President Obama To Remind America That Chemical Warfare Is Bad

Because someone has to remind America that chemical warfare is a bad thing by any standard of morality and historical norms, and doing nothing is unacceptable, President Obama will be giving interviews tomorrow with several news networks followed up by a national address Tuesday to make the case that limited, conventional airstrikes targeting Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons on his own citizens would be in the long-term interest of the international community.

Meanwhile, David Gregory and Mark Halperin don’t believe the president can close the deal, and are totally concerned that a no-vote in congress would be ‘a huge blow’ to Obama’s credibility and standing in the world.

Senator Rand Paul basically said today in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday that the Obama administration hasn’t convinced him that they have any idea what’s going on in the world, or how this will all turn out, and then proceeded to explain his own ideas on how this will all turn out by replacing the Obama administration’s assertions with his own, predicting a scenario where Assad becomes more emboldened(more emboldened than using chemical weapons?)and that the stockpiles of sarin gas– which is illegal according to the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993– would ‘move about the country’ and fall into the hands of Hezbollah. This, to Sen. Rand Paul, is the more likely scenario. He then accused the Obama administration of not caring about Benghazi and concern-trolled the idea of impeachment and another filibuster over this. Rand Paul also seems to think that whomever did this “deserves death,” while also suggesting that Russia and China should be the final arbiters of what is justifiable intervention in Syria. He’s so adorable.

But this sort of prediction game is pretty popular with people who seem to think that they know how all of this will turn out, and it’s the Obama administration that just doesn’t get it.

Iraqnophobia!

And, like a bizarre episode of dueling propaganda, Bashar al-Assad has given an interview with Charlie Rose which will air around the same time the president is making his case Monday.

But getting back to the president’s case for intervention. What you will likely not hear in the next couple of days is that not acting will result in ‘mushroom clouds’ from imaginary WMDs, or that we’re sending 200,000 troops into the meat grinder because the president’s closest advisers quietly believe ‘a new Pearl Harbor‘ would be in the best interests of our long-term goals and really get things going. Joe Biden will not be laughing off the funneling of no-bid contracts to Halliburton. You will not be called unAmerican for siding with the terrorists, but you will be reminded that America has an obligation to intervene to prevent the further use of chemical warfare on the Syrian people.

You won’t hear any grand declarations suggesting we must send chemical weapons to the Assad regime like the Reagan administration did in plain view when they supplied the chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein used to kill Iranians and the Kurds in the 80′s and 90′s.

You won’t hear the president insinuate that the British parliament’s recent vote to abstain could have been less than sincere, and may have been due to revelations that they okayed the sale of the sodium fluoride, which is used to produce sarin gas, to Syrian interests.

Most importantly, you will hear the voice of reason. The voice of the only adult in the room making a solemn case for humanity’s compass, “credibility” be damned.

I only hope we, as a country, can handle it like adults.

This entry was posted in Benghazi, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Mark Halperin, Middle East, President Obama, Rand Paul, Syria, The Media and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Schneibster

    “Iraqnophobia” +1

  • formerlywhatithink

    What you will likely not hear in the next couple of days is that not acting will result in ‘mushroom clouds’ from imaginary WMDs…

    We’re already hearing this from the hysterical far lefties and libertarians who think a military strike on Syria is just a precursor to WWIII where China and Russia will engage in a shooting war with the US which will go global with countries tossing nukes around.

    And you also have idiots who say:

    We were looting Libya’s weapons depots so we could transfer the weapons to turkey who would then give them to Syria’s rebels. It was an arms deal.

    Seriously, there is no conspiracy theory that these people will not latch onto. You’re right, so far Obama is the only adult in the room.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    >>>Most importantly, you will hear the voice of reason. The voice of the
    only adult in the room making a solemn case for humanity’s compass,
    “credibility” be damned.

    Exactly right. Our president has a conscience.

    Unfortunately, people seem not to see killing people like they were cockroaches as any worse than bullets, even though it’s obviously very different, and kills people who have no chance to defend themselves or fight back. Is it naivete or something more, like “it’s the Middle East……..why should WE give a damn?”. Probably a little of both.

    I have struggled with the notion of entering into another armed conflict in the Middle East, but I don’t feel that it’s in the self interest of any of us, including Syrian non-combatants, to allow this despicable move by Assad to go unpunished.

    Adds………..the Senate released video of the attacks. [FYI: NSFW + very disturbing imagery]

    http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/syriavideo.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Killing over a thousand people with one campaign is exceptional. If 100,000 people were killed in two years of conventional warfare, that would be approximately 13.7 a day. If 1000 people were killed per day, that would add up to 730,000 people killed in two years and would also include scores of survivors suffering chronic neurobiological damage that might also include psychiatric effects.

      Anyone who doesn’t see the difference doesn’t want to.

      The ‘what’s the difference between being killed with a bullet, and being killed with a nerve agent” is some seriously solipsistic, pseudo-intellectual navel-gazing. Gee. I don’t know. What’s the difference between a person being killed and their entire family being killed? Or between one family and an entire neighborhood? Does it matter what weapons are used for “ethnic cleansing?” Assad might as well use a nuke, then, huh? How is being vaporized en masse any different from being killed with nerve agents? Dead is dead, in the head of an observer who has the benefit of reducing death to an abstraction and doesn’t consider themselves to be at risk for any kind of violent death at the hands of others.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        Well said.

      • missliberties

        The lack of depth of reasoning shown by so many is just frightening. The dead is dead argument is infantile. The Syria is just like Iraq comparisons have been stunningly shallow.

        The media people making these assinine arguments must have graduated from college with a PhD in kissing ass to get places that seem important, without doing the hard work or actual thinking.

        • mrbrink

          Nice.

        • nathkatun7

          Very well said, missliberties!

      • FlipYrWhig

        Regarding “dead is dead,” people on the liberal-left spectrum don’t usually fall for the “crime is crime” construction. Anyone who believes in hate crimes can’t possibly believe that all crimes are the same to the victim or to the society that surrounds him. Anyone who understands why even pro-lifers believe in exceptions for rape and incest can’t possible believe that all crimes are the same to the victim or to the society that surrounds her. It’s transparently a hollow piece of rhetoric, and of supiciously recent vintage at that.

    • Scopedog

      They find it easier to deal with what happens to one–ie, Snowden, Manning–than what happens to thousands or millions.

      I wish this weren’t the case, but….

      “I have struggled with the notion of entering into another armed conflict
      in the Middle East, but I don’t feel that it’s in the self interest of
      any of us, including Syrian non-combatants, to allow this despicable
      move by Assad to go unpunished.” Well said.

      • Badgerite

        Good point. I don’t see any ‘I am a Syrian civilian’ PR campaign going on by celebrities. Probably because they do not perceive themselves to be in any way similar to a Syrian civilian. And they do all of this while complaining that we just don’t care enough about ‘brown people’. Brown people? God, the left can be insufferable. Al Awlaki’s son is raised to the level of sainthood, but 400 children killed in one attack and as the primary target just doesn’t seem to warrant their attention.

  • muselet

    Matt Osborne posted a sobering take on Syria today.

    To the list of things we’ll hear over the next few days, I’d add more like this letter printed in the Daily Fishwrap today:

    For years, the savages in Syria have been slitting each others’ throats. And when one inspects their rationale for on-going killing it usually can be reduced to a disagreement over which section of the egg they should break for breakfast. Besides, once we aid them, they will turn on us “infidels” as they have in the past.

    Leave the savages to their own killing rather than adding our people to theirs. We have enough to contend with on our own shores.

    Isolationism and racism. As American as apple pie and baseball.

    –alopecia

    • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

      There are good arguments against doing too much. But there is no really good argument for doing nothing at all.

      • muselet

        I don’t disagree. It’s just that finding the correct level of response is problematic.

        –alopecia

        • Badgerite

          Life is full of problems. I guess we can ignore them then?

          • muselet

            The use of chemical weapons is a war crime. The world must respond, whether Russia or China or those Human Shield Movement clowns like it or not.

            However, what level of military action will: (a) punish the Syrian government for using banned weapons; (b) send a sufficiently forceful message to the government to stop using banned weapons; (c) not inflict civilian casualties; (d) not damage or destroy vital civilian infrastructure; and (e) not leave weapons stockpiles vulnerable to looting? That is the puzzle the Obama Administration has to solve, without much support from much of anyone, and that doesn’t even take into account the Rs who will probably file articles of impeachment no matter what Barack Obama decides.

            No one’s ignoring anything.

            –alopecia

          • Badgerite

            My mistake. I thought you were implying that we should have NO response to what Assad was doing. Of course it is dicey. But I think doing nothing is dicey also. I know I shouldn’t go there but I keep thinking of Czechoslovakia and WWII.

  • Norbrook

    Basically what you’re seeing from the opponents boils down to “They’re only killing brown people!” While I’m quite sure they’ll cry, moan, and fundraise off of the “horror,” what they’re really showing is that they don’t give a shit.

  • Carol Dijkhuyzen

    We turned a blind eye to Jewish people gassed by Hitler ,we won’t tolerate another hitler in Assad!

    • mhr52

      How do you know Assad did it? Because Barry and Jonny told you? Come on.

  • missliberties

    This is an international lesson in how a mature democracy is supposed to work, said Jane Harmon on MTP. 110% Agreed! (BTW, that was my first reaction, she said as she reached around and patted herself vigorously on the back.)

    The Congress wants it to pass but they are all afraid to have their votes go on the record, said Jane Harman. 110% Agreed.

    If the US sends a message in the form of missiles there may be some collatoral damage, which would be tragic, yet what are the chances for the folks survival without intervention? Exactly.

    If it doesn’t pass, and more gas is used, Israel will get real serious about defending itself, as will any other nation that is threatened with a gas attack and Obama will be seen as a visionary leader who was summarily ignored.

    Of course Assad will lie about murdering his own people. What do you want to bet the hard left looney tunes will start praising him after his interview. (Did I really say that?) But IF Assad says that chemicals weapons are very bad, then we can hold him to his word for negotiations.

    People who are seeing this as a lose lose for Obama, in my view are wrong. He did the right thing, by putting the vote to Congress. Whichever way it goes, those who vote to rid the world of the spread of chemical weapons, are on the right side of history, and this will be proven out in short order.

    (edited for spelling errors :) )

  • mmaynard119

    Mark Halperin today is taking over for Jake Tapper in the complete lack of credibility department.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    I am stealing Iraqnophobia right NAOW.

    • formerlywhatithink

      Right MEOW!

      • mhr52

        lol best comment on the thread

  • LTanya Spearman

    Syria, Iran & Russia working on a counter proposal to U.S. strike.. Is Obama in the process of a bloodless coup in Syria?
    The report goes on to say that Syria rebels have discussed a proposal for Russia to remove Assad from power while still protecting Russian interests in Syria. The rebels in return will ask United States not to attack. I should caution that this is still at the level of chatter & certainty still developing..
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/premium-1545890
    http://www.thepeopleview.net/2013/09/is-obama-in-process-of-landing.html

  • mhr52

    I love how you all believe Obama and Kerry that Assad gassed people when he clearly has no incentive to bring hell upon himself, and the terrorist-rebels have a strong incentive to false flag. Not to mention, the growing evidence (suppressed in Western mainstream media) that the Saudis quietly sent chemical weapons to the terrorist-rebels, and/or they stole weapons from the Syrian Army.

    You guys are astounding. If a Republican were beating the war drums, you would be strongly opposed. But when a black Democrat does it, you are all for it.

  • mhr52

    Typical regressives to want to support the Islamist nutbags who want to genocide what remains of the Christians in Syria. I am no Christian, but your loathing of Christians is unbelievable, that you would even support killing Christians abroad.