From: kurtnicklas@gmail.com   
      
   Ann Coulter   
      
   Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the   
   world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs   
   at us.   
      
   With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria,   
   President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as   
   commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need   
   congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor --   
   amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.   
      
   Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to   
   cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-   
   Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs   
   to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can   
   blame Republicans.   
      
   No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security   
   interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham   
   -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.   
      
   It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that   
   Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still   
   waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)   
      
   It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians,   
   Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as   
   well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few   
   decades.   
      
   It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people,   
   administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks,   
   often in front of the victim's wife or children.   
      
   It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United   
   States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president   
   or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. --   
   someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.   
      
      
   It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire   
   Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide   
   bombers in other countries.   
      
   It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in   
   Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.   
      
   It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not   
   put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result   
   in a functioning, peaceful democracy.   
      
   And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other   
   dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs --   
   say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.   
      
   If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth   
   supporting!   
      
   All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed   
   that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true --   
   indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent   
   was Barack Obama.   
      
   President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former   
   president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a   
   conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to   
   the families of suicide bombers in Israel.   
      
   Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so   
   terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished   
   his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously   
   imagined.   
      
   Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it   
   in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida   
   fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-   
   Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several   
   elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.   
      
   Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led   
   operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and   
   Libya?   
      
   As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war   
   -- in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered   
   roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX   
   gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before   
   dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of   
   these poisons.   
      
   Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds,   
   resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many.   
   That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed   
   with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently,   
   Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him   
   in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein."   
      
   Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that   
   removed such a monster as Hussein?   
      
   There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both   
   establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to   
   give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical   
   weapons in Iraq, just no "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the   
   war, according to Saddam's own general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)   
      
   On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using   
   chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered   
   with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the   
   military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of   
   choice"?   
      
   Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has   
   posed "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our   
   usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act   
   alone to stop a dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.   
      
   At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good   
   cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only   
   reason to take out Saddam Hussein.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)