Doing what he does best, the President yesterday made defensive and simpering remarks from a foreign country while trying to rewrite history. yesterday, regarding Syria, the President said it was not his red line, and not his credibility on the line. He said it was the world’s red line and credibility. You know, the world who wants nothing to do with bombing Syria. I can’t fathom what it is we’d be going to Syria for, if not the President’s credibility, since the Administration has already said we are not in it to win it, or to effect regime change in Syria. It is also interesting that the man whose favorite word is “I,” or the possessive forms of the pronoun, has defaulted to a collective “we are the world” setting here. He left the country to make this assertion, probably hoping nobody domestically would pick up on it. Funny, but as much as he and his apologists would have you think he never mentioned a “red line” for the U.S. in conjunction with the use of Chemical weapons by the Assad Regime – he right as rain DID.
I had the misfortune of being diagnosed with strep throat Monday, meaning I was banned from work Tuesday. That, however, enabled me to tweet my little fingers off as I watched the train wreck of a hearing regarding potential military action by the U.S. in Syria on Capitol Hill. Given the president’s Rose Garden comments this past Saturday (which happened to be a 3-day weekend due to a national holiday. Meaning: most people were not glued to their TV’s listening to political posturing. Gee, I wonder why they’d pick that time for the remarks?), the President believes he has a some sort of moral obligation and duty to bomb the bejeezus (well, in a limited fashion) out of Syria. And, frankly, he thinks HE has the authority to do so, with HIS military, and regardless of what Congress says. Although, he will ask congress for permission. Which is really like when I ask my husband what outfit I should wear. It’s a foregone conclusion on my part. And, more often than not, I pick the opposite of the outfit my husband selects if I already hadn’t made up my mind. The asking, it’s just a formality, to make the other party feel included.
Before the hearing actually commenced, we heard about how we would finally be let in on why Syria is so vitally important to our national security. I’m not saying Syria doesn’t figure. But, being that the humanitarian (look at all the dead children) angle is what is being pushed, I fail to see how we can’t then make the same case for every other country this is happening in, or will ever happen in (because, keep in mind, if we do this, we set a precedent). Countries where tyrants, dictators, and governments in general are murdering their own people. Oh, right. Most people are being murdered by conventional means. You know: bombs, bullets, machetes, starvation, and so on. It’s only really bad when chemicals are used. Because, you know, chemicals make you more dead.
Thousands upon thousands of civilians have been killed in a war in the southern neighbor we share a border with. Mexico. One of our biggest trading partners, in both goods and people. Right across the border. A border which has seen the illegal crossing northward, not just of Latin American’s but a number of jihadi operatives from the middle east. Yet, I don’t hear people saying we need to go into Mexico and take any limited actions against the cartels (which are not the government, but they are so powerful they operate in place of the elected government. With the last president of Mexico fleeing the country for his and his family’s safety) to stop the blood shed and let the cartels know what is acceptable. In fact, we decided to walk some weapons to them, and just see what would happen. That’s going swimmingly. Incidentally, I don’t know anyone being held accountable for that. Yet, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and the President keep telling us we need to hold Assad accountable for the use of chemical weapons against his own people. Do our southern neighbors not deserve the same humanitarian consideration? Is our southern neighbor not of vital importance to our national security?
The administration says we have to send a big message to the whole world about what is acceptable. Remember though, we are going to do this through “limited” action. Action which they are certain can be constrained to 72 hours. Action which they feel certain of the outcome of. Action which they say will require no American boots get bloodied or occluded by Syrian dust. Action which they are certain will deter Assad and other dictators who might want to act this way. (By the way, given Kerry’s hemming and hawing at the hearing, those boots on the ground we are told won’t be going to Syria are resting on a very slippery slope.)
What naive, arrogant, narcissistic HUBRIS.
Mad men like Assad are hardly predictable. And the “opposition,” many al-Qaeda affiliated franchises who may actually be responsible for the chemical weapons used in Syria, are even less of a known quantity. Yet, we think we can tell both sides when we’re coming, what we’re bombing, and certainly we will get all the peace that Barack Obama’s Nobel prize promised the world by bombing the crap out of country that makes the stone age look sophisticated.
I’m reminded now of those parents who tell one child not to hit another child, and underscore the dictate with a well place spanking. Followed, of course, by an air of parental haughty derision to indicate that the parent’s use of force is humanitarian, magnanimous, and noble, as the first child looks askance at the parent.
We also keep hearing that we have to deter Assad and those who might want to act like him in the future. The future action of other murderous dictators and despots has nothing to do with our action in Syria. It is absolutely asinine to think they are waiting to see how we handle Syria before they slaughter their own people, or others, by conventional or chemical means. I mean, hello, we yanked Saddam out of a spider hole, didn’t we? That was after we put boots on the ground because the international community was in agreement that Saddam had WMDs (which includes chemical weapons. Which he did use on civilians in neighboring countries). Was that not a warning? Did the whole world not see that message? Maybe the internet was down that day.
We are not the world police. We are not the dispensers of justice for the planet. It is ridiculous to presume that we can or should act in that capacity, or that we were ever intended to.
This administration really doesn’t care what you or I or the world thinks about going to war in Syria. And really, war in Syria is what we’re talking about. They will just shove it down our throats. Just like the Affordable Care Act. They will pass it, without looking into what it really means, regardless of the consequences. The biggest consequence of war in Syria, just like the implementation of ACA, will be that it will hurt more people than it helps, and cost far more – in dollars and lives – than anyone can predict.
To the end that this is a war, John Kerry actually said this is not “war in the classic sense.” Does he mean like with elephants, spears, catapults, and Visigoths pouring hot oil on people? No. What he means is that the Left is once again going to redefine a word that has had a very specific meaning since its coinage. No longer will war mean, “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.” War will be whatever we want it to be, or what we don’t want it to be. Those bombs dropping on another country? That’s not a war. No, no, no, that’s a limited kinetic action.
If you had the time, or the stomach, to sit through the hearings in their entirety Tuesday (though, really, at any point you could have tuned in to have you ire inflamed and your stomach set churning), you couldn’t help but notice the atmosphere of pomp and bravado coming from those answering the questions. Clearly, they know better than the rest of us. They’ve come to The Hill to make you feel included (there is a closed-door meeting today), but as the conclusion has been reached, this is really just a photo-op. The gravity of this situation seemed only to be felt by a few senators, such as Rand Paul. Whereas for the rest, Barbara Boxer comes to mind, it was a love fest for John Kerry and the Obama Administration, and yet another opportunity to blame George W. Bush. As if such adulation, along with several lines of soft-ball questioning, weren’t enough to convey the seriousness not present, the mention of Theresa Heinz-Kerry’s coming to this “public event” and “outing” should really drive that home. That a Capitol Hill hearing on going to war in Syria is an outing for Ms. Heinz-Kerry (yes, I know she has been ill), should tell you something deeply concerning about not only the hearing, but the modus operandi of this administration.
These people see themselves as better than us, as knowing what is best for us. They are, foremost, celebrities. Not just to the majority of the voters who fawn over them, but in their own minds as well. This is a long way from the serious men who cobbled together timeless ideas of personal liberty and economic freedom. Men who saw themselves first as individuals, husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, farmers, business men, lawyers, doctors, and neighbors. Men who convened to figure out how to restrain government so individuals could flourish, so they could make a nation thrive.
Now we have people who think they are greater than the nation, better than the ideas that make us what we are. These people are building their own brands, without regard to the brand that is American liberty. They are about to spend untold treasure, resources, and lives to further market their brand. War has always been a money-maker, a lot of big brands got their start in wars. Oh, but it’s not a war in the “classic sense.” Instead, let’s call it the biggest, most explosive political campaign ad in history.SHARE