I'LL BE WATCHING!

Tomorrow, Obama plans interviews on Syria with six major news outlets. "Major" translates to the channels which never ask hard questions of politicians. Sadly, major also means stations with the widest viewership as well. Not only do these news outlets stay in business through ad dollars from huge companies tied to defense industries, but they also fear being denied access to the president so they soft-pedal tough issues. Hard-hitting journalism literally died with Helen Thomas. And if you really want to get cynical, many claim that the news channels will make a fortune if we do go to war. But here are a few arguments that the Obama administration is claiming make it essential to go to war which are easily debunked. Sadly, I don't think we'll hear much debunking tomorrow. 1) Video and photos of sick and dying children make us feel bad. But there is no conclusive evidence that Assad used sarin gas. Initial reports claim that the rebels used it. Congressmen Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders and presumably many who are already committed to opposing against strikes in Syria have seen it and dismissed it as inconclusive. Many are asking to wait for UN inspectors' findings. 2) Even if there was conclusive evidence that Assad used sarin, that should not force Obama to attack any country which used it. So we need to stop with the moral high ground posture that's making the US an internationally despised laughing stock. We ourselves have used chemical weapons many times--Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam, white phosphorus, mustard gas and nerve gas in Iraq are just a few examples. While non-lethal, technically tear gas is also chemical weapon. The US used that against it's own citizens just recently at an Occupy Wall Street protest in Oakland and there's video on youtube to prove it. But I hate to ask you to take the time to search for a video on youtube which could help discredit our government's nonsensical claims when it's so much easier to regurgitate the government's propaganda for war. You know, a war that we can't afford, that will create generations of terrorists to come back and attack us here and that quite possibly will balloon into WW3. Don't trouble yourself. It'll pass. And the US routinely ignores genocide around the world. Funny how we find it much harder to ignore when it happens in the Middle East to people with tan skin and a different religion. 3) We just lost France after losing the UK. Our two biggest allies are already gone before the strikes have even started? If what Assad's done is so horrible, why won't other nations join us in attacking him? Do you think the US spends more on defense than every country combined so that the weapons can just sit there collecting dust? But who needs allies? Ain't the US #1? The press will feel comfortable asking Obama if his "surgical strikes" could turn into a wider conflict which lasts longer. It'll be interesting to see what he says on this. I strongly doubt if any reporters will mention that his own Joint Chief of Staff, Patrick Dempsey, advised just this past summer that military action in Syria would lead to broader conflict. And that there was no guarantee that the rebels we help-who are partially Al Qaeda forces--will agree with the US after we intervene on their behalf. Not only will Obama not answer these concerns, he won't even be asked about several of the most damning, perplexing issues. Interviews with six networks airing Monday and a national address on Tuesday? Funny how the president's willing to invest so much of his political capital to make a bigger push for war in Syria than anything that you and I know this country actually needs here at home.