by Yvette Carnell
In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama said during an interview that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Now, all over a sudden, the anti-Iraq war candidate has changed his tune and wants all of us to change ours as well. Problem is, Present Obama is barely even coherent in the case he’s making for war with Syria. To further demonstrate this, just take a few quotes from his speech last night.
1.) “The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children.”
Hold on, if chemical weapons usage is the world’s “red line”, then what does that say of America’s use of the chemical weapon agent orange during the Vietnam War? Agent orange k!lled or maimed 400,000 people and caused innumerable deaths. Also, as Foreign Policy, reported in late August, the U.S. knew Saddam Hussein was launching a chemical attack against Iran but still gave him assistance. So please Obama, spare us the “red line” nonsense. Either you’re stupid or you think we’re stupid. And what of the phosphorous bombs used in the Middle East?
2.) “The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath.”
So the sight of Rwandans being hacked to death was somehow different? Why? Because they were using machetes and not chemical weapons? The world didn’t act then, so why act now?
3.) “Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “a danger to our security.”
President Obama himself has said that Syria is not a “direct” threat to our security, so how did that change overnight? Is there some new secret intelligence that only Congress critters are allowed to see? The truth is Syria is a small country with no nukes and no capability of striking the U.S.
4.) “If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.”
And if we do act, there’s certainly no guarantee that Assad (or the rebels) will cease in their deployment of chemical weapons. There are no guarantees either way.
5) “And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran..”
That sounds eerily close to the rationale used to make the case for war in Iraq, and look how that turned out. Billions of dollars later, Iraq is a mess and Iran is just fine. Play some new music Mr. Obama, because that song’s old.
6.) “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.”
Really, that’s not even the point. The point is that when you drop bombs on mofos, things tend to escalate in ways no one ever imagined or predicted. Just look at the continuing carnage in Iraq. And really, how is this even our business? Let the “international community” lead the charge, or better yet, the Arab League.