>Huffington Post: Kerry fumbles over "Boots on the Ground"
Boy, John Kerry is looking old these days. Maybe it's due, in part, to all the work he's doing to get us into the Syrian civil war. Everywhere I turn, John Kerry is talking about reasons to strike. If that isn't enough, he's become the president's mouthpiece saying, "He believes we need to move. He’s made his decision. Now it’s up to the Congress of the United States to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcement against the use of chemical weapons.”
Good for him, and good for you, John Kerry. This pisses me off. When I'm angry about something, I find it hard to write about, but in this case, I don't believe we need to use force against Syria. It's not going to stop Assad from gassing his own people yet again, and I believe it'll provoke the man into unleashing greater force upon his people and maybe the people who are attacking him--which would be us. America. I don't want bombs falling on Philadelphia, or any other city for that matter. 9/11 was bad enough.
Assad's ties with Russia worry me. If we do go ahead with a strike, that is if the houses approve it, are we risking Russian retaliation? Russia is much bigger than Syria, and far more powerful. Is anyone thinking of the consequences here? Or does Kerry just like to see himself on TV acting all important?
I am against a war. Are you?
Update: 09/07/13 - This New York Times article calls John Kerry "the Obama administration's chief salesman for a punitive strike", which is totally accurate. It describes what Kerry is doing to sway the opinions of European nations.