Skip to Content

Obama’s Irresponsible Rhetoric Exacerbates Global Tensions

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

The Obama administration tells the American public that its “intelligence” on Syrian government culpability for chemical attacks is ironclad, and that the “world” agrees with Washington. But much of the planet clearly disagrees. “Is it possible that the ‘world’ does not equate their interests with American interests?”

 

Obama’s Irresponsible Rhetoric Exacerbates Global Tensions

by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

“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." - President Obama August 20, 2012

It is now generally accepted as fact that on August 21, 2013 a nerve agent, probably sarin gas was used on the Syrian civilian population. According to Dr. Bart Janssens, from Doctors Without Borders, “[T]he reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent…convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress…”

What is not known is who is responsible for the chemical attack. The United States has placed the blame on the Assad regime. President Obama stated, “…the United States (has) presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people. Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.”

Other credible sources believe that the case against the Assad regime is not as former CIA director George Tenet said about WMD’s in Iraq, a “slam dunk.” According to the Times of Israel, “The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, US intelligence officials say.”

There are conflicting perceptions of reality and requisite action or response. President Obama claims that chemical weapons have been used; the US claims that it has evidence that the Assad regime used them; ergo military intervention (airstrikes) must be the response by the “International Community.” Other countries such as Germany, Russia, China, and Britain agree that chemical weapons have been used but don’t agree that the US “evidence” that Assad used them is as conclusive as the US claims. Also, other countries don’t agree that even if Assad used chemical weapons a military response is the best response. A military response could actually exacerbate the situation not make it better.

What is not known is who is responsible for the chemical attack.”

President Obama has stated a number of times that the “world” is aghast at the use of chemical weapons. He called the Syrian attack a "challenge to the world". He is also claiming that he did not set the “red-line.” In Sweden he stated, ‘‘I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line…‘The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of world population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent.’’

First question, when did the American government, when did President Obama become the spokesperson for the world? Second question, if the world is so aghast at this attack why is most of the “world” against American intervention into the Syrian Civil War? Is it possible that the “world” does not equate their interests with American interests?

It is important to understand that the Syrian “rebels” are not a monolith. There are a number of factors, some political, religious, and cultural that are motivating different groups to engage in war. Also, within those factors are various actors that have different if not conflicting motivations. It is possible that defectors from the Assad regime have given access to chemical stockpiles to certain rebel forces. It is possible that al Qaeda affiliated forces have used chemical weapons with the hope of drawing the US into the conflict. With US intervention in the conflict it becomes an easier recruiting tool for al Qaeda affiliated forces. These are just a few examples of why the “world” is not so quick to cast their lots with US action.

One of the factors driving President Obama is the fact that he has backed himself into a corner with his own irresponsible rhetoric. He never should have used the term “red- line” to begin with. Just as the adage is “don’t pull a gun on a person unless you are prepared to use it” there is also an adage in diplomatic circles, “don’t draw a line in the sand unless you are prepared to take action if it is crossed.”

Now that President Obama has injected the “red-line” into the Syrian Civil War; if he fails to act; what does that say about his “red-line” with Iran? The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has laid this out very clearly, “A president cannot commit his nation to a red line if he is also committed to securing congressional approval before responding to the crossing of that red line. What if Congress denies approval? Must the president still keep his red line commitment? If he does not, what does this say about other red line commitments, such as that made regarding Iran’s efforts to secure nuclear weapons?”

It was also irresponsible for President Obama to say, “I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets… But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests… I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.” That’s not a “decision” that’s inconsistent muttering and doublespeak.

The Syrian Civil War is a perilous situation. This is not the time for inconsistent and dangerous rhetoric. President Obama continues to talk in the “world” context but the longer this plays out the more it looks like he’s going to have to go it alone. He has indicated that he is prepared to do that, the problem is he will go it alone at our expense.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the Sirisu/XM Satellite radio channel 110 call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues with Leon” Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email:wjl3us@yahoo.comwww.twitter.com/drwleon and Dr. Leon’s Prescription at Facebook.com

© 2013 InfoWave Communications, LLC

Share this

Comments

Obama's 2002 Speech RE Bush's 'dumb' Iraq War_What a difference

6 - 7 yrs Made! 

Illinois State senator Barack Obama's Oct 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War at Chicago’ Federal Plaza Complete Text

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars.- I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

===============================================================

First we see that O-Bomber like Skull{duggery}& Bones Kerry, was against war before he was for it. Just like he was for single payer health-care for all, before he was against it.

Also the 'Obama Candidate' in 2008 took this line from 2004 Dim POTUS candidate Kerry: 'Afghanistan is the 'Good War' while Iraq was the 'Dumb War'- or did Kerry borrow it from him?

Plus O-Bomber like most smooth-talking poly-tricksters shows here he’s mastered the art of double-speak & also being disingenuous- even when sounding truthful. He starts this speech off by naming 2 of what the late Howard Zinn called the US’ 3 ‘Holy Wars’ [the Civil War & WWII- the other being the War of Independence]- along w the 9-11 ‘New Pearl Harbor’ event- to justify what he & Kerry like to call the US’ ‘Good Wars’ [of aggression].

> 1st: Lincoln Did NOT fight the Civil War to abolish slavery, he fought it ‘To Save the Union’. Slavery was just a key piece in the North’s chess-game w the South over who would dominate the US’ poli-trikcal-economic system & burgeoning empire- after the US gangstered the entire SW quadrant of the US from Mexico- circa 1835 – 1850. These same SW territories are where this competition for dominance was played out & for which this dispute became heated- RE: whether they’d be slave territories or NOT.     

> 2nd RE: WWII- First it must be noted that the rise of Hitler’s 3rd Reich was backed by Wall St Banksters & BIG BIZ elites like [O-bomber’s distant relative] Prescott Bush, the Dulles Boys, Avriel Harriman, IBM, GM, Henry Ford, etc. Without their backing Hitler could NOT have even rebuilt Germany’s war machine to be a serious threat vs the rest of Europe. Next [O-Bomber’s distant relative] FDR, systematically baited the Japanese into attacking, Pearl Harbor- using a strict sanctions regime [= an economic strangle-hold = economic warfare = what O-Bomber’s doing vs Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc], because FDR wanted to turn US public opinion from anti-war to pro-war [so FDR could then come to aid his & Obama’s distant relative- UK’s PM Winston Churchill]. There’s too much evidence that FDR’s regime knew days, if not weeks, before Dec 7, 1941- that the Japan’s main fleet was sailing toward Hawaii- & they definitely knew hours before the attack began.

> 3rd: In this speech O-Bomber regurgitates the lame-stream ‘official ‘conspiracy theory’ RE the 9-11 ‘New Pearl Harbor’ event- which both he & Kerry would use to justify Bush’s invasion of Af-Pak, as the so-called ‘Good War’ [on Terror = War on Islam- I’ll NOT go into the myriad of valid reasons to question the ‘official’ ‘tale’ RE 9-11]. They’re still repeating this ‘tale’ even though OBL most likely died in Dec 2001 in Tora Bora- either from chronic kidney disease or maybe KIA. Of course in May 2011 O-Bomber would take credit for ‘officially’ killing off the ‘legend’ of the ‘Phantom Menace’- OBL. Yet even though his own Intel chiefs admit that there’s no more than 50 - 100 AL-CIAeda still left in Afghanistan [cause they’ve all been shipped to Libya & now Syria], never-the-less O-Bomber still refuses to leave there.  

 

PS: IMO O-Bomber did NOT thoughtlessly back himself in a corner w his 'red-line' rhetoric- IMO he's too clever for that & thus he knew exactly what the implications of what he said meant. He was deliberately establishing a pretext for war.   



Clicky Web Analytics
blog | by Dr. Radut