Dear Conservative,

Do you remember back in October 2002, five months before the U.S. would invade Iraq? A barely known Illinois state senator named Barack Obama attended an anti-war rally and said that he “was not against all wars, just "dumb war."

Obama later wails that the U.S. made a critical blunder when it bypassed the United Nations (with the support of something like 40 countries and Congress) and went to war despite skepticism in much of western Europe.

Now, here we are, a decade after the U.S. military started the Iraq operation with that “shock-and-awe” air assault, and Obama trying to win support from a skeptical Congress.  

The Obama administration is very annoyed at comparisons between the Syria crisis and the war in Iraq. Obama has repeatedly made clear that he is not going to put U.S. troops on the ground in Syria and that any potential military action would be limited in time and scope, a shot across the bow. And although Obama supports the end of Assad's rule in Syria, the White House has made clear the objective of any potential U.S. action does not include regime change.


A warning shot (in nautical terms, often called a shot across the bow) is a harmless artillery shot or gunshot intended to call attention and demand some action.

What action is Obama expecting from Assad? What should we expect?


Imagine if Assad brought war ships off the coast of the United States and lobbed a couple of missiles into the United States as a “shot across the bow”?! THAT WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR!

Central to Obama's criticism of Bush's push for Iraq was that Saddam Hussein posed "no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors."

Now Obama is arguing for action against the Assad regime because HE DREW A RED LINE IN AN OFF-THE-CUFF COMMENT without ANY policy behind it.

Obama and his minions have weakened the credibility of the U.S. and emboldened rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran.

WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? We need a foreign policy that is clear: no war without an objective.


A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that only 9 percent support military action in Syria.  If it were proved that Syria used chemical weapons, support increases to only 25 percent, with 46 percent opposed!

A new Huff Post/Yugo poll shows that only ONE-QUARTER of Americans support an air strike.  The results (after U.S. officials claimed Syria’s government killed thousands of civilians with chemical weapons), shows 25 percent of Americans now support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 41 percent said they are opposed.  Another 34 percent said that they were not sure.



Obama claims that "What we saw in that circumstance (IRAG WAR) was an administration that was searching high and low to produce evidence to justify a military invasion, an open-ended military invasion of another country, with the final goal being regime change.”

Obama’s “U.S. Intelligence Report” on the situation “is a political document” without any proof that they are willing to share with the world. This is not an “Intelligence Analysis”, it is Obama’s propaganda.

The only reason the whole allegation [that the Syrian government used chemical weapons] hasn’t been dismissed is the administration’s claims that they have secret intelligence that they’re just not showing anyone, or occasionally just are letting already pro-war Congressmen to get a glimpse of it.

The Weekly Standard reports– some Congressmen who were at the classified briefing ARE NOT IMPRESSED:

“I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial” …. Liberal Democrat Tom Harkin says in a statement released after today’s classified Capitol Hill briefing.

Obama cannot count on his own party to deliver the votes! “I don’t know if every member of Congress is there yet,” said Representative Janice Hahn, a California Democrat who said she would vote no on authorizing a military strike. “The room was skeptical,” said Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat.

Obama’s main “classified” information is that it intercepted communications from the Syrian government both before and after the chemical weapons attack which implicate people in Assad’s government.

Who would have intercepted those communications? Likely, it was our favorite American agency tasked with intercepting foreign communications, THE NSA.

Do you trust the NSA? They have been consistently lying about what they are doing or not doing and who they are spying on in the U.S. They have been caught in scandal after scandal.


We need to understand the policy and objective in Syria. There are many pitfalls here and no one knows if this will turn out well, for anyone.

Rand Paul says there's no "clear-cut American interest" in the potential U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict. ..when you SET A RED LINE IN THE SAND THAT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA IN THE BEGINNING, now you’re going to adhere to it or try...

And, they send Secretary of State John Kerry on 5 Sunday talk shows to announce the release of the U.S. intelligence assessment of Syria's chemical weapon use. “Kerry offered an impassioned performance that in some ways echoed then-secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations that U.S. intelligence officials had assessed with "high confidence" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.”

Kerry has his own wounds from Iraq. Do you recall a senator Kerry who voted in favor of going to war in Iraq before he voted against it?!

"Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war," Kerry said. "Believe me, I am, too. Really, John Kerry? WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Former British ambassador Craig Murray argues that the U.S. claim is hogwash:

Things are not adding up -John Kerry claims to have access to communications intercepts of Syrian military and officials organizing chemical weapons attacks. Why were the intercepts not available to the British Joint Intelligence Committee?

Where did the evidence come from??

The intercept evidence was provided to the USA by Mossad, according to a well-placed source in the Washington intelligence community. Intelligence provided by a third party is not automatically shared with the UK, and indeed Israel specifies it should not be.


The Examiner is now coming out and saying, “The rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.”

Gavlak is a Middle Eastern journalist who filed the report about the rebels claiming responsibility on the Mint Press News website, which is affiliated with AP. In that report rebels allegedly told her the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons. This news should deflate the accusations, against the Assad regime, coming from the U.S., Britain, France and the Arab League.

The Assad government was immediately blamed and on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “That Assad’s guilt was “a judgment already clear to the world”.

According to reports coming out, Interviews were conducted with residents, rebels and their families in Damascus and Ghouta. These reports show a different picture of what might have happened. Many believe that rebels received chemical weapons provided through the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan

The father of a rebel who was killed in what's now being called an accident by many in Ghouta and Damascus said: "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim. The father said at least 12 rebels including his son were killed by the chemical weapons.

The reports say that “Allegedly they were killed in the tunnel that was used to store the chemicals. These were provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha. He is said to be leading a fighting battalion in the effort to unseat Assad. The weapon was described as a "tube-like structure" by Abdel-Moneim.”

The Mint Press reports the following from rebels:"They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”


"When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them," she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

According to the report dozens of rebels said they were receiving salaries from the Saudis.

Join in the Facebook conversation!


1. Congress is against military intervention

2. Americans are overwhelmingly against intervention

3. The United Nations is against military intervention

There is really nothing that indicates the true INTERESTS of the United States of America! We must be careful about any military strike. We must wait for the strategic report.

URGE the United States Congress to exercise “caution” and even restraint before we are thrust into another war!

We need to understand the policy and objective in Syria. There are many pitfalls here and no one knows if this will turn out well, for anyone.


Tony Adkins


P.S.  I just want to add “insult to injury” by reminding you, that, as taxpayers, IN AUGUST, you gave $195 million to help the Syrian people!