Now those in Syria who’ve been begging us for help speak derisively about us as a result of Obama’s…behavior. On the heels of Obama’s belated acknowledgment that his bright red bunting strewn upon the beach sands had been stepped on and over; followed by his decision to send small arms to Syrian rebels (which all of Arabia already is providing them) with which to fight al Assad’s helicopter, artillery, and tank assaults (supported by Hezbollah fighters and Iranian soldiers); coupled with Obama’s continued refusal to send the rebels the weapons with which to defeat those helicopters and, artillery tubes, and tanks; and his continued refusal to suppress al Assad’s air force in any way, the rebel beneficiaries of the Obama Munificence had this to say:
It’s all talk. Until we see weapons in our hands here in Syria, they are just words floating in the air.
Obama’s team is cited at the WSJ link just above in this way:
While US officials acknowledge that Hezbollah and regime forces are closing in on Aleppo, they believe there is time to train rebels and improve their defenses—with or without a no-fly zone, officials say—underscoring their belief the conflict is nowhere near a conclusion.
Umm, maybe not. This isn’t the mid-19th century, when a two week holdout at the Alamo was enough for Sam Houston to train his forces to effectively resist Santa Ana. More importantly, whose fault is it that the conflict “is nowhere near a conclusion?” It’s not the rebels’.
And those…officials…had this:
US officials question whether US and European arms alone will make a decisive difference in a country already awash in weapons.
What a breathtaking, willful ignorance. Of what use to these persons think small arms—rifles and pistols, and the occasional light machine gun—are against helicopters, artillery, and tanks?
And where is Obama anyway on this seeming change of position concerning chemical attacks and arming the rebels? Why is he sending out low-level functionaries to tell us, in vague terms, about this?
Of what is Obama so terrified that he can’t talk to us—in detail—personally?