30 Aug

We have to bomb Syria to find out what’s in it

                                       

Red-lining

For some time Barack Obama has been issuing some powerful dictates.

Mubarak must go.
Gadaffi must go.
Assad must go.

Obama has taken on the role of Supreme World Ruler, deciding who should be deposed and when.

But then a year ago Obama uttered some words that have become infamous. He drew a figurative red line in the sand”

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Now those words have come back to haunt him.

The danger of getting the language wrong is that it becomes shorthand for a more damning critique. If we’re talking simply about language, the president’s pickle can be chalked up to the inevitable tension in foreign affairs between what you can say in public and what you do behind the scenes (or are prepared to do in the future). But the disconnect between what Obama says and what he is prepared to do can also be linked to the larger claim that he does not perceive the underlying challenges of foreign policy clearly. He not only got the rhetoric wrong last August, goes the thinking, he misunderstood the conditions. Had he a clearer vision, he might have agreed with his advisers who pushed him to support the Syrian opposition more heavily last year. By acting earlier he might have removed the conditions that are forcing him to act now. Or, more realistically, the chances of a good outcome a year ago were no worse than a good outcome from the coming attack.

John Kerry announced that there was undeniable evidence of the use of chemical weapons and absolutely pinned the blame on Assad:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for a “moral obscenity” that has shocked the world’s conscience.

Obama then piled on

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said in an interview with “NewsHour” on PBS. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

But then the concrete cookie crumbled.

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime’s chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials.

As any good St. Bernard would do, ABC News scurried to rescue Obama by blurring the red line comment:

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Three thousand apparently suffered injuries and three hundred fifty five were dead. It remains unclear if that constitutes “a whole bunch.”

Obama has painted himself into a corner and his ego limits his options. He’s got to save face. Prepared to go it alone, Obama stated that a strike would be limited and not about regime change – but the most important part?

A U.S. official speaking to the Los Angeles Times said that Obama is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

In other words, saving face. Saving Obama’s ego.

And then Obama said this:

“We want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people, against women, against infants, against children that you are not only breaking international norms and standards of decency, but you are creating a situation where U.S. interests are threatened,” Obama said. “And that needs to stop.”

I really do not comprehend how killing women and children with conventional weapons is decent but killing them with chemical weapons is not. I do not understand how killing women and children with chemical weapons on a small scale is more decent than killing them on a large scale with chemical weapons.

Not everyone believes that the Assad government did it:

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}

There’s a lot of confusion right now but we apparently need to bomb Syria to find out what’s in it. Quite the foreign policy.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Global Regions, John Kerry, Politics, Syria, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 7:01 am
| 613 views

19 Responses to We have to bomb Syria to find out what’s in it

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Great summary of how we got here and where we are now.
    It is true that 97% of all those killed by Assad (IF he even was behind the chemical weapon attack) were killed by projectiles from guns and tanks and planes.
    Bombs, bullets, missiles.
    Conventional ones.

    The main difference seems to be that, up until now, al Qaeda was not in the cat bird seat to become the next leadership in Syria!
    So, why did Obama drag his feet while non-al Qaeda rebels fought and died?
    And why is Obama seeming to want to effect a weakening of Assad now that al Qaeda will replace him?
    It becomes an inescapable truth that Obama favors the strong horses of radical Islam, be they al Qaeda or any of their other-named blood brothers.
    And, think heads have rolled in Syria up til now?
    Just wait until al Qaeda is in charge and begins slaughtering all the ”apostate” Muslims, the non-Muslims and the uppity women in Syria.

    ReplyReply
  2. First of all, the premise for the strike is that Assad allegedly used chemical weapons on his own people. Yet, the UN inspectors have yet to finish their report or come to any conclusion. However, when you look at the facts, the alleged chemicals behind the Aug. 21 attack that killed up to 1,300 Syrians could not have been weapons-grade material from the Russians. If it were, the entire area would be vacated and no life could survive there for months, if not longer. With that obvious conclusion reached, you may ask yourself that if chemical weapons were used, what type would they be. The answer is that they would be certain unstable, and difficult to manufacture chemicals that quickly degrade and lose their efficacy rapidly. Such a gas would be similar to, if not the same as the Sarin gas that was used in Japan. We can remember how quickly the gas degraded and how the amount of carnage was minimal as compared to a weapons-grade gas attack.

    However, let me step back a second. We also must ask if the pictures of the carnage is real or not. It seems reasonable to ask, especially if we are ready to start possible a world war over it. Remember the alleged Syrian massacre in Houla that turned out to be a 2003 picture taken in Iraq? Or how about the other alleged massacre in the Sunni Muslim village of Tremseh? That one also turned out to be a scam. Those that were killed were “rebels” organized by the CIA and NATO to overthrow the al-Assad regime and were killed by the Syrian Army. So after 2 false alarms, why do now want to commit ourselves to another military action when we still have no proof of the authenticity of this massacre? And Obama said President Bush was a war monger.

    Also, you must ask yourselves, “Who could have access to non-weapons grade chemical weapons?”. Could it be another NATA/CIA backed group of rebels attempting to perpetrate an atrocity in order to incite a US attack against Syria? Could it be a Muslim Brotherhood backed group of rebels who also wanted to commit a chemical atrocity in order to incite American intervention and march in amongst the political instability? It’s not like we don’t have convincing evidence that show different rebel groups with these suspected chemical (wait, we do). Both of these explanation are at least a thousand times more plausible than Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. With so much to lose, and with different rebel factions having so much to win, it seems more than reasonable to believe that if chemical weapons were used, they did not come from Assad.

    So now the final question, after all this evidence, is, “Why does Obama want to attack Syria?”. It seems absolutely illogical that Obama would want to attack Syria- especially after he and Biden vehemently condemned any military use by President Bush. Is it because Obama’s ego is at stake after he drew an arbitrary red line in the sand? Is it because he wants to flex his muscles? Is it because he is really just a puppet who is being controlled by higher forces? Or is it because he is similar to all the other egotistical, narcissistic socialist dictators in the 20th Century who wanted to expand their power and influence unsuccessfully all over the world?

    I don’t have the answer.

    ReplyReply
  3. Pete says: 3

    @Tired American:
    Seeing that reports are coming out that Pelosi is pushing in Congress for war in Syria sheds more light. Compare her speech in Congress adamantly against any use of military force in Iraq, pushing instead for diplomacy.
    Everything you stated shows this is nothing more than Obama wanting to make himself look tough throwing around US miltary force, but there is no justification whatsoever for it. There is no benefit to the US in attacking Assad. There was in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seeing all these traitorous democrats suddenly become war supporters highlights their hypocrisy. If a republican was in the Oval Office it is certain the dems would be screaming against using military force. Code Pink would be holding more of their stupid protests, and moonbats like Jim McDermott would be meeting with Assad telling him Americans don’t want war. Simply because a democrat is president, we are now supposed to accept on faith that war is necessary even without Congressional or UN approval, when there is absolutely no US interest involved, and thereare serious questions as to who actually used chemical weapons in Syria.
    Obama is not a king. Our military is not a toy to be played with as a pathetic face-saving gimmick for a guy in way over his head who has been such a miserable failure as a president.

    ReplyReply
  4. Attack Syria? Wait a Minute.-Walt Chamberlain

    ReplyReply
  5. Redteam says: 5

    @Pete: Pete, you summed it up very nicely. Dimocrats have suddenly become war mongers, who would have thunk?

    ReplyReply
  6. Randy says: 6

    They have to do something to overshadow their ineptitude on governing. Obamacare is costing more and more each day as we find out what was in the bill they passed. The IRS has still not ceased their persecution of conservative organizations. People are still being killed with guns sold to drug lords. We have not arrested anyone who killed our ambassador in Bengasi. Obama’s race baiting is coming back to bite him. More and more liberals are revealed as womanizers and conducting a war on women. Syria seems like a good solution.

    ReplyReply
  7. Art says: 7

    Who would have thunk that Nancy Pelosi was a sleeping military strategist!

    ReplyReply
  8. oil guy from Alberta says: 8

    This is getting to be comedy gold. Lurch, the Secretary of Steak, is now quoting US Intel, an entity he’s degraded before. No comment from Slow Joe Biden- gaffes are not allowed. Botox Pelosi is now a war mongerer. No allies as of yet, except a pat on the back from France. I’m wondering if the Bamster will allow the attack without Congressional approval. Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Hittlery, and Brennan- certified clowns. I wouldn’t want to be an empty aspirin plant in Syria. Kaboom and Israel be damned- the Bamster has to save face, Americans have to be diverted, and the Dems must win both houses of Congress in 2014. Just 2 allies to join, then its a 3 ring circus.

    ReplyReply
  9. James Raider says: 9

    DrJohn,
    This Obama “Red Line In The Sand” is additional evidence of someone incapable of critical thinking. It is also evidence that no one standing behind the current is capable of critical thinking. He should never have made such statement, but . . .

    What level of intelligence stands in front of the Nation, in front of the world, and makes such a statement, without knowing exactly what he would execute immediately upon the Red Line being crossed? It is not an exaggeration to stamp that forehead with Clueless.

    Doesn’t stop there. The brilliance goes on to say, . . . “umm, now that you’ve crossed that line, we’ll not strike hard to take you out, we’ll just hit, umm, your airfields, yah, that’s right, your military airfields, and we do it on next Tuesday, at midnight when we can’t hit anyone or anything, so make sure you move all that equipment out of the way. I say what I mean, I mean what I say, and umm, OK, that’s a wrap. Damn I’m gooooood. Just ask Tingles. Yah, I’m good.”

    ReplyReply
  10. James Raider says: 10

    Meanwhile, Putin is downright pissed that Obama isn’t destroying any arms, weapons, or munitions in Syria. He needs arms sales, and he needs to show his macho crap to the Russians using the U.S. as being their great enemy that he will defend them against.

    And the carnage continues with applause from Putin and from Teheran.

    ReplyReply
  11. oil guy from Alberta says: 11

    I recall that Bella Pelosi did an end run to Damascus a few years back. She praised Assad and stated that the road to peace goes through Damascus. Just listening to her, this demented wench is a moonbat. She can’t keep her lies straight.

    ReplyReply
  12. Redteam says: 12

    @oil guy from Alberta:

    She can’t keep her lies straight.

    and she can’t close her ‘facelifted’ eye lids. A real dingbat.

    ReplyReply
  13. This one says: 13

    Funny how you lemmings followed Bush, hook, line and sinker just a few years ago.

    ReplyReply
  14. Nan G says: 14

    “So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” Sarah Palin.

    That’s about the size of it.
    At least with President Bush every ”i” was dotted and every ”t” was crossed.
    I love that political cartoon with this thread.
    Obama painted himself into a corner because the sound of those words were helping him get re-elected.
    Anyway, every day Obama dithers is a day of more living for all our military men and women who would pay the ultimate price should he actually go through with an attack on Syria.
    So, this time, I’m for Obama’s dithering ways.

    ReplyReply
  15. Ditto says: 15

    @This one:

    Was that the same thing you told your Representatives & Senators? I recall that Bush had approval of Congress before acting.

    @oil guy from Alberta:

    Bella Pelosi

    Good one! (y)

    ReplyReply
  16. Pete says: 16

    @This one:

    Ha! The lemming is the official bird of the democrat party.

    ReplyReply
  17. Nan G says: 17

    I’ve been thinking this for a few days, now The Hill has said it .
    Obama is maneuvering on defense hawks within the GOP to cause them to break ranks with Tea Party conservatives and embracing a debt deal with him and Dems that includes higher taxes.
    Yes.
    His tough talk about ”needing” to attack Syria is a ploy to win his fiscal battle over the budget.

    ReplyReply
  18. Ditto says: 18

    Unfortunately for Obama, his extreme budget cuts to, downsizing and demoralization (via far left culture-war transformation,) of the military, makes it highly unlikely for our military to be prepared to go into a new conventional war. Syria has a modern military not the small scale lighter armed guerrilla-terrorists of al Queada. Anyone who thinks that this will only be a three day “bitch-slap” to Assad is out of their mind.

    ReplyReply
  19. @Nan G: #17,
    Come on Nan, you don’t really believe this. Such would have necessitated a capacity not present.

    His mental paralysis means no decisive decision either way.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site