Obama’s Department of Defense Calls Founding Fathers ‘Extremists’

President Obama’s Department of Defense has issued a “teaching” guide that calls our founding fathers “extremists” and advises students that today’s radicals don’t “put on sheets” but will talk of “individual liberties” reports have found.

So, according to Obama’s administration, anyone that talks about freedom and the individual liberties are latent racists–or are somehow hiding their racism–and our founders were radical extremists!

This so-called teaching guide was discovered by Judicial Watch among materials authored by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, a DoD-funded diversity training center.

As the Daily Caller reports:

Under a section titled “extremist ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

The guide also urges students to use the resources of the Southern Poverty Law Center to determine what is a “hate group,” even though the SPLC is pretty much an extremist left-wing group itself.

Naturally, there is not one mention of Islamist extremism in this U.S. government “teaching guide.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton had it exactly right, saying:

“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” said Fitton. ”And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”

You’ll recall back in 2009 when Obama Department of Homeland Security said all Tea Partiers and military vets were likely potential terrorists.

Arsonists lament flaring of arson under arsonist...
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • Commander_Chico

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

    • jim_m

      Goldwater was wrong.

      So you would agree then that executing people who are determined to be enemies of liberty is OK. And if the state is determined to be the source of liberty (and every good leftist would claim that the government is that source) then the government is completely justified in executing its political enemies.

      Something I believe you would completely support.

      • Commander_Chico

        No, Goldwater was right!!

      • Robert Whittle

        when your political beliefs threaten my freedom it is time to act.

  • The Dhimmocrats mistake their ongoing political power for the Good of the Republic and its citizenry while projecting (as usual) like hell.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    I’ve never heard of the “Daily Caller.” Is that a trustworthy source? That aside, obviously the “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, a DoD-funded diversity training center” is going to be a cesspool of loopy race-based agitprop. That goes without saying. But it’s not the major problem facing the military. The major problem facing the military is that the people in charge possess reflexive and visceral antipathies towards U.S. power and towards the U.S. being a bastion of freedom. Obama spent his formative years listening to pro-communist, anti-American propaganda. Hagel lost so many brain cells in Vietnam the man no longer is sentient. Dempsey is a cross between Colin Powell and Wesley Clark, circa 2004. The whole race huckster thing is a distraction and a red herring. Customarily, however, and ironically, it’s a distraction and a red herring that, sure enough, distracts the right side of the spectrum.

    • Commander_Chico

      Nice attack on Vietnam vets there. Classy.

      • Take as much umbrage as you like, I only saw insult offered to a politician there who happened to serve in Vietnam as opposed to all who served there.

        • Commander_Chico

          The statement was that service in Vietnam diminished his brain cells.

          • Let’s see:

            The major problem facing the military is that the people in charge possess reflexive and visceral antipathies towards U.S. power and towards the U.S. being a bastion of freedom.

            Hagel lost so many brain cells in Vietnam the man no longer is sentient.

            That’s one way someone who wants to take umbrage can read that.

            Poor aggrieved soi disant cognoscenti veteran.

          • jim_m

            Most everyone took that as a slam on Hagel and not Vietnam vets.

          • Seems more like a slam on Hagel to me.

          • Commander_Chico

            Except that Hagel’s service in Vietnam is blamed for his mental shortcomings. . . . .

          • Aww. I’m sure he’s crushed. Crushed, I tell you!

          • LiberalNightmare

            The statement was that he lost brain cells while he was in viet nam – where he was, not how he lost the brain cells.

            An old vet like yourself should probably be able to remember a few ways to do the same.

    • adplatt126

      The government sees its own people and their traditional values as the enemy. You think that’s a “red herring”? The major problem facing the military is that it’s part of the vicious, completely unfettered, social Marxist, corporatistic empire in Washington. The U.S. is a bastion of freedom? You can’t be serious. Older Americans are truly delusional. Stop watching television. Seriously. You live in a tyrannical police state, under a government that has about a quarter of the population behind it, assuming the vote count is accurate, which we don’t really know, since it’s counted by private corporations and hidden computer codes, with about half of the population too subdued and apathetic to believe they can even change anything. The U.S. government can not serve freedom. It is the most totalitarian power structure the world has ever known. Every week a new scandal demonstrates that these nutcases are prying further into our lives than any government ever before, with almost no oversight, and in direct violation of our natural liberties and constitutional rights. I still can’t believe people like you exist. You have access to the internet and you believe this Neocon nonsense still? Amazing. Wake up. The government must be dissolved. It is a threat to everyone, everywhere; its own people most of all.

  • 914

    Divider not uniter! What an arrogant arse!

  • Hank_M

    If you take the time to read the document JW obtained, it’s beyond ironic.

    One section talks about “Extremist Traits”.

    Here are some of them.

    a. Character assassination
    b. Name calling and labeling
    c. Irresponsive sweeping generalizations
    Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments with little to no evidence
    d. Inadequate proof behind assertions
    e. Tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
    g. Tendency to argue by intimidation
    h. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping clichés (War on women?)
    i. Assumption of moral superiority over others

    Simply unbelievable. The democrat party fits each and every trait to a T.
    It also describes the strategy Obama used to get re-elected.
    As Rodney mentioned, this is projecting like hell, or should I say, projection to the “extreme”.

    • Sky__Captain

      Actually, those descriptions are the debating tactics of liberals. Does that mean liberals are “radical extremists”? Could they be *gasp* “latent racists”?

      (Those are rhetorical questions, of course.)

    • Brennan

      You mean . . . like this slam against the DoD and all of the comments that follow? Because this whole post fits a good, solid 90% of the traits you just listed.

    • adplatt126

      This isn’t the Democratic party. This is a DOD memo. This is the U.S. state itself. This is the Government’s view. What does that say to you?

  • Paul Hooson

    I don’t think that Washington and his followers were extremists at all. He was a very wealthy man who was passed up for a leadership role as a British military commander, felt slighted. So, being perhaps the most wealthy man in America at the time organized a cult of followers and friends into a power grab for himself so he could rule a country himself. That’s just a good old fashioned lust for power, and certainly not extremism by any means. – But, Washington did have some redeeming qualities. He did give up power after two terms in office, after his friends made him president twice. So he didn’t try to be king. – But, he had his share of scandal where he bribed voters to win one local election for an office at one time, billed his revolutionary army expense account for things that far exceeded a fixed income and had another corruption scandal while as president that might have involved embezzling money or diverting it to himself from one military expense account program. – He was far from the “honest man” of the children’s history books. But, he did lay out the ground work for an independent nation that made numerous reforms in more free and less rigged and fixed elections(Even in 1860, Lincoln was kept off the ballot of many states, and for a few years thereafter only votes for Democrats in many Southern states were counted by the election officials. Votes for Republicans were often discarded by election officials.).

    • You have a source for that ‘slighted’ shit?

      • Paul Hooson

        Yes, there’s many books and Google search pieces that paint a little less than the children’s history book version of this president, who was pretty much little more than a wealthy businessman who wanted a little power for himself after he failed to get a promotion within the British Army. – In fact, some of best generals fighting for Washington were other former British generals who felt shortchanged by the British Army and switched sides. Washington wasn’t even the best general, as other generals weren’t always happy with his uneven pattern of win some/lose some battle successes such as his battle failure in New York. Washington was actually made into a full general after his death. He wasn’t a head or top general while actually alive. Even Wiki points this fact out. – He founded the country because he knew how to get things done and had a lot of money to help finance things, and no one can take away from him. – But, he never walked on water or changed water into wine. That was another guy a lot better than Washington. – But, Washington did have enough leadership and political qualities to achieve what he wanted to do and did do.

        • warnertoddhuston

          Paul is suffering from the Charles Beard school of “history” where all the American founders were evil oppressors. It is a revisionist history written by communists at the turn of the last century. Hooson has inculcated this communist ideology quite well.

          • jim_m

            The farcical part is that Hooson denies that Washington was chosen as the leader of the Continental Army. Not only is that a fact but an extremely well documented one. I have to agree that the only way he could have gotten such tragic misinformation was to have been taught by communists behind the iron curtain.

          • Paul Hooson

            Washington was the leader of Continental Armies holding the rank of Major General and Lieutenant General, but he was actually awarded the posthumous role of General Of The Armies in 1976, which includes all branches.

          • jim_m

            Which rank did not exist in his time, dumbass.

          • Paul Hooson

            Actually John Adams was largely responsible for the small navy at the time of the revolutionary war, but Washington did claim command of some navy ships, and a few privateers did engage the British in some independent war efforts as well. Washington largely was the commander of the early army, but not all of the early navy efforts.

          • Washington’s highest military rank in his lifetime was Major General. Every time a rank senior to it has been established, Washington was posthumously elevated to that new rank, in most cases as the first to hold the rank by seniority.

          • Paul Hooson

            No, you misunderstand my point here. Washington, just like myself, was a ruthless and hard driving businessman. He’s not some ideological radical as some suggest by any means, but driven by wealth and power, the same that drives me – Look at me, I’m buying that $1.9 million strip club because it will make me the owner of the largest strip club in Oregon, which is power, and it will allow me to buy more motorcycles and be around young beautiful naked women everyday, and become a more powerful figure in the local biker community as well.- Some people hate guys like that. Other guys want to be a guy like that.

            That’s pretty much the same raw drives behind Washington. He wanted to run something big and to be powerful. He wasn’t any political ideologue, but a hard driving businessman who wanted power. He was very successful at what he wanted to do. And he freely gave up power after two terms in office, because he wasn’t a dictator. He wasn’t any “evil oppressor”, just a guy who liked wealth and power. He wasn’t perfect. But, he knew how to get things done. That’s pretty darn good in my book.

          • jim_m

            Washington, just like myself…

            No we have long ago gotten your point that everything is about you. You needn’t point it out to us.

          • jim_m

            Which tells me that the young girl in your photos is not your girlfriend but your employee. There’s a word for women who you pay for that sort of thing…..

            I thought at the time that your so-called girlfriend looked like a stripper or a prostitute. Now I know.

          • Paul Hooson

            No, she’s been my girlfriend for the last three years. – But, looking at Washington, you have to remember that we’re talking about a late 1700’s businessman who liked adventure, so the military thing appealed to him too. – It appealed to him to ride a horse with a uniform on and direct men on foot into action. It was a 1700’s view of the world. Both the military and business have changed a great deal since this.

          • Paul Hooson

            I actually admire a great deal about Washington, Warner. I own a great deal of military collector’s items including one of those limited edition Hasbro George Washington 12 inch military figures that’s in my living room. I’m a big fan of military history items and books. I just disagree with some of the popular history notions about Washington, that ignore that he was a hard driven businessman who did manage to turn many things to his financial advantage as well as had a huge lust for power. – He played a huge role in the revolution, but was a little bit of mixed bag himself. He was far from the best military leader, but he was a skillful politician for his time as well as an influential business leader, and all of this mix helped to make for a successful combination.

        • We’ll take that as a “no.”

        • jim_m

          This is true only in the sense that as colonists they were all British subjects and if they had any military experience it was serving in the British army during the French and Indian wars,

          There were no men in positions of significant leadership that came over to suppress the colonial uprising and then switched sides.

          Once again Paul is making crap up and does so to defame our nation.

          • Paul Hooson

            No. Washington was a businessman who had a British military background, and had ambitions rooted in business. For example, he was such a large landowner and businessman he had some certain reasons to oppose paying taxes to the king for one thing. Britain was pretty cash strapped after the Seven Years War and started to seek a number of outrageous taxes on the American colonies who had little representation to oppose these outrageous taxes, so Washington had a relatively easy task to recruit many colonists to oppose the British , although many still maintained a loyalty to Britain.

          • jim_m

            Yes there is a great deal of history behind the causes of the Revolutionary War. I suggest starting with The Glorious Cause which is volume 1 of the Oxford History of the United States. It’s actually a pretty good read and it would set you straight about a lot of your misconceptions

          • Paul Hooson

            I have about 10,000 books in my home library currently, and I always welcome hearing about any other books I should add to this library.

          • Who knew there were that many graphic novels in print…

  • GarandFan

    “…a DoD-funded diversity training center.”

    Scratch just about anyone involved with ‘diversity training’ and you’ll find a bigot.


      I wrote both my Senator and my Congressman and asked them to take action to fire the private company that is putting this crap out. All of us should do the same.

  • Momazon

    Obama would know a terrorist. After all, a con can always spot a con, right?


    I served in the United States Navy/Marines for 23 years BECAUSE I believe in the U.S. Constitution and the liberties and freedoms it protects for all Americans. Now lets look at the definition of new extremist for the democrat / Obama administration.
    “Extremist will talk of:
    1) Individual liberties (guilty, but so does the U.S. Constitution)
    2) States rights (guilty, but so does the U.S. Constitution)
    3) How to make the world a better place (guilty, but that is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution)
    So, even though I continue to hold true to the Oath of enlistment to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies….. I guess to Obama and the Neo-democrats… I am and extremist.
    Lets vote the democrats out of the Senate and House in 2014

    • jim_m

      I served in the United States Navy/Marines for 23 years

      And for doing so you are now considered a threat to the federal government. Congrats.


        Kinda sad isn’t it.

    • adplatt126

      The neo-cons are as cozy with Mark Potok (the SPLC wrote these sections) and his Zionist pals as the left. If you vote a Republican in, expect nothing to change. The power structure itself is the problem. The government is evil. Dissolve it.


        I dont want to vote a “republican” in… I want a Constitutional Conservative Republican like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Bobby Jindal or Rand Paul.

        • adplatt126

          That’s nice but those are a few guys, many of which, Jindal and Cruz especially, can not be expected to meaningfully rein in Federal power. Cruz is quite equivocal about his real distaste for the ever-expanding police/surveillance state. Either way, any such restrictions will be temporary or futile. Democrats and neo-cons will regain control in a few short years and continue the dismantling of the American constitution until nothing is left; if anything is at all left today. The government is not wrong about who its enemy is: you and me, and really anyone decent or honest left in the country. A patriot by the name of Edward Snowden merely informed the American people of a long list of crimes committed by their own government against them, which the government itself was hiding from them. The government in response is trying to place him behind bars for the remainder of his life. That says all anyone needs to know about this government, its agenda and its legitimacy.

          • DOCWRIGHT

            I am not yet ready to give up on America. I served in the military for 23 years and still believe in protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies… that includes the current President and the democrats in congress. I will vote against any RINO in the primaries and against and democrat in the general elections. I will continue to write letters to the editor in any paper I can get them in. I will continue to campaign for good strong constitutional conservative candidates.

            I will not give up until I am dead. America is to precious to just sit by and watch it fall.

          • adplatt126

            Stop calling the American government “America”. This government is no more America than the British government was. In fact, it’s far less America than the British government. I’m not exactly sure what you think you’re defending. The constitution is dead. I respect your commitment and loyalty to a thing. I’m just informing you that you’re mistaken. America is precious? Not really. In fact, if you believe America was precious in the early Republic, you must also believe it isn’t precious now. I can’t think of much of anything more diametrically opposed to the values of the declaration of independence and early American values, than this government and this culture respectively. This government is systematically destroying those values and has been for decades. There is no connection between “America” and this “America” in other words, at least not in any meaningful civilizational sense, except the ones you imaginatively conjure up.

          • DOCWRIGHT

            No, America still is out there. I agree that this current government is not America or Amarican… but the system of government designed by the U.S. Constitution can still be revived if we the people of the United States stand up and make it so. We still do have the vote. We still have the ability for States of amend the U.S. Constitution without the consent of Congress. We still have tools at our disposal to make American great again… and precious.

          • adplatt126

            Like I said, I admire your loyalty. It’s nice to see you’re moving away from the dated “America is great” position towards the more realistic “America was great and/or precious” but no longer is position. I’m afraid I have no real confidence that the votes in major American elections, primaries included, are legitimate. I’m not claiming they’re not, but I think there is ample reason to doubt that they are and little reason to believe they are. In the first place, the chain of custody of the vote has been lost. There is no paper trail, there are no ballots. The vote is collected and counted not by government but by private corporations, the programming codes to which are neither publicly nor governmentally available. So we can say at the very least that there is no transparency in the electoral process at the moment and so we don’t have any direct evidence or positive reason to believe the vote is legitimate. With that said there have been numerous irregularities in primary elections, and I have very little trust in our government and the people and corporations behind it. My feeling is they’re so fundamentally dishonest, that if they can get away with a thing they will. They can get away with it. I put the integrity of the vote and the legitimacy of the government on these grounds (although there are plenty of other reasons to doubt its legitimacy even if the vote-count is sound) at well below fifty percent. Sad, but true. So I’m not sure the American people really have any genuine control. Some influence perhaps, but real control I do question. Whether the U.S. is still a genuine democracy is debatable and dubitable.

          • DOCWRIGHT

            I believe you and I agree on principal that the “fundamental change” away from our founding has already happened. I am just not ready or willing to give up yet… or ever. Thanks for an honest discussion.

            Mark “Doc” Wright

          • adplatt126

            Thank you as well, my friend. You should watch this video. Highly recommended.

          • DOCWRIGHT


  • Commander_Chico

    If Obama orders the firing of one bullet at Syria without Congressional authorization, he should be impeached.

    And, by “Congressional authorization,” I do not mean a meeting with Harry Reid and John Boehner – a full debate and a vote.

  • Commander_Chico

    If Obama orders the firing of one bullet at Syria without Congressional authorization, he should be impeached.

    And, by “Congressional authorization,” I do not mean a meeting with Harry Reid and John Boehner – a full debate and a vote.

    • jim_m

      Good luck with that.

      As I have said before, obama has left himself with no other choice but to intervene on account of his ignorant and feckless foreign policy. Military intervention is inevitable, not because it is the best thing for the US, but because his policy has made it so. Unfortunately, because of his screwing around and delaying making any sort of cogent decision on Syria we will enter into any conflict at potentially the worst possible moment and with the highest degree of opposition from major enemies such as Russia and China.

      Now I will wait for Commissar Chico to call me a Chicken hawk (yet again) and blame Bush for obama’s failed foreign policy (again).

      • You’re right – Obama’s managed to screw himself over.

        And at the same time, Chico’s right – in that he’s going to have to get Congressional authorization on this one, fully done and properly voted.

        If he shortcuts through this through his “I am the King, and can do what I damn well please” methods with a couple of lackeys signing because ‘we don’t have time to do it properly’ … that’d be really stupid of him.

        But then again, he’s not the brightest possible politician we could have gotten to the office… is he?

        Oh, wait – by implying he’s something of a dim bulb, was that… RACIST?

        • jim_m

          How much you want to bet that he does it without Congressional anything and Boehner and friends say little or nothing and the media and lefties everywhere shriek that to question obama’s authority to unilaterally take us to war is racist?

          obama does it and he gets away with it because the media will totally cover his ass.

          • Man, I wouldn’t take that bet. The Republicans in Washington have been conditioned to let Obama do what he wants.

      • War Powers Resolution at odds with our soi disant cognoscenti…

      • Commander_Chico

        Weasel words. Are you for bombing or against it?

        Why should the American people care who runs Syria?

        We know the answer, your masters have dictated it.


        • jim_m

          I have expressed many times that obama has left himself no choice and that if he fails to act that he has done major damage to America’s international credibility.

          I have also said that if obama does use military force that I expect him to do so in a way that squanders American lives (like Benghazi) and further weakens our international position.

          It is a lose-lose proposition. A wise president would 1) not have put himself in the position that the international genius, obama has done and 2) if they had chosen to act would have done so decisively ages ago when the Russians, Chinese and Iranians would not have the strong position they have today. Acting over a year ago could have been done to remove Assad with minimal loss of life, isolation of islamist elements and could have sidelined the Russians and Chinese.

          But obama is an ignorant fool, incapable of formulating any rational foreign policy or response to a crisis. He is incapable or at least unwilling to project American strength in a way that advances our interests or strengthens our position.

          I do not think that engaging now is wise or desirable. Regardless of what happens we will have an islamist government go into Syria just like obama was trying to get established in Egypt. Within ten years due to obamas feckless foreign policy we will probably have another world war. But I am sure that you will find a way to blame Bush.

          (BTW- I don’t read the Weekly Standard)

          • Commander_Chico

            General Jim has the big picture – acting a year ago would have been easy, minimal loss of life, etc. You know nothing of the sort.

            So many stupidities there – Benghazi (4 KIA) was a “squandering” of American lives while Iraq (4000+ KIA) was a judicious use of force.

            But you fail to answer the question – why should the American people care whether Assad rules Syria?

          • jim_m

            I guess you are right. And why should we have cared that Hitler exterminated millions of Jews? It was none of our business.

            When there is evil it is our business and we are stronger when there is democracy instead of Baathist dictatorship.

            I wonder Chico. Is the reason you support Assad so strongly because the Baathist party is historically connected to the Nazis? That would certainly explain a lot.

            And the numbers of dead do not have any relevance on whether they died unnecessarily. Benghazi were non combatants that died because obama chose to let them die. Our military in Iraq died as part of combat operations supporting a war that we won. But then I suppose you object to us winning a war.

          • Commander_Chico

            When all else fails, pull out “because Hitler!” and “anti-Semite!” So trite.

            Leaving aside the question of proof that this gas attack happened or was not a “false flag” operation.

            Col. (ret) Andrew Bacevich has a question for you:

            First, why does this particular heinous act rise to the level of justifying a military response? More specifically, why did a similarly heinous act by the Egyptian army elicit from Washington only the mildest response? Just weeks ago, Egyptian security forces slaughtered hundreds of Egyptians whose “crime” was to protest a military coup that overthrew a legitimately elected president. Why the double standard?


          • jim_m

            People wouldn’t call you an anti-semite if you weren’t always blaming everything on the Joos and their international conspiracy to control US foreign policy. I pointed out the connection between the Baath party and the Nazis because your unqualified support of Assad, I believe is due to his country’s opposition to Israel.

            Just saying.

            And I have several times given you my position and you continue to mischaracterize it like the dishonest lefty that you are. Whatever.

          • Commander_Chico

            Watch this:

            Blowhard Chickenhawk Bill O’Reilly get his ass handed to him by retired Col Dave Hunt and retired Lt. Col Ralph Peters.

            Like jim_m vs Chico = O’Reilly even pulls the “because Hitler!” on them.

          • jim_m

            I cannot help it if you are historically ignorant. You take sides with the Nazis and you are going to be grouped with them. Simple as that.

            Your position is that unless the US is directly attacked by the official military forces of a foreign nation there is never a reason to use the military for any purpose what-so-ever. I disagree.

            And we are not a military dictatorship where only people in the military or who have served have the right to opine on matters of national security. The military is subservient to the civil authority. You don’t like that. It is in every comment you make where you call people chickenhawks. You are a wanna be fascist who would love to oppress everyone who doesn’t think like you and who would remove our civil rights as fast as you possibly could.

            Hence why you try to discredit the opinion of anyone who hasn’t served not by addressing the content of their speech but by condemning their lack of service. Try addressing issues mr fascist.

          • Commander_Chico

            I admit I saw a lot of merit in the premise of Starship Troopers. The book, not the movie. Only vets could vote.

            Although the movie was a great satire of war propaganda.

            Knowing the military and its limitations and costs puts a stop to foolishness like your idea “When there is evil it is our business.”

            No, it’s not our business whenever there is evil. Sometimes you create more evil by flailing around the world trying to end evil. Iraq being an example. How many people were killed there by bombs yesterday? 30? 50?

          • jim_m

            So you admit that you prefer a military dictatorship. Finally, some honesty.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, I favor a democracy in which the right to vote is earned by service. Remember, in Starship Troopers, you didn’t have to be in the military to earn the vote, there was alternative service.

            It would cut down on chickenhawkery, for sure.


          • But not the soi disant congoscenti ass-hattery.

          • jim_m

            So you believe in and desire a country with second class citizens.

          • 1. I doubt this administration can effectively direct a military campaign.

            2. I doubt this administration is willing to effectively prosecute an unpopular war.

            3. I doubt this administration will accomplish anything in Syria other than increasing the human suffering and death there.

            4. Syria is a cats paw. The cat is Iran.

            5. We have no actual friends and no vital national interests in Syria.


          • Commander_Chico

            Why should any administration prosecute “an unpopular war?” If only about 9% of Americans support military action, why do it? Aren’t we a democracy? Unless there is an oligarchy running things . . . .

            I totally agree with #5 – We have no actual friends and no vital national interests in Syria.

    • Have your Congressional delegation introduce a Declaration of War and let it be voted down then.