NYT's Syrian Knot

(Image:  by Eric Allie)

Remember the hue & cry the lamestream media made over every aspect of "Bush's Wars?" 

I certainly do and leading the pack was the New York Times.

But now "Times" have changed.  And the editorial staff thinks it would be a great idea to start bombing Assad's regime--even if its illegal.

Now I'm all for laying waste to our nation's enemies when they give us grief.  But for a variety of reasons, we've pussy-footed around in every post-World War II conflict with little to show for the expenditure of blood and treasure. 

While on the flip side, the hypocrisy of today's media/Ministry of Truth makes my blood boil. 

Comrade Karla wonders: 

Funny, I wonder where these retards stood in 2003? I’m guessing they weren’t all for “illegal bombing.” That only applies if a Dem is in the White House. They really have no shame. And I certainly don’t expect any leftards to call them out on their inconsistency. I’ve maintained all along that it isn’t military force they are opposed to; they just don’t like it when Republicans are doing it. Otherwise, they’re protecting the innocent or something.

Our other friends responded, :

When you have a VPOTUS who said a president that used force without Congressional approval should be impeached, a POTUS who previously demanded Congressional approval, and a SecState who was "fer it before he was agin' it" who are about to ignore the UN, Congress, common sense, the American public, and most everyone else on earth, I have little hope that they'll be called on their hypocrisy.  We have descended into a new dark age...

This is my fear and why I oppose U.S. action. A wider Middle East war is not in our interest.

I don't think Obama and his cadre of nincompoops understands how unintended consequences are part and parcel of war. His almost off-hand red line comments are now forcing him into military action that he clearly has no stomach for. What will these actions force him into down the road? And, as Tim rightly points out, the enemy gets a vote too, and that includes Iran, Russia, China, and Hizballah. Another factor was on Fox last night - public approval for action in Syria is far lower than for any military action of modern times (though they glossed over the fact that the poll predates the chemical "attack.")

Obama's people (but, strangely, not Obama himself) have been beating the war drums very loudly. It looks like it will happen, unless he announces a miraculous political solution (like a peace conference) and averts an attack, thereby showing that he really serves his Nobel prize, and can then really say "I'm not at all like that nasty Bush guy." That would explain the ramp up in rhetoric and the lack of any effort to get Congress or the UN to back his actions.

I suspect the news will get interesting by the end of the week.

 

The news tonight is that PM Cameron is backing off of a vote in Parliament for a strike and now is looking at "humanitarian intervention" whatever the hell that is, and is considering delaying any decision at all. Also, at the UN, the Russkies and Chicoms walked out of a meeting over Syria.

The One's haphazard, feckless, spineless methods are really bearing fruit! Instead of making him look tough, he is looking even more worthless than before. He has made things worse, if that were possible.

DON'T THESE PEOPLE KNOW WHO HE IS?!?

 

So, the French are now backing away from action (waving white flags, no doubt) and the Brits have confirmed they will wait for the UN to report back before having their debate. POTUS is saying he has not decided and adding some additional confusion to the air. The Russians are sending additional warships to the eastern Med.

 

In other words, they [US, France, UK] tested the waters and found them not to their liking.

 

Can we look any more feckless than we do right now? We are going to have less credibility than we did before the Barbary Pirates mess here shortly.

 

And possibly the same level of military strength, if this goes on long enough.

 

Finally, Comrade Karla ended the on-line discussion (at least the serious part) with this dire warning w/video segment:

 

Dramatics aside, this raises a great issue—we may plan to just go in and do a “punishment bombing” (whatever that is), but the enemy gets a vote as well.   We could be lighting the fuse to something much larger and we are not ready and our political leaders are certainly not prepared to handle it.  To paraphrase Bismarck, it’ll be “some damn silly thing in the Middle East.”

So much for that Nobel Peace Prize...

 

(Image by Glenn McCoy)