By Bill O'Reilly
Both conservatives and liberals are split over the issue which as you know is very rare in this country. So there is no question that storm clouds are gathering over the Obama administration because the President is in trouble. He needs Congress to affirm his decision to use military action and Congress might not do it although yesterday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 to support the President.
"Talking Points" is fascinated by how some prominent Americans are coming down on the issues. So let's define the opinions of some well-known people. President George W. Bush has a policy of avoiding speaking about current issues, but told Brian Kilmeade on Friday, quote, "The human condition elsewhere matters to the security of the United States", unquote. From that we believe Bush supports action against Assad.
President Clinton said in June that Mr. Obama would look like a wuss, a fool and lame if he didn't try to bring Assad down, so we believe he supports the action.
Dick Cheney has issued no public statement, but in June he told Chris Wallace that the USA should have moved against Assad a long time ago. However Cheney has doubts that strike now would accomplish much.
His daughter, Liz Cheney who is running for the Senate in Wyoming is dead set against attacking Assad.
Hillary Clinton supports President Clinton -- President Obama's plan, I should say, whatever it may be. Mrs. Clinton needs Obama's support in 2016 so she is likely to go along with what the President wants to do.
Senator Marco Rubio opposes the strike against Assad saying he's unconvinced that military action would accomplish anything.
Nancy Pelosi supports Mr. Obama in just about everything so she's on board with attacking Assad.
Sarah Palin opposes Mr. Obama in just about everything so she is against the military strike on Syria. Mrs. Palin has written quote, "Allah should sort it out."
Harry Reid supports an attack on Assad because he says it would be just and necessary and the USA has a moral obligation to do it.
Rush Limbaugh opposes military action telling his radio audience that the Obama administration is incapable of effective action; that their Syrian plan is incoherent, inconsistent, risky and unpredictable.
Al Gore has said nothing even though it is very hot in Syria.
Colin Powell against attacking Assad saying America should not be going around interfering in the affairs of other countries.
Chris Christie not putting forth an opinion, but did opine that the use of chemical weapons is, quote, "intolerable for civilized society".
Mitt Romney traveling overseas has not given an opinion even though we asked him. If he weighs in we will report it.
Jesse Jackson at first opposed military action, but now has changed his mind saying Americans have to, quote, "Back the President up".
Congressman Paul Ryan's office told THE FACTOR he has not yet made up his mind on the issue, but he has not seen enough evidence to support an attack.
Oprah Winfrey will not comment even though we asked her.
And our pal Glenn Beck is against attacking Assad believing that might lead to World War III and would involve Russia, Iran and China lining up against America.
So while opinions are all over the place, "Talking Points" believes a debate is healthy and there are good points on both sides. Syria is not an immediate threat to the USA, but neither was Saddam Hussein. Both situations involve speculation of what could happen. Saddam could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, although later that was disproved. An Assad's main supporter, Iran, could very well defy the world and develop a nuclear weapon emboldened -- emboldened by the lack of action against Syria.
For those of you who are thinking clearly -- and I think that's most of THE FACTOR audience -- it is important to understand that if America decides not to hold Assad accountable for using poison gas against civilians, that prohibition goes away forever. It seems the world is fine with allowing the use of banned weapons and once again that is acceptable. If it becomes acceptable, all restraints disappear.
You know, it amazes me that Russia and China continue to arm and support Assad and Iran knowing both countries are gross human rights violators and condone mass murder. Russia and China should be ashamed. If they would join the USA in condemning terrorist states the world would be a much safer and more civilized place.
Yes we have to do business with savages like Putin and the ruthless bunch in Beijing, but everybody should know exactly who they are.
Back in America it distresses me that some on the left will not support military action designed to protect and strengthen this country, ever. And some on the right despise Barack Obama so much that whatever he does they oppose. We Americans should always put country first. What President Bush says is correct -- the human condition elsewhere matters to the security of the United States.
That being said, opposing action against Syria is valid if done for the right reasons. If you believe it would cause more harm to this country than good in the long run, then opposition is a must. I don't believe that. But I could be wrong.
However if you are basing your opinion on the fantasy that Assad did not use chemical weapons as the liar Putin is putting out there, you're flat out wrong. The intel is overwhelming against Assad.
And one final thing, President Obama in no way, in no way wants this controversy. It could damage him forever. He is not a confrontational guy. And there is no way on earth that the French government which supports hitting Assad wants military action in Syria. They don't want it. It goes against their basic outlook.
The Syrian dilemma is complicated and it doesn't help that America has few friends in that region. But the friends we have, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and some of the Gulf States badly want Assad opposed while our primary enemy in the world Iran desperately wants to keep him in power. You may want to do the math.
And that's "The Memo."