It really has been amazing the past few weeks watching staunchly anti-war liberals in the media supporting an attack on Syria all because Barack Obama - who happened to run on an anti-war platform! - is for it.
Take Donny Deutsch as an example, who on MSNBC's Morning Joe Friday proudly declared himself as being part of the 20 percent of the nation in favor of an attack whilst stating, "I’m shocked that the country is not lining up" behind the President (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, HOST: The plotting to craft a plan, and wayward as it's been, Donny Deutsch, making the case certainly hasn't happened, which could really make a big difference.
DONNY DEUTSCH: I'll help him make the case, and I'm one of the 20 percent, frankly.
BRZEZINSKI: There you go. Okay.
DEUTSCH: And I'm surprised there's only 20 percent, and I think one of the reasons…
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: By the way, I am too.
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: As am I.
DEUTSCH: I think one of the reasons if you say to the average person, “Should we go to war with Syria?” Of course the answer is no. If you reframe the question, “Should we do everything we can to protect our country and make sure the North Koreas and the Irans and every other fringe lunatic in the world knows we cannot be played with”…
SCARBOROUGH: It’s kind of a long…
DEUTSCH: Well, it’s a long question, it is, but there’s one fact that has proven through history: unanswered aggression breeds more aggression. And I think actually Kerry has put it perfectly: it's not war, it's a punishing strike, and for the use of gas against children. And you know, Joe, you and I have a lot of fun, Mr. Liberal. I'm as far from liberal on this as possible, and I’m shocked that the country is not lining up (unintelligible).
Did you ever think the perilously liberal Brzezinski, Deutsch, and Robinson would be in a television studio advocating the country go to war? Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Let me try to help them with why the country isn't lining up behind the President.
With the exception of taking out Osama bin Laden, the current White House resident's foreign policy track record is abysmal:
- Our relationship with North Korea has worsened since he was elected
- Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than it's ever been
- The situation in Israel has worsened since he was elected
- Any positives from our invasion of Iraq have disappeared as Iran appears to largely control that nation's politics
- Egypt and Libya are spiraling towards radical Islamic theocracies with this President's assistance
- Syria is a disaster.
Barack Obama is clearly the worst foreign policy president since Jimmy Carter, and could conceivably become the worst in American history.
As such, Americans on both sides of the aisle have little faith that he will use our military to a positive conclusion in Syria.
However, if you broaden the discussion, one might find many in the nation are looking at U.S. foreign policy since World War II and wondering if our involvement in other countries' rebellions, civil wars, and genocides has been effective.
If you start at Korea and work your way up to 2013, the conclusion has to be that we've often made matters worse with our involvement costing far too many American lives as well as untold amounts of money.
If people are feeling opposition to another such incursion, maybe it's because they're becoming war aware NOT war weary as so many in the media claim.
Maybe they're coming to the same conclusion the computer does at the end of the movie "War Games": the only winning move is not to play.