Show Us the Evidence, Mr. President

As I stated in an earlier post, it is a sad state of affairs when we find the diplomatic reasoning of our old Cold War nemesis, Russia, to be more thought provoking and believable than the arguments for military action against Syria being advanced by our own government. Applying but a modicum of common sense to the issue renders the Russian account more credible than that coming from the Obama administration. The Russians sensibly point out that it would be totally counterproductive for Assad to defy the world community by using chemical weapons in a war he is already winning by conventional means. As the Russians note, the Assad regime doesn't need to use WMD to defeat the acrimonious amalgam of rebel organizations that are trying to unseat him. The despot is doing quite well with conventional warfare, thank you.

But on the other hand, on the other quite tentative, uncertain side of the fight, all those less than fungible factions fighting Assad for disparate reasons have every motive in the world to manufacture an incident that would help capture world interest and sympathy. Pontificating politicians and mournful moderators on television delivering dirge like discourses of the horrors of death by nerve agent, play strong on the sympathies of those whose thinking is ruled by the touchy feelings on their sleeves and not the machinations of their minds. For those on the losing side, it's all about controlling the media narrative and cynically manipulating the good feelings and intentions of the caring people around the world.

To add to my skepticism regarding the Obama administration's version, expounded by the president himself and his phony war hero secretary of state, there exists somewhere in my mind a niggling wariness that the same folks who are doing their best to sell this dubious story to the world are the very same folks who told us that the Benghazi uprising was the result of a video created by some poor shmuck who unwittingly made himself the perfect fall guy to hide criminal negligence in the Obama administration.

To compound my skepticism, the administration, claiming it has solid evidence to prove that the Assad regime conducted the chemical strike, refuses to reveal that evidence, hiding behind the convenient shield of national security. What, some staff wienie ventured out onto the green at the eighth hole and showed it to you on her IPod? But we, the people, can't be trusted to see it? Excuse me but that's another truck load of Barack Obama, Chicago style, pure, unrefined bull crap. You have the convincing evidence, Mr. President?  Then the American people are entitled to see it before we send our young warriors into harm's way. Show us the evidence.

I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I get just a little queasy about committing American forces into a strike against Syria, defended as it is by Russian control of its air defenses, when the only justification we are getting for such a strike comes from an administration that is demonstrably dishonest, especially when it comes to military matters in the Middle East. Incredibly, and shamefully, it appears the Russian government and its leader, Vladimir Putin, is being more honest with the world than our own leadership. It's damned near breathtaking how the liberal Democrats have managed to diminish this country in the eyes of this world in only five years. Their ineffectual deceptions are becoming a laughingstock; as is their maximum leader. Once again, I ask simply, show us the evidence, Mr. President.


As I stated in an earlier post, it is a sad state of affairs when we find the diplomatic reasoning of our old Cold War nemesis, Russia, to be more thought provoking and believable than the arguments for military action against Syria being advanced by our own government. Applying but a modicum of common sense to the issue renders the Russian account more credible than that coming from the Obama administration. The Russians sensibly point out that it would be totally counterproductive for Assad to defy the world community by using chemical weapons in a war he is already winning by conventional means. As the Russians note, the Assad regime doesn't need to use WMD to defeat the acrimonious amalgam of rebel organizations that are trying to unseat him. The despot is doing quite well with conventional warfare, thank you.

But on the other hand, on the other quite tentative, uncertain side of the fight, all those less than fungible factions fighting Assad for disparate reasons have every motive in the world to manufacture an incident that would help capture world interest and sympathy. Pontificating politicians and mournful moderators on television delivering dirge like discourses of the horrors of death by nerve agent, play strong on the sympathies of those whose thinking is ruled by the touchy feelings on their sleeves and not the machinations of their minds. For those on the losing side, it's all about controlling the media narrative and cynically manipulating the good feelings and intentions of the caring people around the world.

To add to my skepticism regarding the Obama administration's version, expounded by the president himself and his phony war hero secretary of state, there exists somewhere in my mind a niggling wariness that the same folks who are doing their best to sell this dubious story to the world are the very same folks who told us that the Benghazi uprising was the result of a video created by some poor shmuck who unwittingly made himself the perfect fall guy to hide criminal negligence in the Obama administration.

To compound my skepticism, the administration, claiming it has solid evidence to prove that the Assad regime conducted the chemical strike, refuses to reveal that evidence, hiding behind the convenient shield of national security. What, some staff wienie ventured out onto the green at the eighth hole and showed it to you on her IPod? But we, the people, can't be trusted to see it? Excuse me but that's another truck load of Barack Obama, Chicago style, pure, unrefined bull crap. You have the convincing evidence, Mr. President?  Then the American people are entitled to see it before we send our young warriors into harm's way. Show us the evidence.

I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I get just a little queasy about committing American forces into a strike against Syria, defended as it is by Russian control of its air defenses, when the only justification we are getting for such a strike comes from an administration that is demonstrably dishonest, especially when it comes to military matters in the Middle East. Incredibly, and shamefully, it appears the Russian government and its leader, Vladimir Putin, is being more honest with the world than our own leadership. It's damned near breathtaking how the liberal Democrats have managed to diminish this country in the eyes of this world in only five years. Their ineffectual deceptions are becoming a laughingstock; as is their maximum leader. Once again, I ask simply, show us the evidence, Mr. President.


RECENT VIDEOS