"Moreover, having declared that the use of chemical munitions would provoke “consequences” while otherwise ruling out intervention, the president signaled that every other weapon in the Syrian arsenal would be tolerated. The non-response to the past week’s attacks confirms such a conclusion and will likely encourage more strikes: The regime is believed to possess hundreds of the missiles. Meanwhile, the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which reportedly acquired Scuds from Syria in 2010 for possible use against Israel, will likely draw its own lessons from Mr. Obama’s passivity.
Syria is reported to have chemical-weapon warheads that can be carried by Scuds. If there is a missile-borne chemical attack, will the United States be prepared to quickly respond, in order to prevent further atrocities? If so, Mr. Obama has given no public indication of it."
Okay, the use of chemical weapons in Syria would indeed be an abomination. However, what I don't understand here is what is the difference between firing a notoriously inaccurate Scud and gunning down unarmed civilians in the street with sniper rifles. Why is WaPo suddenly up in arms over Assad's use of these missiles against rebel-controlled regions? Why didn't WaPo protest Assad's butchery when Hillary Clinton made a point of declaring in March 2011, "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer"?
Go figure.
No comments:
Post a Comment