Anyone planning a competition to cite the single most insanely stupid purported reason that President Obama may bomb Syria, I already have your winner.
His name is Mike Papantonio, attorney (first flag goes up) and radio show co-host with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (second flag) who often fills in on Ed Schultz's radio program (trifecta!). (Audio after the jump)
Papantonio was covering for Schultz yesterday when he jumped the rails while talking about possible US intervention in the Syrian civil war.
Here's his Onionesque commentary for your listening amusement (audio) --
One one side you have a president with unfavorables continuing to climb. In recent months the flaky right has manufactured fantasy narratives, I mean, out of thin air about how Obama and Hillary Clinton were weak on international security because of the Benghazi fiasco. Add to that a massive military industrial complex, they're flush with more money than they know what to do with, they're covered up with nifty new drone equipment, new missiles, new aircraft, couple of new ships in their fleet, and it's clear that they're desperate to ignite another Iraq just down the road there from Syria.
You know, also, no one knows how troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are going to find work when they get home. That's a big problem. Huge numbers of troops are still stationed right there in the region, so this administration, no doubt, sees that a troop drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan can also mean a seamless transition for unemployable troops that can just be sent to Syria. They can't get a job in the United States, put 'em in Syria. Immediate employment through troop deployment.
Wow, such bracing and perceptive political analysis is seldom heard outside of late night frat-house bacchanals and Michael Moore documentaries. Only fair to give credit where it's due.
Don't you love how Papantonio bemoans "manufactured fantasy narratives" from conservatives just before constructing one of his own? And is it my imagination or does he labor under the delusion that we still have troops in Iraq? Second liberal to do this in as many days. They really ought to pay attention to the news before pontificating about it.
Not to nitpick but if lowering the unemployment rate is Obama's underlying reason for intervening in Middle Eastern civil wars, why didn't he send troops to Libya two years ago when the jobless rate was higher?