President Obama waxed poetic on the virtues of airstrikes on Syria today during the G20 summit in St. Petersberg Russia. His answers at the press conference about his rationale for bombing a sovereign nation that had taken no provocative action toward us were eloquent, if perplexing.
The president seemed to sense the hesitancy of the American people to approve an attack on Syria, given the similarity to the Bush Crime Family's justification of the attack on Iraq (use of chemical weapons among them) based on Colin Powell's trumped-up presentation to the UNSC:
"This is not something we fabricated. This is not something that we are using as an excuse for military action. As I said last night, I was elected to end wars, not start them. I've spent the last four and a half years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people."
Really? Two words; drone strikes. Are those ending the war? Do you think he'll have to return his Nobel Peace Prize, Truthseekers, if the Syrian attack proceeds?
Later, the President sounded alarmingly Rummyesque in his description of the kind of attack he is planning on Syria:
"'Our response, based on discussions with our military, is that we can have a response that is limited, is proportional ... but that is meaningful ... and serves as a strong deterrent.' Adding 'Is it possible that Assad doubles down and ... uses chemical weapons more widely? I suppose anything is possible, but it wouldn't be wise.'"
All we're missing is a reference to "known knowns" and a laser pointer and we could be back at any DoD briefing, circa 2003. Who can forget all the bat squeeze uttered by Rumsfeld and his minions about the "limited, focused, brief" strike on Iraq? Remember his prediction that the military involvement would last days, perhaps weeks, but not months? That we would be welcomed by the grateful Iraqi people for "liberating" them?
Are we ready to travel this road again?