I’m getting the feeling of Deja Vu…all over again.

News Outlets are trumpeting the warning that, within the next few days, Obama and his Administration are about the plunge the United States into the middle of a Civil War, happening within the Middle Eastern Country of Syria.

According to abcnews.go.com,

The White House says there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime is responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Syria that is said to have taken place earlier this week.

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts,” a senior administration official tells ABC News, “There is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident. We are continuing to assess the facts so the President can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.”

White House officials also point out the attack was on rebel-held territory and apparently done using rockets that the rebels do not possess.

After reports that Syria’s regime will allow UN inspectors to access the site of the attack, the senior administration official suggested the move may be too late, after “the regime’s persistent shelling” has “significantly corrupted” evidence in the area.

“If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the UN–five days ago. At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible,” the official said.

The president has ordered his national security team to draw up possible strike options on Syria, but there is a divide in the White House on how forcefully to respond, although another official told ABC News if there is a strike, it must be “timely” — done soon enough to prevent another chemical attack.

However, the White House does not want to act alone. U.S. officials are back channeling through the United Nations to see if Russia could be convinced to agree to a resolution.

If there is no UN authorization, the United States would lead any possible strike, but, a senior official told ABC News “we do not want to do anything on our own.” U.S. allies must commit both “resources” and “political will” the official said.

Didn’t Vietnam start out as a “U.N. Action”?

Obama is determined to put us right in the middle of another country’s Civil War.  And the problem with this one is…there are no “Good Guys”.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

But, hey, no worries. We have the mighty, mighty, Secretary of State John F. “I served in Vietnam” Kerry on our side. Lord knows, Sec. Heinz…err…I mean Kerry, will take a hard stand with both sides of the conflict in Syria and straighten things out.

And, if you believe that, I have a scholarship available for you at the Meghan McCain School of Political Punditry.

You see, David Horowitz’s discoverthenewworks.org  reports that Sec. Kerry and Syrian President Assad go way back…

Since the early 2000s, Kerry has been the federal government’s highest-ranking apologist for Syrian President Bashar Assad. Indeed it was Kerry who made numerous efforts to undermine the Bush administration’s attempt to isolate the Syrian dictator after its courtship of him ended in failure in 2003; after Bush repeatedly accused Syria of supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere; and after the United States withdrew its ambassador to Syria following the 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s former premier Rafiq Hariri in a car bombing most likely orchestrated by the Assad regime.

In January 2009, just days after Barack Obama’s inauguration, Kerry was sent to Syria as part of a policy review by an Obama administration looking to establish new relationships with countries the Bush administration had considered hostile. (This was the first of five trips Kerry would make to Syria between 2009 and 2011.)

During the January 2009 trip, Kerry listened to Bashar Assad advise him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions,” and that future relations between the U.S. and Syria should be based on a “proper understanding” by Washington of Middle East issues and interests. In return, Kerry used the occasion to bash the former administration. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” he said.

A year later, Kerry, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sat down once again with Assad. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” he said in April 2010. “Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest … in having a very frank exchange on any differences [and] agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.” And once again, he called on Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

And now, Kerry’s boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, is ready to go to war with the very Middle Eastern president whom Kerry and his fellow Dems lauded during the Bush Administration.

I guess Obama and Kerry like their new, more radical, Muslim Brotherhood Buddies even more.

Why is the United States of America going to war on the side of radical Muslims, who want to kill all of us “Infidels”?

Is it naiveté, ignorance, or something more malevolent?

Or, is this foreign policy action meant to serve as a distraction from domestic presidential malfeasance?

Until He Comes,

KJ