Dakota Beacon

It is entirely possible that there are no “good guys” in Syria.  Unless, perhaps, you count the innocent victims of both sides.  But there is no real way for the United States to actually hook up with them over there.  So we are left with three choices, assuming, if we trust the Administration’s story, that Assad has actually used poison gas:  1.  Side with the “rebels” – in other words, help out Al Qaeda so they can get Assad off their backs and get back to burning Christian churches and massacring the infidels.  2.  Side with Assad’s government and help him out with gassing the rebels and their children.  3.  Stay out of Syria altogether. 

As a sane American, which option would you choose?  It appears that 98% of Americans who have responded to polls are sane.  They say “stay out of Syria”.  Of course, they must be answered by the officials of Obama’s government.

We have John Kerry out there trying to make a case – any case – for sending over a military response to Assad’s alleged gassing of his opponents.  Perhaps we should stretch our memories a bit and recall what occurred less than a year ago in Libya.  This one was under the State Department of Hillary Clinton.  We got into that one in order to straighten things out for the Libyans.   We decided we needed to replace the “bad guy” Gadaffi  with the Executive Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood.  That was probably to be expected from a Department of State whose Secretary’s right hand was the persona of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, Huma Abedin.  What happened there cast a deep shadow over the entire Administration as well as the honor of the nation.  Our nation abandoned our people in Benghazi, allowing them to be slaughtered and abused, with no response whatsoever!

Now we are supposed to allow America to be dragged into a war in Syria to oust the leader of that country and replace him with – what? Another committee of mullahs?  His opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood.   That figures.  So we are supposed to bolster our cache in the international community by deposing another country’s leader and replacing him with the fellows who supported the attack on the Trade Towers.  Then, when someone gets shot down we are supposed to either 1) rescue him (“boots on the ground”) or 2)abandon him a la Benghazi.  Yeah, that ought to really build up our reputation around the world. 

What have we heard from the survivors of the Benghazi attack?  Nothing.  These unfortunates are being rewarded for their service by being held incommunicado under virtual house arrest.  Last I heard we had our erstwhile Secretary of State pounding her fists in the Senate chamber and screaming at our representatives who were questioning her, “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” 

Well, maybe it is now time to throw that one back at them.  When it comes to a decision as to whether to support a man who uses poison gas on his opponents or whether to support those opponents who see reason to dance in the streets when one of our ambassadors is raped and murdered or one of our cities is viciously attacked, or our marathon runners are blown up, I guess the right answer is, “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?”  And in that case, we can just stand back and work on our own problems, starting with our $17 trillion-and-counting national debt and our own border security. 

And last time I checked, it was still against public policy to aid terrorists.  Supposedly that’s why Grandma must be groped at the airport.  So what would that make our military if we should attack the Assad regime?  Or, for that matter, a president or a senate who would authorize such an attack?  This is a really good one to stay out of.