Unbelievable! John Kerry says the strike on Syria would be "unbelievably small"; Obama sets an unbelievably busy TV schedule; elements of the political right and left are unbelievably united in their opposition to military action; and Hollywood remains unbelievably absent as their peace prize hero wants to start a fight.
Secretary of State Kerry doesn't seem to be on the same page as Obama - in fact, it would appear they're using different play books in their public positions on military intervention in the Syrian civil war. The Kerry play book calls for running around in circles, as America's top diplomat has now said any strike on the Assad regime would be "unbelievably small". Unbelievably, those are his words - "unbelievably small". So, what again is the point exactly?
Maybe, Obama can clarify in his half dozen or so scheduled TV interviews, in advance of his Tuesday night address to the nation. Or maybe Hillary Clinton can clarify, as the former Secretary of State talks Syria for the first time. Or maybe Bashir al-Assad can clarify in his extended TV interview with CBS/PBS. Or maybe White House advisor Susan Rice can clarify, as she helps brief, or lobby, members of Congress. Question - will Rice find a youtube video to blame for how unbelievably messed up this Syria misadventure has become?
And in Congress, unbelievably strange alliances have formed between left and right in opposition to any US attack on Syrian forces. Democrats such as Alan Grayson and Charlie Rangel basically taking the same stand as Republicans like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in opposing US military involvement. And among the American public, the anti-war left is getting evermore vocal, as are many on the conservative right, with public opinion polls still strongly against a military strike.
The usually loud Hollywood left is unusually quiet as their dear leader tries to sell his Syrian attack plan, even if it would be "unbelievably small". There's now deafening silence from a number of Tinsel Towners like Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Janeane Garofalo, Whoopi Goldberg, Rosie O'Donnell, Cher…no, wait, Cher has tweeted that "if President Obama bombs Syria, it might be his downfall."
And, unbelievably, far-left actor/activist Ed Asner has revealed a remarkable truth about Hollywood hypocrites, Asner admitting, "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama."
So, who can the looney left go after, if not Obama? Who can they blame for this twisted tangle that is the Syria debate and looming debacle? Why, George W. Bush, of course. Yes, there are those, like James Carville, who, unbelievably, still argue that Bush is to blame some five years into the Obama presidency.
If only there were a youtube video.
Have no fear, folks, I have the solution. Or, rather, Bizarro had the solution and shared it with me after he awoke from his tequila coma. Here's what O should do:
Take the Navy's entire remaining stockpile of Tomahawk cruise missiles and put them on the guided missile destroyers currently deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean; remove the warheads from each and every last one of them; then fire them all at whatever targets the Regime's Lazy-Susan target selection list house at that particular second. That way, O has launched his missile attack, but the missiles can't harm Boy Assad's (which is to say, Vladimir Putin's) military assets or even harm a single hair on a single Syrian (which is to say, Iranian) soldier's head. Best of all, we would then be completely disarmed of cruise missiles, and O could claim the sequester as a ready-made excuse not to replace them. A win for the Russians; a win for Assad; a win for The One.
HUGE loss for the U.S., of course, but we've got a lot worse than that coming to us. Red Barry will see to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment