Why the sudden rush on Syria by Obama? What is the logic of his policy?

Out of 100,000 people who have been killed in Syria, why is this 13th use of chemical weapons crossing the red line?  Obama's ambassador to the UN couldn't even leave her vacation to attend the UN Security Council meeting on Syria, but somehow we don't have time to debate whether we engage in war against Syria.  The Times of Israel:
A Free Syrian Army source told Al Arabiya the death toll stood at 1,188, while the Local Coordination Committees said some 785 people were killed. A nurse at an emergency clinic in Douma told Reuters the death toll was at 213, and the head of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 40 were confirmed dead and the death toll could reach over 200. . . . 
. . . UN Mideast envoy Robert Serry told the Security Council last month that the UN has received 13 reports of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. . . .
Even Bush got approval from the Congress before he made strikes and Bush went to the UN Security Council, but to Obama that wasn't enough.  Now the Obama administration's answer is that they have tried to use the UN Security Council for many months but have been consistently blocked by the Russians.  Would Democrats have been satisfied with this response?

Here is an absolutely devastating critique of Obama's policies in Syria.


Finally, it is interesting to see that in the UK they went to parliament to get approval.  But possibly Obama is worried that if he went to Congress he would face a similar rejection.  Also it is interesting to note that Canada, a country that has consistently stood by the US on these missions, is declining to get involved.

How Obama vascilates back and forth on his threats.  Here is a summary from the Washington Examiner:

• After demonstrations calling for Assad's ouster began in March 2011, Obama essentially ordered the dictator in April to stop killing demonstrators and to "change course."
• Then in August 2011, Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan gave Assad an Aug. 27 deadline to stop the violence and start implementing democratic reforms, or else risk joint U.S.-Turkish military action. The deadline passed, Assad continued killing his people and the U.S. did not do as it warned.
• On June 22, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says the U.S. won't give arms or other aid to Syrian rebels.
• On Dec. 3, 2012, Obama warns Assad that "if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable." Secretary of StateHillary Clinton says the U.S. will take action if chemical weapons are used.
• News reports from the on Pentagon Dec. 7, 2012 describe contingency planning for U.S. military action in Syria.
• Somebody uses chemical weapons March 19, 2013 and Obama says the U.S. is seeking conclusive evidence of who is responsible.
• Obama says on April 30, 2013 that he still doesn't have proof that Assad used chemical weapons.
• Unnamed White House officials say June 14, 2013 that Obama has opted to use military force against Assad.
• August 2013. Amid multiple leaks and background reports from unnamed administration officials, it appeared initially that Obama would order a significant military action. Now, a limited cruise missile attack that does little if anything to stop Assad's murderous attacks on his own people appears more likely. . . .



Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

It is obvious that Obama needs something to redirect our focus on him to something else entirely.

As far as chemical weapons use in Syria, I have yet to see any definite evidence that clearly indicates usage of any such type of device.

This lack of evidence is clearly indicated by the photos that have been shown as proof of such.

Arranged bodies in a makeshift morgue is not evidence. Pictures of spent rocket motors are not either. Someone being worked on with an Ambu Bad doesn't cut it. Foaming at the mouth? Really? News organizations using 'footage' of high explosives detonations sure as heck are not even close to the truth.

This appears to be an propaganda mission to get someone to attack Bashar al-Assad and drive him out of power.

Most Americans do not even have a clue as to what constitutes an 'chemical weapon', how it is deployed, nor what it does to human beings, and Obama is using this ignorance to justify making this an 'emergency' so he can use it for political gain.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Rahm Emanuel

Questions anyone? Other than about chemical weapons, that is.

8/30/2013 3:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home