The situation in the Middle East is unraveling rapidly, and this is just on the heels of the Anointed One's trip to the region. The civil unrest in Syria is escalating.
Over the weekend we learned that the leader of the Western-backed opposition group in Syria has resigned.
House Intelligence Committee chair Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan told CBS' “Face the Nation”: “I think that it is abundantly clear that that red line has been crossed. There is mounting evidence that it is probable that the Assad regime has used at least a small quantity of chemical weapons during the course of this conflict.”
Then we have confirmation that Israel fired at a military position in Syria over the weekend, in response to shots being fired at Israeli soldiers. This has spiked fears that Syria is trying to draw Israel into its messy civil war.
Where does the Anointed One stand in this conflict? It's hard to tell, as his leading-from-behind strategy has some questioning whether Obama will stand firm in his promise for action if Syria crosses the “red line.” Remember back in August 2012, Barack Obama had this to say: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.” Based on House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers' comments over the weekend, it seems as though that time has come. Or even if we give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt, the fact is that chemical weapons do exist in the region and it is only a matter of time before they are used or fall into the wrong hands.
If Obama does not stand firm on his “red line” in Syria, this will just add fuel to the fire for our enemies who no longer take us seriously.
We swore that we wouldn't allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, yet they are within one year of crossing that “red line.”
North Korea has gone so far as to threaten us with a nuclear attack, showing its people videos of them destroying our Capitol, yet we hardly have a response.
What's the point of setting up these lines if you aren't going to enforce them?
Meanwhile, what kind of schizophrenic message on foreign AND domestic policy does it send when Barack Obama quietly decides unblock $500 million in aid for the Palestinian Authority? What message does that send to Israel, and what does it send to the American people who are being threatened with apocalyptic doom-and-gloom because of sequestration? We can't afford to keep air traffic controllers in our towers, but we can afford to give $500 million in aid to Palestine? We can't afford meat inspectors or vaccines for our children in America, but we can afford to give F-16s, tanks and aid to Muhammed Morsi of Egypt who calls Jews “the descendants of apes and pigs?”
But don't expect the lapdog Obama-mania media to question his handling of the Middle East. For example, how many mainstream media outlets covered the huge, embarrassing blunder of Barack Obama speaking under a banner of Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism? Yeah … I didn't think so.