The Case Against Saddam Hussein is not the Against Assad

Secretary of State John Kerry [D]

The ongoing debate in Congress as to what the US should do with Bashar al-Assad after evidence showed he used chemical weapons against his own people, is a huge mess. It is like watching a bunch of clowns trying so hard to make the audience laugh. The problem is, we aren't laughing, but marveled at the height of stupidity exhibited by these so-called leaders; those who are trying to convince Americans that attacking Syria is within the best interesting of the US. But this post is not to analyze the ridiculousness of the strategy and what the Obama administration sought from congress, because, as he said a few days ago: supported by Congress or not, he holds the authority to attack. So why bother analyzing this futile exercise anyway? I want to explore the differences between Iraqi war and the case against Assad in response to Senators who brought them up in yesterday's hearing as if.
Democrats who were referring to the invasion of Iraq while debating the proposed attack on Assad, misrepresented the whole Iraqi war and they knew it. Then Senator Kerry was one of the Democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq, but when WMDs weren't found, he and his party saw an opportunity to blame the Republican party and President Bush and used that as his campaign slogan in 2004. In attempting to clarify his vote on the Iraqi war bill, Senator Kerry noted that he was voting to give the president the authority to declare war but he didn't vote for the Iraqi invasion; ignoring the fact though that he appeared on TV days prior to the invasion of Iraq to accuse Saddam Hussein of possessing WMD with an intention to use them as he did in the past. As such, he was lying about his support for the war. Every pre-invasion indicator was seemingly accurate and all major intelligence agencies around the world agreed that the Hussein regime possessed an arsenal of chemical weapons and that he was stockpiling them for future use.
Off course Democrats have been misrepresenting the Iraqi evidence every time they brought it up. They are suggesting that US was dragged into a war against Hussein based on flawed intel, while the evidence that Assad had used his chemical weapons to attack his people is real therefore Obama should be supported. This argument was carefully crafted to make the case that US went to war in Iraq based on flawed evidences and it would be silly of the Republicans or the American people to deny Obama the authority to attack Assad because evidence (fresh) showed that he indeed used nerve gas against his own people, and against international laws. What many Democrats failed to mention is the fact that Hussein had used nerve gas (chemical weapons) against the Kurds in the North killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds, far worse than those who died in Damascus. Not only that, when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq after withdrawing from Kuwait, Hussein agreed to sign a "ceasefire" and part of the peace agreement was for him to destroy his Chemical weapons and provide evidence that he did to the IAEA. Instead, Hussein continued defying these agreements and continued to block UN inspectors from areas the UN and US believed stored his Chemical weapons. Even when US brought before the UNSC a resolution to force him to disarm, or at least showing evidence he had destroyed his chemical weapons, he mocked it and never wavered in his defiance of the requirements, so it is quite irresponsible for Democrats to claim that WMD never existed in Iraq at anytime, nor is it wise to downplay a regime known for killing his own people with chemical gas in a space of more than ten years.
Finally, US has lost its credibility with President Barrack Hussein Obama who, not only fundamentally transforming American domestic policies, but also transforming US foreign policy, a serious mistake that is now coming back to bite him in the ass. The Obama new approach refuses to acknowledge the Islamic Extremists' perpetual war against America stretching back to the days after Second World War. Even with that knowledge that Islamic terrorists attacked America (attacks on US embassies in Africa, the attack on US forces in Somalia, attack on USS Cole in Yemen etc) in the past, the Obama administration pretended that the problem is really America and not the terrorists. Off course, this ridiculous foreign policy has resulted in so many attacks on America since 2009; a few of them failed. This new approach is catastrophic. American enemies are more emboldened by Obama's weak foreign policy, empowered by his refusal to challenge rogue states in the Middle East and terrorist cells in around the world. So, as the world is watching the only world's superpower, President Obama, hatched a plan that aims to delay the US response to the Syrian chemical attack as he tours Europe. Senator Rand Paul was actually right when he accused Secretary Kerry and the Obama administration of playing games with the American people over the Syrian chemical attack. And, as some of the critics questioned - if this attack on Syria is aimed to weaken Assad but not toppling him, why doing it anyway? that is the question that demands a straight forward answer. Discussing Iraqi war in order to justify an attack on Syria is absolutely wrong!