obama-cowardly-lionWith Barack Obama’s Rose Garden statement on Saturday, the Israeli website Marriv is reporting that an unnamed diplomat official in Jerusalem bluntly called Barack Obama a “coward” for stepping back from an attack on Syria.

“Obama is a coward; it is obvious that he does not want to attack and is looking for reinforcement [for this approach]. It is hard to believe that after Congress turns down his request, he will go on an operation like this on his own, without support from the international community, without the support of public opinion and without Congress,” the source said.

The site went on to say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to see specific action by America in Syria and restore credibility and strengthen the American deterrence in the region.

take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Maariv reported (English translation from Hebrew via Google):

“Netanyahu wants to attack American symbolize the centrality of the U.S. in the region and will also through a strong message against Iran and extremists in the region. PMO estimated that the American government under the presidency of President Barack Obama wants to reduce the military presence in the region and get involved in wars in the region. However, the desire to engage in domestic issues and foreign policy move focus from the Middle East to the Far East. Despite the differences between the crisis in Syria and Iranian nuclear program, Netanyahu fears American hesitancy to act Syria sends a negative message to Iran that the U.S. military will not act to stop its nuclear program.

According to the sources, it is difficult to avoid the impression that following the American hesitancy Israel will probably be left alone and forced to act alone against Iran without U.S. Israeli officials estimated negative impact of U.S. hesitancy will also increase the motivation of extremists like Hezbollah in the Middle East.

Some estimated that Obama’s reference to Congress is an attempt to buy time to find diplomatic solutions to prevent an attack. One possibility is that Assad will destroy or transfer its chemical weapons arsenal to Russia or another country at a price of no attack. Several senior diplomats said that Assad forwarded messages in this regard to the Russians. However, no official confirmation.”


While I understand Israel’s concern about a weak American president, and most definitely agree that Barack Obama is a coward, the fact is that we should not be engaged in military attacks in Syria and we certainly should not be doing it without Congress making a declaration of war. We don’t even know who has chemical weapons and who doesn’t. In fact, the growing evidence suggests that it is not Assad that has been using chemical weapons, but rather the Syrian rebels (al-Qaeda).

So, while I’m glad this unnamed official called Obama what he is, he’s wrong to be demanding the United States step in and begin military strikes, when we are not threatened by what is taking place in Syria and to join in attacks on the side of known jihadists (Syrian rebels) is far worse then simply keeping our nose out of it. In fact, strikes may actually endanger the US, seeing that we really don’t have the money for military action in the first place.

Simply put, Syria is not a national security issue for the United States.

Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.