Peter Wehner, "President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria": The Commander-in Chief Who Likes to Watch

Tweet

"I like to watch."

- Chance the Gardener, "Being There" (1979)

As I observed yesterday, with Russian deployment of S-400 missile systems in Latakia, which are capable of downing aircraft 250 miles away (including planes landing at and departing from Israel's Ben Gurion Airport), President Obama has ceded control over the entire Syrian theater of operations to Putin. Thus, it should come as no surprise that RT is today gloating:

"Both the American and Turkish air forces halted their strikes on Syrian territory around the time Russia deployed S-400 air defense complexes at the Khmeimim airbase, from which it stages its own incursions against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

A spokesperson of the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) told Sputnik on Friday that the absence of anti-IS coalition airstrikes 'has nothing to do with the S400 deployment' in Syria."

Nothing to do with the deployment of the S-400 systems? Yeah, right.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria," Peter Wehner writes:

"In 2012 Mr. Obama rebuffed plans to arm Syrian rebels despite the fact that his former secretaries of defense and state, his C.I.A. director and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supported them. He repeatedly insisted he would not put American soldiers in Syria or pursue a prolonged air campaign. He refused to declare safe havens or no-fly zones. And it was also in 2012 that Mr. Obama warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that using chemical weapons would cross a 'red line.' Yet when Mr. Assad did just that, Mr. Obama did nothing.

The president, perhaps fearful of offending the pro-Assad Iranian government with which he was trying to negotiate a nuclear arms deal, chose to sit by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolded. As Walter Russell Mead wrote in The American Interest, 'This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn.'"

Pete's right; however, I believe that America's credibility and deterrent power have also crashed and burned under a commander-in-chief who likes to watch.

Ben Carson on Syria: Both Charles Krauthammer and Ruth Marcus Wrongly Slam Carson

Tweet

In his most recent Washington Post opinion piece, "The most revealing debate yet," Charles Krauthammer wrote of the last Republican presidential debate:

"Ben Carson had an awful night — the Chinese intervening in Syria? "

Similarly, Ruth Marcus in her latest WaPo opinion piece entitled "Carson’s real scandal is his ignorance" would have us know:

"Asked whether he supported President Obama’s move to send Special Operations forces to Syria and leave 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, Carson’s answer careened around like a crazed pinball, bouncing between wrong facts ('You know, the Chinese are there [in Syria]') . . ."

However, as noted in a September 28, 2015 RT article entitled "China’s military advisers ‘heading to Syria to help fight ISIS’ – report":

"DEBKAfile, has cited military sources as saying that a Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning-CV-16, has already been spotted at the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean coast. It was said to be accompanied by a guided missile cruiser."

Historically, DEBKAfile has been extremely accurate. Or stated otherwise, Carson was not entirely off the mark. Both Krauthammer and Marcus owe Carson an apology. (Krauthammer's comment seems to have been based upon Glenn Kessler's Washington Post "Fact Checker" column, and I again ask, who checks the checker?)

Meanwhile, Donald Trump seems to have experienced a meltdown of sorts in Iowa. Will it affect his standing in the polls, or will Republicans insist upon shooting themselves in the foot by nominating him? Stay tuned . . .