We’re forewarned, the President tends to think that “every little bit helps,” instead of worrying about “making things worse,” when it comes to his policies.
Obamacare is case in point, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, with many of the same perils facing consumers that were faced before Obamacare. (Read posts including today’s, “Will Obamacare Self-destruct?”)
When it came to immigration, again a half-baked proposal based on praiseworthy ideology, kids shouldn’t be punished for their parents being illegal aliens, but actually making things worse for our citizens by providing amnesty for lawbreaking illegals, many of whom know they’re breaking the law, flooding the job market for young Americans already a group suffering from double-digit unemployment.
Now, the President is considering standing up against chemical weapons. No great powers are supporting his plans for a “limited” strike. Sure, as verbalized, just as in the case of Obamacare, just as in the case of amnesty for illegals, just as in this case, the ideology the President puts forth is appealing, stand up against chemical weapons, but is the idea yet another half-baked plan? I think so.
And just in case some fake notion of urgency is put forth, consider how many years this has been going on (years). Also, in case you're sure who we should go after if we enter Syria, please enlighten the rest of us. Consider that the UN is still conducting inspections and that it has not yet been determined who initiated the use of the chemical weapons.
