Unless you live under a rock, most of the news on Syria this week suggests that the Bashar al-Assad government has used a chemical attack against rebels. This is among the reasons why Obama wants the US to launch attacks on Syria. We are old that there is undeniable evidence to justify such actions in the civil war in Syria. But only 9% of Americans recently polled support U.S. strikes on Syria. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron has been forced to take a step back from committing British forces as Parliament wants a green light from the United Nations, which won′t happen as Russia and China oppose military intervention. So the question I have to ask is why should we believe Barack Obama on Syria?
Let us face facts. How often does Obama tell us the truth about anything? Few to hardly ever is the answer. Practically every time he opens his mouth, lies and flies stream out. He says the NSA was not spying on Americans. A few days later, we learn that NSA operatives are using all those mega-billions of dollars of technology to score dates on the Internet. Its like police men who pull over pretty women to get their phone numbers. When it comes to the economy, healthcare, and every other major issue, the Obama administration has been less than honest with the American people.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons against the rebels? He′s currently winning the civil war there. The rebels are on the run, so why spoil the victory by exposing himself to a possible international intervention? On top of that, as I have written several times before, chemical weapons are not precise enough for use in a tactical assault in an urban area. Whether delivered by aircraft or artillery, chemical weapons are meant for ′area-fire′, to cover a wide piece of ground and weaken its defenders. They are also much more expensive than conventional high explosives. Shooting a round of VX or some other type of nerve gas into a building to clear it out just is not practical. Its cheaper and easier just to blow the building up.
So I do not believe Barack Obama on his reasons for launching attacks on Syria. I think the real reason Obama is accusing Syria of launching a chemical attack the other week is to try to topple the Assad regime in order to cover up Obama′s own tracks in our clandestine support of rebel forces there. It would not surprise me if the attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya was a response to that support. Obama has been wrong about everything else he has done in the Middle East to date. He′s wrong about this one, too!