Scheuer accurately warned against Obama’s involvement in Libya as well.
The Democrats wet their pants every day for years over the Contras, and they were fighting communists in our back yard. Yet, they can care less about Obama arming the opposition in Syria. Why? They didn’t say anything about overthrowing the government in Libya. Why? They are erratic and inconsistent to the point of appearing to be mentally unstable. Or is it just money?
It’s called treason.
OUTSTANDING article by Michael Scheuer! Thanks for posting. BTTT!
The only problem with the article is the myth it perpetrates that U.S. “intervention” is yet to occur.
The bare facts are that U.S. intervention inside Syria - in a dozen different and always secret ways, and always with locals, other Middle East interests, U.S. national and international NGOs carrying the U.S. support - was at the forefront of the “rebellion” in Syria long before the “Arab Spring”; beginning under GW Bush and continuing non-stop under Obama.
U.S, and some Middle East interests decided that the “Arab Spring” was an opportunity to up the timetable on the etxernally created and funded “opposition” to show it’s colors to Assad, even though, within Syria no one believed the “opposition” was actually ready for primetime with the likes of Assad. The honest ones involved KNEW the first “achievment” would be the creation of thousands of martyrs; which could be used to gin up both domestic and international support against the “brutal Assad” (which he is no doubt).
The “revolt” in Syria was a “premature birth” instigated by the western and other Middle East interests backing it - the U.S. included.
And, no matter what we in the U.S. think of the Syrian dicator, G.W. Bush and Obama are on totally shakey ground when it comes to the U.S. making war on another nation, and secretly, clandistinely, mostly with locals and other Middle East interests as the local proxies that is really what has been going on - U.S. jets and bombs or not.
I know that no one in any foreign policy circle can declare than ANY replacement for Assad is likely to be more a “peaceful” regime in the Middle East; particularly with the western backed parties in the lead of the Syrian “opposition” - the Muslim Brotherhood.