As Pres. Obama left the Summit
Meeting at St. Petersburg, Russia, he also had various comments on the Syrian
situation, as reported by the Washington Times.
President Obama said that he was elected to end wars, not start them. This implies that he had intention of not starting any war to conform with the wishes of the electorate. Since he is now promoting military action against Syria, is he under the impression that an attack on Syria would not be an act of war initiated by the United States?
He previously said that there would be limited US action against Syria, perhaps sending in a few missiles to designated targets. According to the Washington Times he now seems to have raised the possibility that additional military action — beyond what’s on the table now — may be necessary if Syrian President Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. This is at least pragmatic, because as I have said before, when one country attacks
another, there's no way to know what will subsequently develop. The Times quotes the President as saying that he cast himself as a man who seeks peace but has been thrust into the position of involving the U.S. into another Middle East conflict. That's a ridiculous statement. If he is thrust into the position of involving the US in another Middle East conflict, it is because he has thrust himself into it.
The only good aspect of The President.s comments is that they likely have hardened the American public position against war with Syria.
President Obama said that he was elected to end wars, not start them. This implies that he had intention of not starting any war to conform with the wishes of the electorate. Since he is now promoting military action against Syria, is he under the impression that an attack on Syria would not be an act of war initiated by the United States?
He previously said that there would be limited US action against Syria, perhaps sending in a few missiles to designated targets. According to the Washington Times he now seems to have raised the possibility that additional military action — beyond what’s on the table now — may be necessary if Syrian President Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. This is at least pragmatic, because as I have said before, when one country attacks
another, there's no way to know what will subsequently develop. The Times quotes the President as saying that he cast himself as a man who seeks peace but has been thrust into the position of involving the U.S. into another Middle East conflict. That's a ridiculous statement. If he is thrust into the position of involving the US in another Middle East conflict, it is because he has thrust himself into it.
The only good aspect of The President.s comments is that they likely have hardened the American public position against war with Syria.
Mr. Obama will address the nation on Tuesday from
the White House in a last-ditch attempt to convince lawmakers and the
American people that US military action against Syria is necessary. The
President is a convincing speaker. Let's hope that the American public is astute
enough to not be swayed by hypnotic oratory.
No comments:
Post a Comment