Follow by Email

Monday, September 2, 2013

New York Times Editorial, "Debating the Case for Force": Who Writes this Rot?

In an editorial entitled "Debating the Case for Force" (, The New York Times sets out a series of "peculiar" (I am being kind) claims:

  • "There has to be a vigorous and honest public debate on the use of military force, which could have huge consequences even if it is limited in scope and duration." Response: We are already seeing the consequences. A long-anticipated "shot across the bow" lasting 48 hours has Syrians mocking President Obama as a "coward" (see:

  • "If he is to win Congressional support, Mr. Obama and his top aides will have to explain in greater detail why they are so confident that the kind of military strikes that administration officials have described would deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from gassing his people again (American officials say more than 1,400 were killed on Aug. 21) rather than provoke him to unleash even greater atrocities." Response: Who ever said that Obama & Co. are "confident" regarding Assad's reaction? Let's be honest, if Obama didn't feel compelled to undertake this action owing to his impromptu, sans teleprompter, "red line" declaration, he would never be proposing such action. It's all about saving face.

  • "They will also have to explain how they can keep the United States from becoming mired in the Syrian civil war — something Mr. Obama, for sound reasons, has long resisted — and how military action will advance the cause of a political settlement: the only rational solution to the war." Response: The New York Times seriously seeks a "rational solution" from a monster of Assad's ilk?

  • "There is little doubt that President Obama wants to take military action." Response: My guess is that Obama is secretly hoping that House Republicans will torpedo this initiative to allow the Procrastinator-in-Chief off the hook.

  • "[Obama] should have long ago put in place, with our allies and partners, a plan for international action — starting with tough sanctions — if Mr. Assad used chemical weapons. It is alarming that Mr. Obama did not." Response: "Alarming"? Tell us something we don't know. And this is a man who boasts that his foreign policy accomplishments have been greater than any other president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln?

  • "Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council, which has the responsibility to uphold treaties outlawing chemical weapons use, has failed to act in any way following the August attack, largely because of the opposition of Russia, Mr. Assad’s chief ally and arms supplier, and China. It is appalling that Russia and China have not been the focus of international outrage and pressure."  Response: "Appalling"? Nearly 1,500 Syrians civilians died from sarin gas on August 21, and the editorial board of The New York Times is put off by Putin's subsequent indifference to this horror? What did the editorial board expect? So much for Obama and Hillary's "reset" of relations with Russia.

  • "The Arab League, representing some of the world’s most anti-Assad governments, on Sunday toughened its previous position when it called on the United Nations and the international community to take “necessary measures” against Syria’s government. But, feckless as ever, the League did not specify what measures it supported and, on Monday, the League’s secretary general said there should be no military action without a green light from the United Nations." Response: Do you remember Obama's "famous" June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, during which he declared, "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." "A new beginning"? "Justice and progress"? "Tolerance and the dignity of all human beings"? Yeah, right.

Sadly, Obama was never prepared to be president. I would recommend that he play a few more rounds of golf with Biden (see: and let his brain trust - Kerry and Hagel - sort out this mess . . . not.


  1. Nice elegant people. Where's the problem?

  2. NYT: "Drawing a Line on Syria, U.S. Eyes Iran Talks"

    "If the United States does not enforce its self-imposed “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, this thinking goes, Iran will smell weakness and press ahead more boldly in its quest for nuclear weapons.But that message may be clashing with a simultaneous effort by American officials to explore dialogue with Iran’s moderate new president, Hassan Rouhani..."

    Even prominent Israeli left-wing commentators like Yediot's Yaron London are beginning to doubt Obama's conduct and commitments towards Israel.
    In today's yNet, "Wink on the way to a bomb", London writes "How will the US act when Iran edges toward a bomb? Can we count on the White House's decisive statement assuring us that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons? The period at the end of this firm statement is suspiciously similar to the red line Obama set for Syria just a year ago.",7340,L-4425560,00.html