Actually knowing something, remembering history or having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.A lot of ifs still out there with little-to-no substantiated confirmations, but just after 9pm Thursday night, it began (again). I fail to see how this is helpful towards the success of the president's first 100 days or an America First agenda. The rinse/repeat is frustrating, folks.
As it is, I feel something close to physical pain as I do this.
Today’s frenzy over alleged use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair’s WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.
Related links: PolitiFact Retracts ‘Mostly True’ Ruling That U.S. Removed ‘100 Percent’ of Syria’s Chemical Weapons
Susan Rice Pushed False Claim About Obama Admin Getting Rid Of Chemical Weapons In Syria
Syria strike reactions: what top Republicans and Democrats in Congress are saying
‘Where will it end?’ Nigel Farage casts doubt on pal Donald Trump's strike on Syria
ADDENDUM: With the passage of a week, a constitutional conservative stalwart sees the impossible options this engagement faces...
“We are trapped between impossible options,” Cruz said. “On one hand, Bashar al-Assad is a monster … on the other hand, the opposition … are radical Islamic terrorists. They are people like al-Qaida, al-Nusra terrorists. They are even worse … The worst outcome would be to topple Assad and to see those chemical weapons fall into the hands of ISIS or al-Qaida”. ...
“I look forward to the commander-in-chief laying out a vision, presenting a plan to the American people, to Congress about how we go forward and protect our national security interests.”
Cruz did, however, lay some basic groundwork for how he believes that vision should be developed, saying, “the central lodestar for any U.S. military involvement must be protecting the vital national security interests of the United States.”