Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Pretzels and Threats

Watch Jay Carney turn into a pretzel trying to rationalize why Obama's condemnations of Bush for threatening to bomb Iran in 2007 to stop a WMD program is somehow different than with Syria:

Henry got him to say the use of chemical weapons represents an 'actual or imminent threat'.  While many would disagree with the idea that Syria's use of chemicals is an 'imminent' threat to anyone outside its borders, most might agree it's an 'actual' threat insofar as setting a precedent in the Third World and particularly the Middle East.  After all, Bashar Assad's father allegedly used cyanide gas against a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama in the early 80s.  Then of course Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians later in the 80s.  Neither were dealt with by force at the time, which only made things worse down the line.

At the same time allowing a fascist fanatical religious state in Persia to have the worst kind of WMDs would also represent an 'actual', not imminent threat as well.  Obama himself has said as much, stating that America will not 'countenance' Iran getting nukes because it would be a 'game-changer', the exact label he put on Assad's use of chemicals.  Since getting nukes is different than wanting them, a US strike to stop Iran from getting them wouldn't be much different than striking Syria for changing the game by using chemicals.  But somehow Jay Carney thinks there is a difference and will no doubt keep saying that using is different, ergo, Obama was not wrong.  He never is.   

But perhaps it's telling that the smartest president ever is leaving the explanation of this mess to various spokesgoofs, Lerch and the Vice President, who himself threatened to push impeachment of Bush if he dared to attack Iran without congressional approval. He is sequestered, studying his range of options with the national security folks, planning something very bold that doesn't involve boots on the ground.  Obama fan Peter Bergen says that choice is 'from hell', quoting a book by the current Ambassador to the UN, who remained on vacation during the recent emergency WMD meeting; a book critical of the current National Security Advisor.  So the pretzel is rather twisted.  But hey, Obama wanted the football.  He's now the quarterback and there's nobody above his pay grade.  Sure hope he's got some of those special powers

MORE 8/28/13

How about this. We bomb some regime WMD and military sites. Then in the process we 'lose' a couple of bombs on the territory held by al-Nusra/AQ in Iraq, sort of like we lost one on the Chinese embassy in Sarajevo. That way it doesn't look like we are siding with Zaawhiri.


Right Truth said...

I saw some young woman talking about this on Fox. She was answering questions on behalf of the White House.

I didn't really notice her name, but it amazed me when I heard her, she obviously knew nothing about WMD, threats, war, military, etc., yet she was reading off her talking points flawlessly -- having no knowledge or understanding of what was coming out of her mouth. Very sad.

These same people are the ones making the decisions in the White House.

Right Truth

A.C. McCloud said...

Remember "the reality-based community"? That bunch of leftist bloggers that called Bush a dumb warmongering cowboy evil genius? They appear to be in control of decisions now.

Obama is about to render the UN a moot organization if he goes around them to bomb Syria without even trying to get a resolution. And the reality-based community can't find any of its protest signs. My how times change.