Tuesday, September 10, 2013

What did you think of Obama's speech?

I'm out of time today, so I just want to share a quick link and some quotes from Rod Dreher's analysis of Obama's Syria speech tonight:
Second, I still don’t get what is so uniquely horrible about poison gas. The president said that gas weapons kill “indiscriminately.” Well, so do nuclear weapons. So, for that matter, do cruise missiles. I’m not trying to be facetious here; I really don’t understand why it is worse for innocent civilians (or soldiers, for that matter) to die from poison gas attack than from a daisy cutter. Will the Syrian civilians who would inevitably die from US missile attacks on Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles care how their death came?

The president also claimed that Assad holding chemical weapons is “also a danger to our security.” Why? Because terrorists might get hold of these weapons. That’s weak. If Assad falls, which becomes a greater likelihood if the US attacks, who does Obama think will come into possession of these chemical weapons? Plus, said the president, other nations will think it’s okay to build and stockpile chemical weapons if we don’t act, and Iran will be emboldened to build nuclear weapons, and, and …

The idea that bombing Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles will make Iran less determined to build nuclear weapons is ludicrous. The Iranians perfectly well understand why their nuclear production facilities have not been bombed yet. Unlike Syria, their country is not within easy reach of US warships. A US attack on Syria’s chemical weaponry will not change this fact.

The president promised that he “will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.” I believe he is sincere in his intention not to do that, but that is a promise he cannot honor. Nobody knows what would happen after an American attack on Syria. [...]

Not one word tonight about Christians in Syria. Not one.

Read the whole thing here.

If you watched the speech tonight, what did you think of it? 

1 comment:

Caroline said...

My impression was that it was PR to make it sound like the president just wants to help out the oppressed, when really the issue is what he hinted at, that terrorists could get a-hold of weapons. One also has to wonder how much just has to do with international politics too though. And I'm cynical about the whole "getting Congress to vote" on Syria. The last 10 years have proved that presidents no longer look to Congress for permission to go to war of any kind. I wonder if it's just a ploy to make Congress look impotent.