As I was driving home yesterday, I was listening to “The Five”, on the Fox News Channel, Sirius XM 114.

Their resident Liberal Curmudgeon, Bob Beckel, started going off, as he has been all week, about the horrible lack of support for President Barack Hussein Obama’s plan to have a “limited engagement” against Syria’s President Assad, for allegedly killing his own citizens with chemical weapons.

What got my attention was that Beckel, obviously re-iterating the Liberal Memo of the day, that other presidents has gotten us involved in wars without Congressional approval. He, naturally, brought up Kosovo…and then, he brought up Grenada.

In October of 1983 the United States invaded the island of Grenada and overthrew the communist government in favor of a pro-Western one in a span of less than two months.

The murder of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop had triggered a breakdown in civil order that threatened the lives of American medical students who were living on the island. At the request of allied Caribbean nations, the US launched “Operation Urgent Fury,” sending the Marines to the north of the island and Army Rangers to the south.

Needless to say, our Brightest and Best kicked tail and took names taking the island by mid-December. An Interim Advisory Council was established and it governed Grenada until December 1984, when Herbert A. Blaize, the head of the New National Party, was made Prime Minister through parliamentary elections.

The United States President at the time was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Beckel was wondering yesterday afternoon was the difference was between then and now.

There is a world of difference between Grenada and Syria.

First, Americans were in danger on the island of Grenada. The Syrians are killing each other.

Second, we tackled the “Grenada Situation” head on, sending the full force of our military assets on a mission to rescue our citizens.

Third, and most importantly, Americans, as a whole, trusted and supported President Ronald Reagan.

At this point, Obama has to wear a pork chop around his neck to get his two dogs to play with him.

Heck, even Pope Francis is calling ol’ Scooter out…

Pope Francis has written a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, host of the G-20 summit that President Obama is attending, urging world leaders to oppose a military intervention in Syria.

“To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution,” the Pope urged. “Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community.”

The move is the latest in a series of efforts by the Holy See to prevent military action in the already civil-war torn region. On Sunday, the Pope declared in his Angelus teaching that Saturday Sept. 7 would be an day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria. The prayer rally will take place in St. Peter’s Square from 7 p.m. to midnight, on the vigil of the birth of Mary, the Queen of Peace. “Let us ask Mary to help us to respond to violence, to conflict and to war, with the power of dialogue, reconciliation and love,” the Pope asked people around the world. “She is our mother: may she help us to find peace; all of us are her children!”

Next Pope Francis took his views on Syria to Twitter. On Monday he tweeted, “War never again! Never again war!” and “How much suffering, how much devastation, how much pain has the use of arms carried in its wake.” On Tuesday, he tweeted “We want in our society, torn apart by divisions and conflict, that peace break out!” and “With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons.” Today his social media message was, “With all my strength, I ask each party in the conflict not to close themselves in solely on their own interests. #prayforpeace.”

Cardinal Dolan and leaders of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops followed the Pope’s lead and wrote to every member of Congress today urging them to vote against military intervention in Syria. Yesterday the USCCB also wrote to President Obama, reminding him that the Pope and Middle Eastern Bishops “have made it clear that a military attack will be counterproductive, will exacerbate an already deadly situation, and will have unintended negative consequences.” Dolan also asked Catholics to urge their representatives in Washington to vote against a military strike.

The Vatican, which almost always stops short of taking sides in international issues, historically holds to just war theory, which requires a military defense meet a set of strict qualifications, including that “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain,” “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective,” and ”the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.”

On Tuesday night, Obama is finally going to address the nation , concerning his desire to insert us into Syria’s Civil War, on behalf of al Qaeda. Of course, he will not refer to them as al Qaeda, he will call them “REbels” and “freedom Fighters”.

And, his pleas will fall of deaf ears.

You see, after 5 years of intentionally attempting to turn American into just another socialist nation, while happily entertaining members of the Muslim Brotherhood, in the People’s House, Americans on both sides of the aisle are smelling what Obama’s Shoveling.

And, it sure doesn’t smell “like Teen Spirit”.

We are not the only ones who are telling the Lightbringer to go jump…House Members are,too.

Two new whip counts of House members by ABC News and the liberal Firedoglake web site show a majority of House members firmly or leaning against intervention. The Washington Post’s more conservative count stands at 204 “no” votes, only 13 short of the majority needed to kill the president’s request.

When it comes to a succinct overview of this whole mess and Obama’s lack of judgement, II wholeheartedly agree with the indomitable Sarah Palin, who recently wrote,

President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war. 

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be? 

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded. 

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake. 

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

Mr. President…it all boils down to a matter of trust. And, the overwhelmingly majority of Americans simply do not trust you.

Until He Comes,

KJ