military police or other military personnel assigned to security duties cannot be placed on military facilities in sufficient numbers to respond quickly these types of attacks and either prevent them or at least put an end to them as soon as possible.  In the latest attack, the first police on the scene were municipal officers, even though there were military police on the base.

I also hope that military contractors, especially private corporations that do “background investigations” for the military, are themselves investigated.  It is obvious that USIS failed in its contracted mission.   But USIS does not share all the blame.  In fact, the military itself had more than one opportunity to rescind the killer’s security clearance, but did not do so. So it is my hope that the military will take this opportunity to revamp its criteria for selection and retention of vendors and contractors. 

Of course this attack would not have happened at all if the killer himself had not decided to commit this atrocity.  He was probably mentally ill.  He was an intelligent person, obviously, since he was doing IT work for the government.  But something went wrong somewhere and the man chose to take it out on innocent persons.  He paid the ultimate price for his actions.  Unfortunately, other people also paid the ultimate price, as well. 

May the Good Shepherd continue to hold all those effected in his comforting hands. 

There is one more thing I would like to note here.  The killer’s mother is grieving tonight.  Yes, she is grieving for her son, but this poor woman’s heart is also broken for all those lost, and all who weep for their loved ones and friends.  For this sweet lady, too, I pray that the Good Shepherd comfort her during her time of sadness.

Three Big Jokesters

President Putin of Russia has taken his well-deserved place with those lovable jokesters, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Kerry of the United States, as the joke of the day, or the outright hypocrite of the year, again with the same company.

President Putin now has the gall to call the United States the “aggressor,” and to tell us that the proposed attack on Syria would be a violation of international law.  Now, first let me say that I agree with President Putin that the United States is the aggressor, and the coming attack on Syria does appear to be contrary to accepted laws of international warfare; however, Mr. Putin makes himself the idiot by presuming to counsel the United States against a possible Syrian intervention.  What a joke, Mr. Putin, both your statement and yourself.  After all, how many of the former Soviet states have your forces attacked or threatened in the years since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Mr. Putin?  By the way, Russia (under Mr. Putin) currently supplies over 70 percent of Syria’s weapon supply.  But I am sure, Mr. Putin, those arms are meant merely “stabilize” the Syrian government, nothing more.  Sure they are.

President Obama’s joke (beside his very presidency) was that he would end the wars in the Middle East.  Well, at first it was not a joke, but a campaign promise.  Instead, Mr. Obama led the expansion of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now he tells us that the United States must attack Syria due to that national government’s use of chemical warfare, so that rogue governments around the world will know they cannot follow Syria’s example without the expectation of punitive actions from the rest of the world.  Really, Mr. Obama, is it that MUCH MORE CIVILIZED to rain missiles down from drone aircraft?  I believe that (known) numbers of those killed by drones is upwards of 1500.  But at least MISSILES were used rather than chemical weapons; right, Mr. President?  Thank goodness for your “hope and change,” Mr. Obama.

Secretary of State Kerry told us for years in the 1970’s that war was not the answer, and that we should end the Viet Nam War, that the United States was attacking a smaller nation that was not a threat in any way to this nation.  Now, just over a decade into the new century, Mr. Kerry tells us that we must attack Syria for using chemical weapons against its citizens.  But wait a minute!  Isn’t Syria a small country halfway around the world that poses no threat in any way to the United States?  Mr. Kerry’s justification for a US attack on Syria is that nation’s use of chemical weapons. His assurance to us that an attack on Syria would be “incredibly small” is just “incredibly stupid.” 

 So President Putin lowers himself from a “make no bones about it” strong man to become, instead, the third member of the three-ring circus that is debating the fate of Syria.  Yes, what a joke is the former KGB agent and current Russian President, with his lectures to the United States concerning “illegal acts of war.”  Congratulations, Mr. Putin, on your induction into the Joke of the Day Club.  You, Sir, are the latest joke.

September 12th, or My Thoughts On The Terrorist Attacks

Yesterday marked the twelfth anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks, and for that reason I did not write the blog I am posting today.  The memories of all those who lost their lives and who lost loved ones in the attacks was so important to me that I did not want to intrude upon their memories and the sacred day.  Today, however, I will write the things I did not want to say yesterday.

Most Americans were in a state of shock and denial that lasted for many days after September 11th.  I know I was.  And perhaps that is why the discrepancies between the words of the news reporters and politicians, and the facts displayed in the pictures did not focus in my mind then, or for years afterwards.  Now, over a decade later, there is more than enough evidence on hand to prove that our own government, or rather cells within our government, as well as those at the very top, were participants in the attacks.  There is more than enough evidence to show that the three structures that fell that awful day were taken down in controlled demolitions, killing hundreds of firemen, policemen, and fellow Americans.  These Americans were murdered by terrorists, that is true, but not by Arab terrorists.

On the very day this awful attack happened, I myself was struck by the FACT (as seen in the various news footage) that at the Pentagon and in the woodlands outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, there were no airplane parts of any significant size at the crash scenes.  In Shanksville, there was a small, deep crater, some scrapes on the ground, and various pieces of litter, but no plane tail, no parts of engines, no luggage, and NO BODIES.  At the Pentagon, the hole in the building was not even airplane-shaped, as were the entrance damage in both of the twin towers.  In other words, there was a nearly perfectly round hole in the wall of the Pentagon, but no areas damaged by the wings, the engines, the elevators, or the rear stabilizer, which was over forty feet (four stories) tall.  And NO BODIES, other than those that were identified as Pentagon employees.  If you can remember the Lockerbie crash several years earlier, the airplane was blown up while it was thousands of feet in the air, yet large pieces of the plane survived in tact after hitting the ground.  Bodies were found. Luggage was found.  Not so at the Pentagon or in Shanksville.

During the historic call from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that grounded all flights, the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio appears on television and assures reporters that Flight 93 landed safely.  He further stated that the airliner then taxied to the far end of the airfield, where all the passengers were escorted off the plane and into a large building owned by NASA.  But then those many passengers were never heard from again.  Yet we were told that Flight 93 crashed NOSE-FIRST into the Shanksville countryside, as mentioned above.

Back to the World Trade Center, we now know that the fires in the Twin Towers could not have melted the steel beams so that those buildings collapsed.  And more than that, we know that Building 7 was not significantly damaged, either by fire or by getting struck by airplanes, yet it too collapsed, but not until nearly five hours later.  And we know that firemen were ordered out of Building 7 at around 11:30 AM. Why?

Due to the attacks on September 11th, Americans stood by while USA PATRIOT became law, and while a falsely justified attack on Iraq was carried out.  The attack became a war, then an occupation, and these twelve years later the end of that war still remains illusive.  Same with Afghanistan.  Millions of citizens of those nations have died in these wars, and thousands of United States servicemen and women have died as well.  In all of that, no conclusive evidence was offered as to who was responsible for the attacks in America, nor was evidence ever provided that showed Saddam Hussein was in any way connected with the attacks.

Mossad agents were arrested in New York as they filmed the burning World Trade Center, and appeared to dance with joy as the second airplane found its target.  These people, believed by the local police to be Arab terrorists, were later released.  They quietly disappeared into the vast city of New York, never to be seen again. Oh yes, let us not forget the passport that an FBI agent happened to find in the pulverized ashes.  Remember, the flames, we were told, were so hot that the airplanes, including the large parts, were melted into oblivion.  Yes, there were papers floating down from the sky that morning, but any papers on the airplane itself, if we follow the official story, would have been burned to oblivion, just like the planes themselves.  Regardless of this almost impossible tale, the culprits of the attack were now "identified." 

Speaking of identified but dead terrorists, at least seven of the "hijackers" were found quite alive by British and Arab reporters within days of the attacks.  These reports were of course rejected by "Washington" but there the photographs were, in black and white, for all the world to see.

I could go on, but that would be pointless.  I believe that any one who reviews all the publicly available data will reach the same conclusion I did, that the attacks were, beyond a reasonable doubt, perpetrated by someone (a BUNCH of someones) other than the several "terrorists," none of whom could fly the airplanes they were said to have hijacked, and much less could have executed the extremely difficult maneuvers needed to hit the Twin Towers.

I have, through my own research, reached the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by our own government.  That government, the George W. Bush Administration, has so far escaped justice, and probably will never be brought to trial for one of the worst crimes on humanity ever perpetrated.  One senator, Mark Dayton, stood courageously before Congress and called the government employees and officials "liars," called the 9/11 Commission Report a book of lies, and then demanded a new investigation as well as criminal prosecution for those responsible.  Of course neither of those things ever happened, and the Senator was subsequently voted out of office.

So, there is my short but to the point manifesto on 9/11.   Some may call me a paranoid lunatic for my beliefs, some may well even call me (gasp!) a Truther.  You are free to think of me however you would like.  As a trained (former) police officer, as well as just a plain citizen who finally looked at much of the evidence with calm emotions and an open mind, I am a person who can no longer follow the sheeple and bleat the same old tune about the terrible terrorist attack on that September day.  I can no longer bleat along with the ridiculous chorus that some guys with box cutters defeated the entire United States defense system.  But if you choose to think I am paranoid, crazy, or just plain stupid, I would ask you not to permanently label me as such until you yourself have spent months of your life researching this event on your own.

Incidentally, according to numerous news articles and public surveys of the various developed nations, ONLY the people of the United States, on the whole, continue to buy the official version of the "terrorist attack" handed to us by our government on that horrible day in September.



 

Before You Use Your Phone Or Nav System While Driving...Read This

Before you talk, text, or use any other electronic device or system while driving, think about this:  The State of Texas and its municipal and other law enforcement agencies are no longer tolerating traffic accidents caused by someone using a cell phone, car navigation system, or other electronic device.  In a change of stance somewhat reminiscent of the sudden lack of tolerance for drunk driving, police officers are no longer merely chalking up traffic accidents to distracted driving, shaking everyone's hand, and driving away to write up their accident reports.  And it is probably high time police agencies take this action.  But, if YOU are the one who becomes the distracted driver that causes an accident, consider the following.

A few weeks ago a traffic accident occurred on Texas Highway 191, the major state highway linking Midland to Odessa, TX.  This is a heavily travelled highway with a posted speed limit of 75 miles per hour.  Because of the high speed limit and the traffic volume, there is little room for error while driving.  On this particular night, a young man was using his cell phone's "nav app" as he was driving from Midland to pick up his friend in Odessa.  The young man was not necessarily speeding.  In fact he was driving with the flow of traffic, which was moving at just over 75 miles per hour.  Apparently the young man's nav app told him he was about to miss his exit.  As you know, there is always another exit a mile or two up the road.  In this case, the young man saw his exit just ahead and to his right.  The only problem was he was in the LEFT lane.  Rather than go to that next exit, the young whipped his steering wheel to the right.  His vehicle immediately rammed a sports utility vehicle that was in his "blind spot" according to the police report.  The SUV was forced off the pavement onto a narrow gravel shoulder then onto grass.  The SUV rolled over several times before coming to rest on its side.  The driver, a young man of only twenty years of age, was dead in the driver's seat.

Just this week the young driver that caused the accident was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide.  The Texas Highway Patrol is no longer playing softball.  This young man will be brought to trial and will face a penalty of at least two years in the state prison system.  He was on the way to Odessa to pick up his friend for a fun night out. It was very sad that a person was killed in this accident.  It is also very said that such a young man, not otherwise a lawbreaker, could go to prison.  His life is on hold at the moment.  The best he can hope for is probation, the worst - ten years in prison. 

No doubt this young man believed up to the second of the accident that he was perfectly capable of using his cell phone while he was driving.  No doubt he HAD done this many times without causing an accident.  Perhaps he had even dodged other drivers who were themselves texting while driving.  I cannot judge him harshly, because I myself have nearly wrecked my vehicle while texting.  Luckily I did not cause an accident, but I could have found myself in that young man's position.  Even if this young man should receive only probation, it quite likely that he will be haunted by the other man's death for years to come.

If you regularly text while driving, or use some other device while driving, maybe this is a good time to consider 1) a hand's free device or your car's built-in telephone system and 2) not texting, typing, etc., at all while driving.  Perhaps while driving you have seen another car occupied by two or three people.  With all these people in the car, perhaps you have seen the DRIVER texting or typing while the passengers sat and did nothing (except possibly cringe as they escaped close call after close call).  Why is it necessary that the driver do the calling, texting, programming, or whatever?  Why can't one of the passengers be entrusted with this job?  According to those who come up with these kinds of statistics, one is eight times more likely to have an accident if he or she texts or is otherwise distracted while driving. 

As law enforcement agency priorities shift, I am sure that in Texas we will see more and more people prosecuted for causing accidents while using some electronic device, including even the ever-more complicated command and navigation systems that are integrated into the vehicle itself.  The sad thing is that there is no conversation, no text message, no navigational programming, no car command system use, that is more important than driving your car in a safe manner, certainly not worth the life of another.

Things could get soon get bad for "texters" in one of the eastern states.  I apologize for not being able to provide the name of this state at the moment but my note has gotten away from me.  But the gist of it is that a person who "knowingly texts another when the actor knows the other is driving" will be charged in any resulting accident.  In other words, if you text someone and that person texts back to you that he or she is "on the road" you could find yourself being charged either as an accessory or even with the actual crime itself if you continue texting that person.  I do not know if this law will pass, but it could be enforced rather easily - all the officer needs to do is get the phone records just prior to the accident.  It is not that far of a stretch for these types of laws to pass across the nation.
 
Distracted driving due to texting, typing, programming, or even just talking on your phone, is no longer being tolerated, and will no longer serve as an excuse for a needless accident.  There is nothing you can do with your phone or other device while driving that is worth accidentally killing someone.  Remember this too: Someone you love could be the next victim of a distracted driver.  So please, try to break habit and break the cycle.  It is not just that you might wreck your car or someone else's; it is not just that you might kill someone in the wreck you cause.  Both scenarios are bad enough.  But now, there is a very strong likelihood that you will go to prison if you injure or kill someone due to being a distracted driver.

So get that hands-free device now.  And before you text, type, or program...think.  Maybe it can wait until you get to a red light.  Maybe it could even wait until you pull off the road into a parking lot or a wide shoulder.  But be careful when you pull to the shoulder to use your phone.  A distracted driver might well crash into you while you are texting.

The People of Syria And The Coming US Invasion

I did something the other day that I have never imagined I would do...I watched a cable channel called Al Jazeera America.  It turns out that, like the BBC, Al Jazeera has a news channel dedicated to North America.  I have not watched enough of it to have made a decision as to its "fairness, balance," and such, but it was interesting nonetheless to get a different slant on the "news." Of course, the news dominating Al Jazeera America is the same news as that dominating the American channels: The coming United States invasion of Syria.  The particular aspect of this "story" that was covered while I watched was the state of mind of the Syrian people themselves, the "average Joes" of Damascus, in particular.  And the state of mind of these average people was not exactly what I expected.  In some ways not surprising; in others, very.

On the one hand, the people who spoke to the news reporters were somewhat anti-American in their sentiment, certainly not an unexpected outlook.  On the other hand, some expressed views that surprised me just a little.  For instance, not all the people are against the Al Assad government.  Said another way, not all people there support the Muslim Brotherhood, the strongest faction facing the government at the moment.  There are other factions as well, some moderate in idealism, some orthodox, and some very fundamentalist in outlook.  Some of the people support one or another of the various factions, but most of the people just want the civil war to someday grind to a halt.  Almost universally, however, most of those interviewed do not support an American invasion, and the almost inevitable American occupation of that nation.  Most do not believe that any good will result from such an action.  None of them believe the "intervention" will result in a "democratic" Syria.  Quite a few of those interviewed did not, in fact, want a democracy as you and I know it, they just want peace and stability.

A few Syrians expressed an idea that has only been discussed rarely in American news debates of the Syrian "intervention."  These people want to know why the United States government intends to weaken the legitimate government of Syria, to level the playing field so to speak, so that all factions, including Al Assad's army, are of about equal strength.  This is indeed a question worth pondering.  Remember, the original intention of the Syrian "intervention" was to punish those responsible for the use of chemical warfare, and thus to serve as a "warning" for other "rogue governments" who might feel emboldened to use chemical warfare should the United States NOT invade Syria.

Other Syrians asked a more basic question, and one that certainly begs answer in the halls of Congress, where President Obama is making his case for the Syrian "intervention."  This question is, with the Syrian civil war now well over two years old, and with over two hundred thousand people dead directly because of the war, why is the United States only now interested in "intervening?"  Put another way, why are the deaths of about 1400 people more important than the deaths of the first two hundred thousand people, in the view of the United States?

Of course the logic expressed by President Obama is that the Al Assad government used chemical weapons on helpless citizens.  By this logic, President Obama expresses the idea that the numbers of people killed in a war torn nation such as Syria do not really matter to the world at large, as long as chemical weapons are not used for this killing.  But kill just under two thousand people (less than one percent of those killed already in Syria) with chemical warfare...whoa boy, that changes it all!  President Obama would have us believe that if the United States does not "teach Al Assad a lesson" and thus does not "warn other rogue governments" by punishing the Syrian government, chemical weapons will start flying the world over!  Really?  Is Al Assad the ONLY leader with such weapons at his disposal?  I don't think so.  Will a Syrian "intervention" TEACH the other villains of the world not to use their chemical weapons?  Again, probably not.

What, in reality, would be the results of an American "intervention" (read invasion and occupation) of Syria?  Listening to the Al Jazeera report was insightful to me.  For instance, it is obvious that life in Syria is very difficult at this time, and death is all around.  It is clear that civilians are continuing with their lives in the face of constant warfare between the government and the various factions, as well as between the factions themselves.  Most of all, it is clear that Syrians do not want and will not support the United States intervention.  As constant as death is in that nation, it is obvious that many hundreds, if not thousands, would die defending against the invasion.  Even if that did not happen, how many American soldiers would be shot, one by one, by snipers?  How many hundreds would be killed or maimed by IEDs?   And, how many civilians would be killed as inevitable collateral damage?

No, the people of Syria do not support an American invasion, and, by the way, neither will the rest of the world, other than France and Turkey.  The French interest and support of the American invasion puzzles me.  Turkey, on the other hand, IS actually endangered by chemical warfare unleashed in Syria.  But, save those two nations, world consensus is against a US invasion of Syria. So there will be no "coalition army" for this upcoming fiasco.  Syria and Turkey have had border skirmishes several times over the past few years.  Turkey does support a "punitive intervention" in Syria...er, by the United States, of course.  Turkey does not want to sacrifice ITS soldiers to the upcoming bloodbath. 

Perhaps it is just my fantasy, but let us assume that Congress should actually vote against approving the Syrian intervention.  And in even DEEPER fantasy, let us assume that Mr. Obama ACTUALLY CANCELLED the Syrian invasion due to the Congressional vote.  All is not lost!  Not by a long shot.  Since Turkey is one of the nations ACTUALLY THREATENED by chemical warfare in Syria, let us call on and support Turkey in an invasion of Syria.  Let the Turkish army punish those responsible for the chemical warfare, because after all, Syria is not, and has never been, a threat to the United States of America.  Yes, Turkey could deliver the punishment to the "rogues" that fired the chemical weapons, while the United States, and any other nations that wished, could support Turkey by sending hospital ships and medical supplies to the area.  After all, if the Mexican government, for instance, fired a chemical missile into Vera Cruz, would we want Russia to invade Mexico to teach that "rouge government" a lesson?

Our Clear And Transparent President And The Coming Syrian "Intervention"

Through the rather tense weekend we (the United States) sat in some degree of suspense as we wondered when we would see those dreaded words on the breaking news, “US Forces Attack Syria.”  President Obama was set to go ahead with this attack, but in a surprise move, delayed the attack until he gains Congressional approval.  This decision was truly a puzzler, coming from the President who needs no one’s approval for his actions, nor has he ever looked to the Constitution in regards to the legalities of the actions he has taken.  But now he suddenly needs Congressional “approval.”

Oddly enough, even while Obama was pressing his need for a Congressional “green light” on the Syrian “intervention,” Secretary of State Kerry told us that “the strikes will proceed even without Congressional approval.”  So why the charade of the dutiful President asking Congress to endorse his third war?  If the very divided Congress should vote for NO intervention, it would surely leave the President discredited, and would leave him acting illegally, as well, should he proceed against the wish of Congress.

Adding to the President’s woes is an intelligence memo generated by United States sources that make it plain the President knew at least three days before the event that a chemical weapons attack on Damascus was imminent.  It seems that President Obama’s “on again, off again” transparency went clear just at the wrong moment.  I cannot fathom what Mr. Obama’s true reason for attacking Syria might be, but it is “transparent” that he did not intervene BEFORE the chemical attack.  Was he waiting for a justifiable cause to attack Syria?  After all, the civil war there has raged for over two years, with the death toll having surpassed the one hundred thousand mark, yet in all that, the US did not intervene. 

It seems as though the number of people killed does not invite intervention, but rather the method.  One official today said that Al Assad “has joined the ranks of Hussein and Hitler.”  I agree that chemical warfare is certainly inhumane in its indiscriminate killing of all it comes in contact with, soldiers and civilians alike.  Now the hard question: If, as the intelligence document clearly states, Obama was informed of the imminent use of chemical warfare against the Syrian population, why did he not order an immediate intervention…a surgical strike, if you will…against the chemical weapons plant or against the military unit that was about to deploy the weapon.

You might say “There is no way President Obama could have known WHO would deploy the weapon.”  That may or may not be the case.  One memo was released.  How many memos, how much “known information” was not?  But I will play fair here.  Let us assume Mr. Obama knew only that a chemical weapon would be deployed in Syria within the next three days.  President Obama DID NOTHING!  He could have demanded that President Al Assad directly order the strike to stand down.  He could have made a public plea to the people of Damascus to prepare for the worst.  He could have asked President Putin of Russia, or the Chinese government, to intervene, since they are Syrian allies.  But he did nothing at all.  Maybe none of these things would have prevented the attack, but we will always know that our President Obama DID NOTHING.

Having done nothing about the chemical weapons attack BEFORE it happened, President Obama now wants to attack the nation of Syria, which in no way is a threat to the United States, nor has it ever violated United States airspace.  Can we say that about OUR military?  The President and his staff cannot even agree who actually deployed this terrible weapon, nor can the governments of Turkey or France, both of whom investigated the chemical attack.  Neither can the United Nations, which announced that it was only concerned with determining that chemical warfare was used, NOT WHO DEPLOYED the weapon.  In other words, no one knows whether the Syrian military or some rebel faction deployed the chemical weapon.  The truth is that no one can be sure that the CIA, the NSA, or some other alphabet agency from the United States, Russia, Libya, or even (dare I say it) Israel fired the weapon “in the name of” the Syrian government.

It is in all this confusion, uncertainty, and outright lies that President Obama wants to launch a new war against Syria.  Of course he will remain safely in the White House while our young men and women go to war to defend those who already hate what America stands for.  It is one thing to be willing to die for the freedom and liberty of those who are too weak to fight for themselves, but our soldiers, sailors, and airmen will be fighting for a people who want to enforce a fundamental Muslim rule on everyone.  And they (at least quite a goodly portion of them) already hate America.  So our men and women would not be fighting for freedom, but instead for the strongest Muslim faction.  After the official government is defeated, the incoming faction will not install a “democracy,” nor do they want a democracy.  No, they just want the Al Assad administration OUT.  And then they would want the helpful Americans OUT, too.  Then Syria would just go back to “business as usual,” Muslim faction fighting Muslim faction.

I think herein lies the answer to the mystery of why President Obama did not stop or TRY to stop the chemical attack.  He wants the current Syrian leader OUT.  I believe he has a definite idea about who he wants IN, but that is just my own humble opinion.  The memorandum makes it clear that intervention was held back for some reason, whatever that reason may be.  But NOW the President wants to intervene.  It is a noble thing to want to rid the world of those leaders who would resort to chemical warfare.  It is not noble to ALLOW that very thing to occur to justify an otherwise unjustifiable war against a nation that, though not friendly to US, is not a threat by any means.  I hope that cooler heads will prevail in Congress.  I believe that will be the case, but I believe also that Obama will press this war with or without Congressional approval.  I pray for the people of Syria, and I pray for our own men and women who will pay with their blood for President Obama’s arrogance and folly.

God Bless America