But something interesting happened in London that upset the applecart. The British people spoke up and they spoke loudly. Ever since their active involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the British public opinion has grown decisively against military action. After all, next to the United States, they have shouldered the major burden, they have tragically lost many of their finest to death or injury and they have the same financial difficulties that we face here in America. So the public stood up and resoundingly said no, they relayed these sentiments to the Members of Parliament, and in a stunning shocker, the Parliament voted against war, 285-272. Shortly after the vote, the Prime Minister acknowledged the vote and vowed that his government would not get involved in military action if his people disapproved.
Contrast that action with the goings-on here in the United States. The President tries to hide his true intentions in secrecy, does not willingly deal with Congress on this issue and vows to take action if he deems it necessary regardless of what the Congress says. Furthermore, only 9% of the American public polls in favor of war in Syria, yet the President stubbornly puts his hubris ahead of his people. I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this as in so many things, like Obamacare and the atrocious list of scandals, he operated in a similar fashion. The self-described most transparent President in history hides his plans and schemes in the White House.
Being a former military officer myself, I am certainly not one who opposes war at all costs. But we have a major problem here. Neither side in Syria is worthy of our support. The Assad regime is despicable, yet the rebel opposition is composed largely of Al Qaeda. Do we really want to provide support to, and take up arms on behalf of, a group that is sworn to destroy America? Furthermore, do we want to risk greatly expanded warfare that could be sparked by this action? After all, the Russians are now sending warships and submarines to the eastern Mediterranean which will only add tension and the possibility of expansion of the conflict. Somehow I don't think that Vladimir Putin is too concerned about what Obama will do; he just assumes he is a lightweight and will show his true colors soon enough.
Lastly, I want to pose some major questions directly impacting the reason for the President's proposed course of action. Since Mr. Obama claims that our reason to get involved is Syria's crossing the red line, just what does that mean? Did Assad really use chemical weapons against his people or was it a set-up where his opponents did the deed to draw America in? And, furthermore, just where did the weapons come from? No one asks about that. It seems to me that truckloads of chemical weapons were reported being moved from Iraq to Syria about the time the Democrats were claiming Saddam Hussein had no such weapons. Could these be those very same weapons? Oh, I know this upsets the liberals but maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush was right.
Folks, we've got too many unanswered questions to get America involved in another ugly situation, particularly with a military force that is tired, too strung out, and not properly supported. And to add even more to this, there is the issue of Obama's war on our soldiers' religious persuasion. Really, can you imagine a Christian preparing for battle being told that he can't publicly worship his Savior as part of his preparation. Not only pathetic but unconstitutional and morally wrong.
Stay out of Syria and put our resources to use where we need them back here at home. How about along our Southern open border? And to our British cousins I say, Bravo for a wonderful performance, showing the way democracy is supposed to work. And you were able to do it under a constitution that is unwritten, yet just understood by all of your citizens. What a wonderful example for the world to see. Too bad we here in America fall so short.