Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Barack Obama's Syrian Corner

     Well, the hapless United Nations inspection team, just slightly less so hapless than Hans Blix and his gang (remember they were the U.N. team that "inspected" Iraq before the invasion) have come away from their bullet-ridden Syrian trip with their conclusions. In the report soon to follow, one may find the assertion that chemical weapons were used in an attack located in the suburbs of Damascus. The report may also conclude that it was the Assad regime who was responsible for the attack, and not as some have speculated, the rebel forces that have been hi-jacked by Al Qaeda-style groups, trying to frame the regime.
     What the United Nations report will not state, and of this I am certain, is that George W. Bush is owed an apology by all those on the Left who mercilessly called him a liar for the better part of a decade. This confirmation that chemical weapons were used in Syria is proof that President Bush, along with many of the top intelligence agencies in the world, were correct about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. If you remember, just before the United States-lead invasion of Iraq, early in 2003, satellite imaging showed convoys en route between Iraq and Syria. With the current U.N. inspectors' confirmation of chemical weapons having been used in Syria, we now know what many of us suspected at the time, i.e., that those convoy trucks were not delivering falafels but chemical weapons. The fact, confirmed by intelligence, that Syria had no chemical weapons prior to 2003 and that they have them now, confirms that those weapons were from Saddam Hussein's private stockpile.
     The corner that the Obama administration has painted themselves into with regards to Syria is that they refused to take a stand early on in the conflict when they could have made the most difference (remember then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling Bashar Al Assad a reformer as he was murdering thousands of his own people in the streets at the start of the uprising against him). Now that the uprising has been hi-jacked by Al Qaeda-style groups, President Obama finds himself in the position of helping the terrorist Assad if he does nothing or helping the terrorists who have commandeered the rebel uprising if he intervenes against the Assad regime. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that the chemical attack that killed hundreds was a "moral obscenity", completely ignores the moral obscenity of the hundred thousand that have died in the turmoil since it began more than two years ago as a result of conventional weapons.
     To add even more macabre comedy to a bad situation, Vice President, Joe "the laughing hyena" Biden alluded to the Bashar Assad regime being "punished" for his alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people. This is further proof that the Obama regime specifically, and the Left in general, have no clue what the function of the military is. The military is not used to "punish" people but to achieve a strategic goal that has some significance to U.S. interests. The fact that those on the Left were so vociferous in their opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when U.S. strategic interests were clearly present, and are now silent on the possible intervention in Syria by the Obama administration, where there is an obvious lack of U.S. interests, is illustrative of the hypocrisy of the Left. I guess the corner in which Barack Obama has painted himself is large enough for the entire Leftist community to stew in their own hypocrisy while the rest of us must suffer the risks of their extreme ignorance.

1 comment:

  1. I've been waiting for your response to the Syria situation, glad to see it. I thought it was worth commenting that though the chemical weapons entered Syria they did not necessarily all go to Assad, and it is possible one or more have entered the hands of Assad's enemies who may have used them. I'm dying to see the proof that it was Assad--it's fair to assume he is a likely culprit, it's not fair to accuse without undeniable proof, especially with the reasonable doubt due to him having nothing to gain and everything to lose, a lack of motive.