Yesterday, I put up an image that tied together the significant differences between Obama’s response to a direct attack on America and Americans in Libya, versus a mass civilian murder in a country that’s already killed more than 100,000 of its, and created millions of refugees. I think its worth repeating here:
Early this morning, I came across another poster that sounds the same theme, this time raising suspicions about the Obama government’s fact-finding regarding Syria, versus its fact-finding regarding Benghazi (h/t Bluebird of Bitterness):
This is the prism through which many conservatives who oppose the war view Obama’s sudden desire to marching America into the black hole of a killer nation’s civil war.
What fascinates me is that so many Leftists who oppose Obama’s proposed invasion view the whole thing through a completely different filter. Exhibit A for today is the non-GMO movement’s opposition to the war:
We are all united in our opposition to having the United States engage in Syria. It’s just that we are completely divided when it comes to the reasons for our opposition.
And of course, if you’re MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, you have to listen to the dog whistle of racism to make sure that, God Forbid, you don’t end up in the same bed as your former political opponents. Watching Schultz’s contortions, which see him agreeing Republicans regarding their anti-War stance, while simultaneously ascribing them to an unexpressed racism (that’s the old dog-whistle) is actually amusing. (Warning: video plays when you load the page.)