Several happenings point to the rebels in Syria as the ones responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Assad was winning the war. Why would he then use these weapons and risk international rebuke?
Also, Assad asked for inspection on site, and again it was the rebels who shot at the inspectors. Probably the rebels didn’t want the truth as to who were the guilty ones. And they did have access as they gained control of a region that had a store of chemical weapons.
As it stands now in Syria, we’ve got bad guys killing bad guys. Why intervene at all? Don’t spoil a good situation.
President Barack Obama seems to favor al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood too much, as evidenced by his bias of Morsi over Mubarak and the military now in power and his siding with the rebels in Syria.
Did Chris Stevens, our ambassador in Libya, know too much, and did this lead to his demise?
How else can the lack of proper security and the lack of response to that situation be explained?
Michael A. Smith
From the Sept. 11-17, 2013, issue