The President’s Syria Speech: A Study in Cognitive Dissonance

cog disHe didn’t say it flat, out but the implication was clear enough: according to Obama, if you oppose his plan to strike Syria, you really don’t give a damn about gassed children writhing in pain.

I wonder if Mr. Obama cares about abortion survivors writhing in pain as they die a slower and more painful death.   By the logic, shouldn’t we be shooting missiles at every Planned Parenthood clinic, “God bless ‘em,” in our President’s words.

So much of this man’s thinking can only be labeled cognitive dissonance. Tonight in his speech to the nation, he calmly articulated contradictory points of view, holding them in simultaneous suspension, as he condescended to explain to all the lowly worms the complexities of the modern world.

He asserted one does not remove a dictator by force because that leaves us responsible for the consequences.   “We should have learned that in Iraq,” he scolded. May I ask about his use of force in Libya, and the consequences, such as Benghazi, and the loss of 20,000 shoulder-fired missiles?  May I ask about Libya now serving primarily as a training camp for terrorists?

Why then, Mr. Obama, did you remove that dictator with force, remaining unconcerned about those consequences? Oh, and by the way, isn’t it true, Mr. President, that weapons unleashed in Libya thanks to your use of force, found their way into Syria, increasing violence throughout the country, helping bring us to this Syrian death trap? Let’s not even get started on Egypt.

Trending: REVEALED: Secret Tape of Woman Being Bribed to Accuse Trump of Sexual Harassment

Obama toppling a dictator there, by force, sure has delivered up a full menu of “consequences.”    One does not remove a dictator by force?!

Mr. Obama later explained we should not be the world’s policeman, he does not want us to be, but we are, and have been for 70 years, so get used to it, and if we don’t strike we’ll lose the fear factor.  What!?  This passage alone out squirrels the squirrels.

Otherwise, Obama tells us:  “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.”  Why then does the bill to authorize force include a provision for boots on the ground?  Isn’t it true that any strike resulting in a degradation of Assad’s military renders him more vulnerable to an Al Qaeda victory?

Whose boots will be on the ground given that consequence? Russian boots?  Or only Al Qaeda boots.  Certainly not Syrian Christian boots.
Read more here


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.