UPDATE: During a speech today, Secretary of State John Kerry said there is now additional evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria. NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd said on Twitter that the Kerry speech appeared to indicate “we’re in the ‘drumbeat’ stage” towards war – it’s no longer a question of “if” but rather “when” and “how hard.” Get the full story via TheBlaze.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

The United Nations is now on the ground in Syria to investigate the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons. The team plans to visit the site in the suburbs of Damascus where an alleged chemical weapon attack occurred last week, reportedly killing hundreds.

This morning, a U.N. spokesman said a vehicle belonging to a team investigating the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons has been “deliberately shot at multiple times” by unidentified snipers in Damascus.

According to TheBlaze:

Martin Nesirky, who is spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, says the Monday shooting occurred in the buffer zone area between rebel- and government-controlled territory.

He says the team will return to the area after replacing the vehicle.

If chemical weapons were in fact used against the Syrian people, President Obama’s “red line” would have been reached and U.S. military action could follow. This morning on radio, however, Glenn explained why the reported situation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

“Well looks likes we’re about ready to go to war with Syria. Who in their right mind thinks this is a good idea,” Glenn asked. “It’s a nightmare… It’s a very disturbing scenario. And it doesn’t make any sense. Can we just use our brain for half a second here? Somebody help me out on how this whole Syrian thing makes sense at all.”

It was just about a year ago that President Obama declared the movement or use of chemical weapons in Syria would be “red line” that could lead to U.S. military action. It is now reported that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels, resulting in the death of about 100 civilians.

“For Assad to use a chemical weapon on 100 people. Does it make sense to anybody? How could that possibly be? Why would he do that? The United States says, ‘We have a line in the sand.’ And it is him using chemical weapons,” Glenn explained. “Well, he wants to survive. Remember that. He wants to survive.”

One of the complicating factors in Syria is the alliance between the Syrian regime and Russia and Iran. Glenn believes that while Iran would be open to going to war immediately, Russia is wiser.


“But unless you believe Russia wants war, it makes no sense. I don’t think the Russians want war. Unless the Russians look at this as a war game; unless the Russians believe now we are at our weakest, and I don’t think we’re at our weakest,” Glenn said. “I think we’re damn close to it but I think we can be a little weaker. Give us another year we’ll be weaker. So, why rush into something? So the Russians would say, immediately, to Assad, ‘Don’t do anything with chemical weapons. Don’t.’ The Russians would not be for it. The Iranians may be. Maybe.”

Furthermore, it is important to remember that Assad is a dictator, and the primary goal of any dictator is to remain in power. Using chemical weapons against the Syrian people would jeopardize that power in a way no other action would, given the past remarks of President Obama and other allied forces.

“Assad is a survivor. Look, he’s a dictator. He’s a bad guy. But most bad guys have some sort of survival instinct, unless he’s gone crazy,” Glenn said. “Most of them just want to be left alone. They like their power. [Assad] just likes his power and he just wants to be left alone. So there’s no reason to gas. After you killed 100,000, why would you gas 100?”

“And as soon as the U.N. weapons’ inspectors came, what happens? Snipers from the rebels are taking out and pinning the U.N. trucks down – wouldn’t let the U.N. trucks go to the site,” he continued. “If they are the ones that are going to prove that chemical weapons were used, why wouldn’t you want the U.N. there? You would look at the U.N. as your savior.”

Glenn believes there are two possible explanations for the Syrian rebels’ attack on the U.N. weapons’ inspectors.

1. They don’t consider the U.N. to be the savior

“That tells you something,” Glenn said. “That tells you that they don’t look at anything from the West as anything other than an enemy to them. So that doesn’t seem real good, does it?”

2. They believe the U.N. is pro-Assad

“Well, not if he was using chemical weapons,” Glenn explained. “The United States has already said –and the United States seems eager to have chemical weapons used. So what is this all mean?”

Glenn spoke to TheBlaze’s senior Washington correspondent, Sara Carter, to learn what her sources on the ground in Syria are saying: