Tuesday, September 03, 2013

The Road to Damascus

Like Saint Paul the Apostle of old, President Obama has had a shocking epiphany on the road to Damascus. Paul set out from Jerusalem to persecute Christians, while Obama set out from Washington (electronically) to persecute Muslims. Each thought his intentions honorable and each was wrong.

Obama declared two years ago that heads of Muslim-states Qaddafi, Mubarak, Saleh, and Assad (Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, respectively) had to go, with the populaces of those nations reading into that declaration “OR ELSE,” expecting action by the U.S. to back up his COMMANDS.

The “Arab Spring” was in full bloom then and Obama’s legacy depended upon his adroitness in changing the Middle East from a collection of despotisms to democracies (or, as could be claimed under Obama, socialisms). Now, all four of those countries are in much worse shape than they were in 2011, with street-fighting and killings in Egypt and, as claimed by the UN, 100,000 dead in Syria in a 2.5-year revolution. Yemen is the virtual home of al Qaeda, perpetrator of 9/11.

Obama made his mark on the “Spring” by picking out one of the weakest, most non-threatening countries in the world militarily—Libya—and, along with arm-twisted NATO as a partner in crime, laid waste to that country in a seven-month war that left it in continuing shambles, a haven for al Qaeda, no telling (literally) how many murdered, and a place where the “ugly American” is unwelcome. Think Benghazi of last year’s 9/11 and the fraud perpetrated by the administration to cover-up its negligence.

The nation doesn’t and will never know its president’s whereabouts during the “Benghazi Massacre,” not that any statement at this late date would matter…just another part of the cover-up. The nation has been told that the president took a 45-minute walk with his chief-of-staff (not Valerie Jarrett this time) on the night following Kerry’s promise of an attack but was influenced to change his mind about bypassing Congress, spitting in the public’s face, and blatantly kissing-off the U.S. Constitution.

This made his brag about not needing Congressional approval for attacking a nation that poses absolutely no threat to this country just so much hot air; however, one wonders who makes policy in the White House—Obama, Kerry, the chief-of-staff…or maybe the kitchen crew, in which case there might be a modicum of common sense utilized.

All of this references Libya, a nation that posed the U.S. even less threat than Syria. The president committed an impeachable offense, something easily proved if the House hadn’t been so feckless, probably afraid of being called racist, with the result being a presidential statement that Congress doesn’t matter…PERIOD. Result: the arrogance of possibly attacking another sovereign entity, Syria, with impunity, especially since the Senate would never have convicted Obama (Clinton redux), no matter how guilty.

But Obama’s change of mind (or evolvement, as he would have it), regardless of who evolved it, was fortuitous because it may have placed him in a “win-win” situation. If the Congress votes a big NO on his planned attack, he can claim that he TRIED to exercise COMPASSION but was waylaid by…the cruel republicans. He can’t blame this self-inflicted problem on George Bush, the usual whine, and must hope folks don’t remember his statement that Congress can’t stop him anyway.

If Congress gives him a go-ahead to blast Syrians into whatever (Obama has expressed no idea thus far, except dropping a few explosives and going home), he can trot out his usual answer to everything—WE WON, once again outdoing the Congress, which most of the time might as well be in Philadelphia anyway. So…either way, he wins.

Perhaps the main lesson to be learned from this sideshow is that nothing beats a sharp chief-of-staff. Of course, if Obama gets more serious about Syria and listens to Senators McCain and Graham, he will buy himself a brand-new war, this time with the odds virtually certain of triggering a massive conflagration in the Middle East.

Syria’s Assad claimed in an interview distributed worldwide on 02 September that the U.S. hasn’t a prayer of proving he gassed the Syrians in his own city. Based on Obama’s cover-up machinery, one’s inclined to believe Assad. Truth is unforgiving.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

No comments: