Skip to main content

The Obama administration introduces the Syrian-no-boots-on-the-ground dance

While I can understand President Obama not wanting to be seen as a war president or a hypocrite, he and his administration's we're-not-putting-boots-on-the-ground-in-Syria dance has become quite the spectacle, and the longer they keep up the dance number, the more facepalm-worthy it's going to be.

This past Friday, the White House announced they'd be sending less than 50 Special Operation forces to Syria to help combat ISIL (the artist formerly known as ISIS), yes, on the ground, and perhaps wearing boots. This came after the president had long stated we weren't going to put boots on the ground in Syria.

Like I said, I can understand how the president doesn't want to be seen as a warmonger or a hypocrite, but instead of doing this crazy dance which will likely make at least one person in his administration fall flat on their face, why not just be honest and say, "I know I had said we weren't going to put boots on the ground in Syria, but unfortunately things have changed, and we need to help rebel forces combat ISIL there. So, as much as I hate to say this, I'm going to need to send some troops to Syria in order to do this. Hopefully the mission won't last long, but I feel this move is what's best for our allies in Syria and will help us stave off the threat of ISIL"?

Mr. President, people are allowed to change their minds once in a while. However, if said person changes their opinion about something, yet refuses to acknowledge it, the longer he or she stays in denial on the matter, the more ridiculous such denial is going to sound.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/obama-syria-boots-on-the-ground/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"