Scared off by Russia, Bush turns to Syria

If anyone still doubts my assertion that the U.S. doesn’t attack anybody who can fight back, you now have proof.

Bush is hot to attack somebody again, and has been rattling his sabre about getting tough on Iran over its (currently legal) nuclear energy program. Stories have leaked to the press that Bush might invade in June, to at least destroy Iran’s nuclear plants. And of course, George’s big motivation is America’s national security.

While Iran might be too weak to defend itself against the U.S., Iran has a very strong friend. Allegedly, Russian leader Putin told Bush that if any Russians working at the plants are killed, Russia will take it personally. The phrase “act of war” has been mentioned.

So what does big, bad George do?

He starts bad-mouthing Syria. Looks like George is working up his war propaganda to gather enough support to attack. We’re hearing all the same ol’ stuff we heard before. Syria has (Saddam’s) WMDs. Syria is a hotbed of terrorism. Syria tortures people. Syria has aggressed against its neighbors. The same line of accusations Bush concocted against Saddam. The question is, is any of it true?

So far, only the torture part is substantiated (this one is easy, since the U.S. sends people there to be "interrogated"). But none of the rest has any proof so far. But just wait, if Bush holds true to form, he’ll manufacture some soon enough.

One thing that may never get proper coverage in the major media, is that those Syrian troops in Lebanon were INVITED there by the Lebanese government to help stabilize the country in 1989 (something Reagan failed to do years before). Ironically the current situation is keeping Christians in control, and removal of the troops might lead to a Muslim takeover--which wouldn’t do one single thing to improve human rights conditions like torture.

I’m not all that sympathetic to Syria. I won’t cry for them if George stomps a mudhole in them. But I will cry for freedom in the world. You cannot spread freedom at the end of a gun. That's not freedom; that's oppression with the label "freedom" stamped on the package. And I weep for an America that has lost its once-cherished belief in the self-determination of others.

But in the short term, I still question the motives of the man in charge. If Iran is a national security threat to America, why is Bush turning tail and running--simply because Russia flexed its muscles? That’s the tell-tale sign of a cowardly bully. He’s all tough when no one fights back, but at the first sign of resistance he goes after someone smaller.

If Bush is only going to protect America from those countries too weak to fight us, are we even being protected at all? And if this isn’t really about America’s security, then what IS it all about...?