Understanding Obama’s Rush To War

Obama says that he has very detailed evidence that Assad gassed Syrian children, going back to three days before the attack – as the US traced all the events in real time. No explanation as to why the US didn’t warn their Syrian freedom fighters that they were about to be gassed.

Obama also said that a UN investigation is useless, because the Syrian government has destroyed all the very detailed evidence which the US currently has. Obama apparently felt that the best way he could help the UN investigation last week was to rush the investigators out by threatening to bomb the area where they were investigating.

It has now been 362 days since Benghazi, and Obama has done everything in his power to block all investigations into what happened there – and says that it took two weeks for the best intelligence to determine that it wasn’t a spontaneous YouTube protest.

The current plan is to keep showing pictures of dead children over and over again, in hopes that will supersede any attempt at intelligent debate about who did it, and about what would be a sensible way to move forward. The only option which Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama can conceive of is to start launching Tomahawk missiles in a Saudi financed two day extended war to get rid of Assad, which is not about regime change.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Understanding Obama’s Rush To War

  1. The Iconoclast says:

    When someone kills children with poison gas, it is outrageous and we must not sit idly by, and what’s called for is a Tomahawk missile attack.

    When a Tomahawk missile attack kills children, we deny it, euphemisze it away, or mark it down as a success.

    What is that word, something about the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs yet to which one’s own behavior does not conform?

  2. “Hey, gang, let’s put on our own show!” — Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland

    • That too was make believe. The difference is that no one died as a consequence nor was a world war likely to be started because of it.

      This too is make believe, so “they” say.

      The Wolf and the Lamb

      A WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf’s right to eat him. He thus addressed him: “Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.” “Indeed,” bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, “I was not then born.” Then said the Wolf, “You feed in my pasture.” “No, good sir,” replied the Lamb, “I have not yet tasted grass.” Again said the Wolf, “You drink of my well.” “No,” exclaimed the Lamb, “I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.” Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, “Well! I won’t remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.” 

      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

      Translated by George Fyler Townsend. Aesop’s Fables (p. 15). Amazon Digital Services, Inc..

      Hmmmm…. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *