The phrase that pays

"War-weary public"

This is the phrase that I have been hearing more and more over the past few days regarding Obomba's drumming up of support for action upon Syria.

While attending my nephew's wedding in Ohio, I've had an opportunity to watch cable news. I don't normally watch any news at all, preferring to get my news from the newspaper and from online. I have a very narrow focus for news, and I've noticed that most of broadcast news have a certain percentage of "fluff" news: human interest stories are what they are called in the journalism business. "Man rescues cat from tree", that sort of thing.

While they are nice, I've always thought they should be fewer in number than hard news stories. Nowadays, the fluff pieces are rather numerous, and seem to dominate the time over what is given to hard news. Perhaps if broadcast news corporations want gain back the viewers that they have lost over the past few years, they should split the fluff to an online site while leaving the hard news to being broadcast.

But I digress.

So sometime this week, Obomba is going to be making his case to the American people as to why we should be getting involved in Syria's civil war. Let me make this clear right up front: the images that have been released of the people who have been gassed is horrible. The suffering that is obviously going on there in Syria is heart-breaking.

The problem is, I can see no American interest in this. The stated reasons for our involvement in Iraq doesn't apply to us here. A war in Syria doesn't affect us economically, nor is there any threat of terrorism that might effect us. Syria's leader Bashir Assad doesn't have a history of invading neighboring countries, nor of sponsoring terrorism, nor of seeking weapons of mass destruction to be used against Israel. Indeed, certain elements of our Donk intelligentsia have called Assad "a reformer".

Well, you can't argue with success, can you? Besides, what difference does it make at this point, anyway?

So we don't really have any real reason to get involved in Syria, at least speaking from a practical viewpoint. Which leads us to the only real reason that has a realistic chance for being successful: humanitarian reasons. "We should try to stop this sort of thing from happening because letting it continue is inhumane and evil," proponents are saying. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Comparisons will be made to the massacre that happened in Darfur, and pictures will be shown, and emotional appeals will be made over and over again.

And, in the end, nothing will be done.

Oh, sure, Obomba will appear on television and read a rousing speech. Donks will try to shame people into supporting Our Revered Leader, suggesting (or even outright stating) that not to support him is "racist!" The TV newsheads will fret that the President, and therefore the country, will lose face in the league of nations. Perhaps a few missiles will be launched, or armaments will be sent somewhere, or some advisers will lend their expertise to the subject.

But Americans are, I think, not going to assent to any kind of action in Syria.

And the Establishment Media, God bless 'em, have actually noticed this. While I was watching just a few minutes of cable news, one particular phrase kept popping up. I've put it at the first part of this post, so you should have already figured out what it is by now.

"War-weary public".

Yep, that's what it is. And I'm not the only who who has noticed this.

The problem with the above linked analysis is that it doesn't address what I think is the true reason why the media is expressing such frustration at America's balking at getting involved in Syria. What is at the heart of why the media is so frustrated is the inability of Americans to blame George W. Bush for this.

George W. Bush, you see, is the reason why we are so weary of war. We got involved in Afghanistan, you see, because of W. We invaded Iraq, you see, because of W. If that darned George W. Bush hadn't gotten us involved in a bunch of pointless wars, Americans would be chomping at the bit to follow Dear Leader, er, I mean, to allow ourselves to bask in President Obama's radiance, I mean, to allow the leadership of Obama to shine through and lead the rest of the world to peacefulness and light. It's just rotten luck that a wise and benevolent leader such as Obama had to follow that reckless cowboy who made us hated by the world. That's why Obama can't build a united coalition like Shrub did. Er, um...

...you know what I mean.

So we are being inundated with the phrase "war-weary Americans" and "war-weary public" and "war-weary ____", while the slaughter continues.

A real leader would have already have sold us on involvement there. A real leader would have worked on building a coalition of allies who would stand by us and help us. A real leader would have cut off any threat of involvement by Russia or Iran or Hezbollah long before it ever became a problem. A real leader would have made known that any war-time atrocities performed by anybody would have serious repercussions.

It's just too bad that we no longer have a real leader.

Please bookmark!