Assad wouldn’t have used chemical weapons

I voted for Barack Obama the first time because John McCain wanted to start a war with Iran. I voted for Barack Obama the second time because Mitt Romney’s foreign policy cabinet comprised the same bloodthirsty, war-hungry neocons Bush had.

Now Barack Obama wants to start a war in Syria. President Obama wants to punish President Assad for the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population, but there has been no proof President Assad was behind the chemical attack. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that al-Qaida was behind the attack. The Russians and the Chinese did not pull their diplomats out of Syria. The sent their inspectors to the site of the attack to find the rockets that carried the gas was homemade and the sarin gas used was not military grade. It is now believed that an al-Qaida affiliated group was behind the attack since they are the only group that benefits from US intervention and the chaos that is sure to follow.

French intelligence released a report pinning responsibility on Assad, but it was only 10 years ago that Italian intelligence release a report that Iraq was trying to purchase yellow cake uranium from Nigeria. It is the same movie with different actors.

A little critical thinking is required. Assad would not use chemical weapons because he would know that would prompt U.S. intervention; al-Qaida would because they want to drag us into another war. Assad has military-grade chemical weapons; but rockets and gas used were homemade.

We cannot let al-Qaida lead the US into another war. Congressional approval of President Obama’s war is not enough. The U.S. needs the approval of the United Nations Security Council. To act unilaterally without international support instantly sets our foreign policy back a decade.

John Morgan

Arlington Heights