Bomb Fanatics Press
Obama to Exercise Custer-like Leadership
By William Boardman -- Reader Supported News
It might begin like this. by [webpronews.com]
Obama's Choice: Bend Under Pressure, or Act Presidential
The President finds himself pressured on one side by his own rookie mistake on August 20, 2012, when he said at a press conference, in answer to a question about the civil war in Syria, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
To judge from the wording of his answer, the President seems to have been trying not to box himself it. He not only failed then, he has failed since to roll back political and media baiting over his supposed "red line," giving it more symbolic authority each time. Now he's caught in his own trap.
After several real or apparent earlier uses of some chemical weapons by somebody in Syria, the most recent alleged chemical weapons attack has some Washington officials reacting hysterically on the basis of limited uncertain information that, they argue, is sufficient basis for the United States to launch a limited but certain military attack on somebody.
Gas Over Syria Mostly Smoke Blown by Politicians With Hidden Agendas
With his Secretary of State ranting in high-pitched tones about this "moral obscenity" and that "cowardly crime" committed by the Assad regime, the President seems weak and vacillating. The lawyer who is president might remind the lawyer who is secretary of state, that evidence usually precedes judgment, not only in court but also in the process of mature statecraft.
Carrying on as if he thought he was the real president, Secretary of State John Kerry blathers with a fatuous pomposity worthy of a caricature head of state, as he jingoes up a war with demagoguery about the would-be enemy:
"Our sense of basic humanity is offended, not only by this cowardly crime but also by the cynical at tempt to cover it up. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons, is a moral obscenity. By any standards, it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable."
The irony is overwhelming: Kerry has accurately described the American use of depleted Uranium weapons that continue to kill men, women, and children every day in Iraq. Depleted Uranium is a chemical, a deadly toxic heavy metal with the added benefit of also being radioactive for billions of years.
The chemical weapon apparently used in Syria kills quickly, and using it is a widely-recognized war crime. Not so widely recognized, but just as much a war crime, using DU WMDs not only kills some victims quickly, but goes on killing others slowly, for generations.
Why is Washington so hot for war before the facts are known?
Kerry was once perceived as a moral man, protesting another immoral American war, in Viet-Nam. But that was a long time ago. Although he opposed the 1991 Gulf War, he raised no outcry against the criminal use of DU WMDs that mercilessly slaughtered Iraqis and infected the country with toxic air, water, and dust. By 2003, Kerry swallowed whole the lies that supported the Bush administration's lust for war in Iraq. Kerry's rhetoric then was like his rhetoric now:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."