Going to War with the Blind General of Benghazi (An Apology)
Okay. I'm an idiot. What was I thinking? I apologize.
Any administration that could have the temerity to send the nauseating serial Benghazi prevaricator Susan Rice, on the anniversary of that event yet, to explain to Congress why our representatives should approve a strike on Syria not only should NOT get the aforesaid approval, they should be forbidden approval for anything more significant than the choice of wallpaper in the White House rest rooms -- and even that I'm not so sure.
In earlier columns, I supported an attack on Syria because I abhor Bashar Assad and his (or his minions') use of chemical weapons and because I have even less regard for his mentors, the Iranian mullahs. I wanted to discourage them both.
Well, naturally. Who wouldn't?
But in my overweening contempt I overlooked -- or more exactly chose to ignore -- the obvious. We would be going to war with a blind man as our commander-in-chief. And I don't mean a physically blind man like the Japanese samurai Zatoichi, whose heroic exploits were magnificent despite his infirmity, if you remember the film series. I mean a morally, psychologically and ideologically blind man incapable of coherent policy, action or even much logical thought on any matter of significance, let alone on such a crucial one with life and death at stake.
Maybe it took the the looming anniversary of the Benghazi tragedy -- and the Theater of the Absurd mondo bizarro image of Susan Rice once again acting as a spokesperson -- to remind me of that and knock sense into me, but I apologize to my readers. I should have known better.
Yes, I know the cliché goes that you go to war with the army you have, but going to war with a "blind general" at the helm is one step too far. Actually, it's many steps too far.