White House States They’re Not Looking For Regime Change In Syria
If we do start bombing, what would be the point? A little spanking?
(The Hill) The White House said Tuesday that President Obama is not seeking “regime change” in Syria from any military strikes launched in response to President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
“The options we are considering are not about regime change,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “That is not what we are contemplating here.”
The White House spokesman said that the administration was instead simply weighing a reaction to the violation of “an international standard” barring the use of chemical weapons.
“It is not our policy to respond to this transgression with regime change,” he said.
So, what’s the point? As CNN notes, over 100,000 have been killed during the civil war (which includes lots of Islamists from a range of countries), so, does 1,300 killed in a chemical attack outweigh 100000 killed in conventional attacks? Either way you’re dead. But, one apparently crossed an arbitrary red line
Carney said Tuesday that Syria’s use of chemical weapons did pose an actual threat to the U.S.
“I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States’ national security,” Carney said.
He forgot to tell us exactly what that threat is. I’d like to hear what it is, and not just from the White House, but from others who have been pushing for action, such as John McCain. Because I don’t see it. Perhaps someone has a guess?
(The Hill) Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.
The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.
“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ – that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”
I can’t remember anytime that I’ve ever agreed with Kucinich, but, hey, there’s always a first.
I’m betting on 830pm Friday for the strikes. That would be 330am in Damascus. What’s your bet?
Oh, and when does Obama give the Nobel Peace Prize back?
A black judge in Kentucky has given two home invaders and armed robbers a light sentence because he feels that their three-year-old white victim was a “racist” because in her...Read More
So, the scuttlebutt on the street is that Bergdahl will be charged with the desertion charges he so richly earned
Starting off, Politico offers 6 lingering questions regarding the resignation of David Petraeus, which includes 1. Why resign now? The
Obama is sarcastically referred to as “Dear Leader” for a reason: because his style of governance is closer to that