Nobel Peace Prize Winner Ready to Make Feeble Unilateral Gesture Against Syria

Posted on Comments

The British Parliament voted against war, but now that the oceans stopped rising and the planet has begun to heal and Obama has “restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth” — what, you didn’t notice? — President Gutsy Call has decided that go-it-alone foreign policy and military intervention without congressional authorization are the humane and democratic thing to do:

The goal of the cruise missile strikes the United States is planning to carry out in Syria is to restore the smudged “red line” that President Obama drew a year ago against the use of poison gas. . . .
But the military strategy that the Obama administration is considering is not linked to its larger diplomatic strategy of persuading President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to yield power and support negotiations that would end the bloody civil war. . . .
Mr. Obama appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday when he characterized the potential military operation as “a shot across the bow” that would be intended to caution Mr. Assad from further chemical weapons attacks. “That doesn’t solve all the problems inside of Syria,” Mr. Obama told the PBS program “NewsHour,” “and, you know, it doesn’t obviously end the death of innocent civilians inside of Syria.”

A mere gesture — a politically motivated gesture rejected by our allies, a gesture that won’t actually achieve any tangible policy goal, except to remind our nation’s enemies that when Obama talks tough, they can disregard anything he says and suffer no consequence more severe than a token symbolic response and an angry speech or two.

 

56 comments

  2. Obama’s Syrian attack plan, with French input:

    [French accent]

    “I fart in your general direction!”

    [/French accent]

  4. Iraqi NBC troops: “Oh, man, we gotta load these @*&^%! trucks again?! I was starting to like the Be’kaa valley…! And with only two days’ notice!”

  5. WAR CHIEFTAIN BARACK OBAMA: “Right! When they bring the rabbit inside, Hagel, Kerry and I will leap out and —”

    “Who, sir?”

    “Hagel. Kerry and—oh, bloody hell…”

  6. Oh, it’s pitiable. It’s all draining away into a welter of self-pity and mumbles about R2P…but not really.

    This is revolting.

  12. Most dangerous scenario: Assad stockpiles a metric ton of chemical weapons at ground zero. An American Tomahawk detonates the pile, causing a humanitarian disaster not seen since May, 1945. Oh, and all those international laws that America will be accused of breaking by employing prohibited chemical weapons? Yeah, there are consequences.
    Russia wins big. PRC wins. Iran wins. US of A under ban. That’s smart diplomacy for ya…

  13. Assad’s just going to step down? If he does, he’s dead, and so is his family, and so are his associates. What the hell kind of incentive is that?

    And then al-Qaida, i.e. “the rebels” step into power. And we helped them. This is just too nuanced for me.

  14. You twitter folks should start a new thing up telling the Joint Chiefs that they should just tell barack they launched missiles and really blew sh*t up.

    He never comes to briefings anyway, so he’ll totally buy it. Then when he makes his big speech, the press will totally buy it, because they get barack directly through leeching onto his polyps.

    Then the left will buy it because they are beyond gullible.

    It’s easy. Just like school, “Yes, I did read chapter seven last night on Heteronormative Mano-eroticism of the Misunderstood Criminal Class. I found it very informative.”

  17. That’s kind of my take. “You’re going to kill me anyway, why shouldn’t I use gas? ”

    Assad seeing the end is near could suicide by nuclear device. If he’s the madman our government says he is.

Comments are closed.