Obama is really desperate to wage aggression against Syria. Here’s one of his arguments to Congress:
I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.
Um, actually, you did set a “red line”. Those were your words. They came out of your mouth. How is it then, that you are the only one whose “credibility” is not on the line? The “world” did not say that if the Syrian regime is suspected of using chemical weapons, the U.S. should bomb the country. You said that. The international community’s “credibility” is not on the line, because the international community recognizes that to bomb Syria would be an act of aggression, “the supreme international crime”. The international community awaits the findings of the U.N. investigators and a determination as to who was responsible for using chemical weapons. The only way the international community could put their credibility on the line is by backing the U.S. in yet another illegal war. The international community recognizes that for U.S. maintaining “credibility” means using unlawful force to punish nations who disobey orders from Washington, a concept mafia bosses understand well.
And here’s Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, in a spat with Representative Jeff Duncan:
Duncan: Mr. Kerry, you have never been one that has advocated for anything other than caution when involving U.S. force in past conflicts. Is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you would abandon past caution in favor for pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly?
Kerry:When I was in the United States Senate, I supported military action in any number of occasions, including Grenada, Panama — I can run a list of them. And I am not going to sit here and be told by you that I don’t have a sense of what the judgment is with respect to this.
Perhaps the only meaningful interpretation of Kerry’s response: “I am not cautious about going to war, dammit! I always support war, all the time, including the Bush administration’s war on Iraq! How dare you say I had ‘caution’ in the past when it comes to this nation waging aggression!
I see you, like me, do not believe the “humanitarian” crap being spewed either. I believe the rebels being instructed by “contractors” on how to handle chemical weapons handled them precisely as they were told to. We needed justification to bomb the hell out of another country in our quest for MORE and they did our bidding for us. Sick and shameful.
The claim that we need to bomb Syria for “humanitarian” reasons has zero credibility, for all the obvious reasons.
I wonder which amounts to more: the death we export under the guise of humanitarian aide, or the lives we save with actual humanitarian aide?
Hands down the former. Along these lines, my latest:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/09/06/syria-and-lessons-unlearned-from-the-u-s-nato-bombing-of-kosovo/