Friday, September 06, 2013

There He Goes Again

Speaking at the G-20, Obama said that, “I did not draw a red line, history drew a red line” on the use of chemical weapons, and made reference to the 1925 Geneva Conventions. The man is overly fond of meaningless rhetoric, and has forgotten about YouTube.

First, even assuming the validity of his premise, history records, it does not act. “History” did not draw the red line, the crafters and signatories of the treaty did so. That, however, is a minor point. We also have him on YouTube saying, “that would be a game changer for me, that would change my calculations.” Social media has tripped up many people who try to avoid the consequences of their own words and actions.

Furthermore, when use of chemical weapons was first “documented,” he blew that off and said that the “red line” would be repeated or regular use of such weapons. That rather obviates using the Geneva Conventions as justification for his planned attack, because the convention does not specify a degree of use. It says that any use of chemical weapons is a violation, and Obama has already overlooked several uses which are as thoroughly documented as the incident he is presently claiming as justification.

Inconveniently for Obama, those incidents are rather convincingly attributed to the rebel forces, not to the Syrian government.

For two years we have been being told by the administration that we cannot assist the rebels because their forces include too many radicals and extremists and we don’t know who is who. Now, suddenly, when we have decided that we do want to intervene, Kerry is telling us that radicals and extremists male up only a small portion of the rebels, and that we know who and where they are. Why does that sound like utter bullshit? Because it is utter bullshit.

Finally, Kerry and Defense Secretary Hagel assure us that a military strike in Syria is not “going to war” and that there is absolutely no possibility of blowback in the form of retaliatory attacks either on us or on our allies. Pardon me if I find it impossible to believe that they are not lying through their teeth on the first, and that they have any idea at all what they are talking about on the second.

Twelve years ago this month we regarded the destruction of two buildings in this nation an “act of war,” and we retaliated by invading, destroying and occupying two nations and killing tens of thousands of their citizens, not to mention mounting a decade-long terror campaign in three other Islamic nations using unmanned drones and Hellfire missiles. Now we claim that attacking a seventh Islamic nation with a hundred or so cruise missiles is not an act of war, and that doing so should not and will not invite retaliation.

That is the epitome of dishonesty and very definition of insanity.

No comments:

Post a Comment