From historian Andrew Roberts, in The Wall Street Journal, comes this:
There is a long and honorable history of the civilized world treating those dictators who use poison gas as qualitatively different from the normal ruck of tyrants whose careers have so stained the 20th and 21st centuries.
President Obama, who talks endlessly of the importance of civilized values, must now uphold this one.
What he said. RTWT.
…with just a tinge of pink.
Since Obama declared last August that chemical weapons would constitute a “red line,” the administration this past June did conclude that the government used chemical weapons.
Now, a year later, and after additional CW attacks (which our allies have tended to confirm, even though our government will not admit of this), comes this:
…Syrian activists are accusing Bashar Assad’s forces of killing hundreds in a gas attack—in what would be the worst and deadliest chemical attack to date.
The attack raises new concerns that the so-called “red line” in Syria has been crossed, violated and effectively ignored.
That a major gas attack, with hundreds of casualties, occurred has been confirmed by video, symptom suites, and eye witness accounts. Intelligence sources confirm that the Syrian rebels are very unlikely to be capable of mounting a chemical attack of this magnitude. Beyond that, the political consequences, even in Syria, of being found out render a rebel CW attack of this size even more unlikely.
President Barack Obama, though, had this to say, through his secondary spokesman, Josh Earnest:
The United States strongly condemns any and all use of chemical weapons. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must be held accountable. Today, we are formally requesting that the United Nations urgently investigate this new allegation. The UN investigative team, which is currently in Syria, is prepared to do so, and that is consistent with its purpose and mandate.
Yeah, that’ll show ’em. Assad is shaking in his loafers.
What do “held accountable” or “unacceptable” (another favorite Obamatalk word) mean when there are no consequences?
What’s the likelihood of that? The new President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, is actively reviving the cult of Mao Tse-Tung that was so destructive of China and of Sino-US relations in the last century, which continue to taint our relationship today, and which poison now is being refreshed.
Early, public symbols of the revival include
In a reflection of Mao’s “reeducation” programs, both explicit and through state media, Xi has
Mao was a steadfast enemy of the West and of us in particular. His successor is showing himself to be disinterested in friendship.
I wrote earlier about the Muslim Brotherhood and their assault on their fellow Egyptians’ freedom and on their very lives.
Here’s an update.
Yet President Barack Obama is threatening a regime that answered the call of the people to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood dictator Mohammed Morsi. He’s condemning their role in attempting to restore order and reopen parts of Cairo occupied by the Brotherhood while saying nothing about the Brotherhood’s violence, torchings, and murders beyond the usual Obamatalk blandishments about the need for…restraint. And he’s cancelled joint exercises with the Egyptian military—cancelled them, rather than postponing them so they’re not a distraction while the Egyptians attempt to restore order.
While the world, including our own government, decries the Egyptian government’s efforts to clear two Muslim Brotherhood encampments in downtown Cairo, it’s important to keep a couple of things in mind, regardless of what we might think about that crackdown.
The violence, the bloodshed, is entirely on the hands of the Brotherhood. The police went in with water cannon and tear gas, and they were met with gunfire (including mortar rounds in other cities, as the Brotherhood’s decision to riot spread). They’re openly rioting, but they’re cynically not limiting themselves to opposition to the Egyptian police: they’re also butchering any Coptic Christians that they can reach (generally in southern Egypt, as the Christians have been hunted out in the north, by this gang and others), desecrating these Christian churches in the process. Never mind, just kill them all, seems to be the Brotherhood’s attitude.
The Brotherhood could have kept their protests peaceful. Think what a powerful statement that would have been in the face of the force—however gentle—the police would still have had to use to clear those encampments. Instead, the Brotherhood demanded violence, demanded to be killed in their protests so that they could be martyred.
This is a violent movement, bent on violent destruction of all who disagree with them.