WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”
“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”
“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”
While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.
More at the Borowitz Report
H/T Instapundit
@MataHarley: #48
We all like to think we know what’s true.
New Docs Detail U.S. Involvement in Saddam’s Nerve Gas Attacks
@Smorgasbord:
Right on. I almost never “pass-on” such emails unless I know it’s legitimate and something that a friend would find interesting. I usually figure that if it’s a “pass-it-on” type email, it is (from experience) most likely to be false or be heavily altered. It is not uncommon for someone to take an article from The Onion and pass it on as being news. Even “professional” journalists have been fooled and had to put out an embarrassing correction or retraxction.
@Smorgasbord: Nope…actually DrJohn put this one up. As Mata explained, it’s Most Wanted. Just excerpts of stuff we throw up that may interest people, or not. I’ve been known to throw up a Onion piece now and then because it makes me chuckle.
@MataHarley: Thanks for the heads up, he sent me a bio when he came aboard and I thought I put it up…guess not.
@Ditto: #53
I forget what country’s official was fooled lately by an Onion story. The Onion is one of the very few types of that type of journalism I know of. I have a hard enough time keeping actual facts straight.
@Curt: #54
I ASS/U/MED the ones that didn’t say who they were, were you. Now, I don’t know who I agreed with and who I disagreed with.
By the way, the problems I have been having with my computer will end when I bring home my new one.
@Curt:
This piece had me laughing out loud and I had to share it. The irony was just too rich- not only was someone in left wing media poking fun at Obama, it was the New Yorker.
It’s always good to see the hypocrisy block has been checked with regards to Syria. Those on the left who advocate military action in Syria’s civil war were opposed to military action against Saddam even though he was a far worse threat and committed more atrocities.
Shall we look at the real reason why the left backs military action in Syria? That can be found by looking at their reasons and using the process of elimination. Reason number one, concern over Syrians being killed. If that was their chief concern they would advocated military action around 99,000 dead Syrians ago. Scratch that as a reason. Reason number two, concern over WMD. If that was a concern, they would have advocated military action BEFORE they were used. Scratch that as a reason. Reason number three, their new found concern for Israel’s security. Go back and look at previous FA threads dealing with Israel and you will find a very slanted bias amongst the left against Israel. Scratch that as a reason. That leaves only one reason left, to cover for Obama boxing himself into a corner with his red line in the sand threat. He either needs to take action or look like a fool. The chief concern of the left is for Obama. Nothing else.
Had Obama been serious about the WMD issue and getting Congressional apporval to present a “united front”, he would have gotten Congressional approval before they went on recess. That would have put himself in the position to use military force at a moment’s notice. Other countries don’t conduct their wars according to our congressional schedule. It also may have served as a deterrent to the WMD being used in the first place. The longer this goes on the worse Obama and the country will look. If military action does come, it will be three weeks plus after the chemicals were used. I realize the left thinks that WMD is permanent and can’t be moved (Iraq?) but it can. If the WMD is moved to a location surrounded by civilians and we bomb, we run the risk of killing more civilians than what were killed by the WMD. Not good. The other alternative is to go back to the Clinton era policy of bombing empty camps. That will give everyone a good chuckle and make us look like a laughing stock. Speaking of laughing stocks, mister “I can do it better” Kerry has assembled a real coalition hasn’t he? Couldn’t even get Britain on board. How hard is that?
@Greg, what on earth does your linked article, discussing US/Iraq relations during it’s war with Iran, have to do with my comment to you? Surely you aren’t suggesting that Reagan told Saddam to deploy nerve gas, are you?
One more time I’ll try to return you to focus. Read the AUMF’s 23 “whereas” points on why force was authorized in Iraq. How many of them specifically use WMD as the reason? How many more of them do not?
Was, or was not, it US policy under Clinton and a bipartisan Congress to promote regime change in Iraq?
Has that *ever* been done for Syria? Does Syria have a history of attacking it’s neighbor States, gassing it’s enemies (caveat… you are clueless to who actually used CW in Syria, as are we all), spending a decade thwarting 17 UN sanctions, acquiring illegal missiles via the black market, as confirmed by the UNMOVIC?
Stay on point, and stop sidling out from the direct questions, please. I do not distract that easily.
@MataHarley, #59:
It was a digression. What it has to do with is the nature of historical truth. I’ve never had the level of certainty about past events that some people seem to believe they have. There are actual events, and then there are the stories we make up about them. History is known fact and a load of opinion, all woven together into a cultural story. We don’t all recognize the same set of facts. Opinions vary. The liberal and conservative stories differ.
Public Law 107-243, in my opinion, serves to document the mistaken beliefs—deliberately and systematically encouraged—that led Congress to authorize an invasion. Some of the Whereas statements cite agreed-upon historical facts. Iraq had indeed used chemical weapons—ten years previously, during a war with Iran. 9/11 did indeed underscore “the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations.” It’s a big leap to think that actually had something to do with Iraq.
The capability demonstrated 10 years in the past wasn’t the current capability. It wasn’t within the power of the current regime to employ or provide weapons that no longer existed. The possibility of Iraq mounting a surprise attack on the United States no doubt struck an ominous chord so soon after 9/11—particularly with talk of spreading mushroom clouds and the like—but I think the possibility was extremely remote.
On the basis of that, Congress essentially gave the Bush Administration carte blanche.
That’s the historical story I’ve come to believe. I don’t find many places where it doesn’t fit the facts as they’re now known. I honestly don’t know if history becomes more or less clear as the distance in time increases.
What “historical truth” would that be, Greg? That at one point the US sided with one evil over another higher evil? Yes, and our American leaders tend to repeat that choice… sometimes to good effect, and others not so much. Again, what is your point for the digression, save to dodge the real question as to why the Dems and GOP believed that Saddam was a threat, but you don’t? But you’re happy to give that status to Syria, despite all logic and facts.
Ya gotta be kiddin’ me…. so your story is that it’s “…a big leap to think that actually had something to do with Iraq” while copy/pasting ONE of of TWENTY-THREE whereas, bipartisan reasons for force? O-M-G…. LOL
I don’t suppose that the name of the resolution itself… H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002…. might be a clue to the oblivious? Why would it not be referencing Iraq??? woof…
“You think” is now based on what for facts? The power of Saddam at the time of the Iraq AUMF did include the capability of deploying WMD…. which was only seven out of 23 reasons for the AUMF (BTW, you flunked that test, guy….).
Saddam possessed caches of WMD… whether freshly made, or illegally retained. I know you naysayers like to argue that it was old stuff, and ergo doesn’t count. Does that make it any less deadly? And since it was supposed to have been disposed of, and wasn’t, can you say that Saddam did – without a doubt – still have chem weapons at his disposal?
Fact. Saddam maintained a dual use program which enabled a start up of WMD programs on a moment’s notice were sanctions removed.
Fact. They did discover labs with questionable use, hidden from inspectors sites. Additionally, locals led ISG inspectors to flooded tunnels, sealed behind concrete walls, that they said were WMD sites. The ISG did not have the resources to open/investigate, etc.
Fact. Saddam continually thwarted sanctions and inspections… to the tune of defying 17 UN resolutions.. and disguised his capabilities when trotting the inspectors around on a leash.
Fact. The UNMOVIC found one of his illegal missiles, documented as acquired AFTER 1998, in a Netherlands junk yard via it’s radiation print. Proof that he not only kept illegal missiles, but that he was purchasing them on the black market.
And you “think” he didn’t possess the capability to either launch an attack himself, or provide it to the sundry terrorists he hosted in the camps in his country?
I get that you disregard some facts as not facts. What you don’t get is you’re missing the entire exercise here. The base question was whether there were more reasons – in the eyes of a bipartisan Congress – to implement US Iraq regime change than just WMDs. That answer is resoundingly yes… to the tune of 16 “whereas” points in the AUMF. Apparently the 16 you don’t want to bring into the discussion.
Syria doesn’t even come close to directly threatening the US as Saddam did, and both political parties know this. That’s why it’s all about CW and humanitarian reasons only.
As I said, you occasionally make some good points in opposition. But when it comes to Iraq, the AUMF and your stubborn insistence not to read any official study or report that exposes your naivete, you haven’t a shred of credibility because you base your opinions on partisan emotion, and not facts. And that, Greg, will always be your downfall in any debate.
@MataHarley:
Greg? Opining based on partisan emotion? No way!