It is a common statement made by many on the left that their positions consist of "speaking truth to power". Since most of Washington consists of folks who support the left, it seems that those who the left seek to oppress do not have power, and, given the positions of the left, it seems that truth has little to do with them. Nevertheless, while watching the current debate about an attack on Syria, I was struck by just how little the truth was being employed. Let me illustrate:
1. President Obama wants authority for a strike on Syria. He tells us that it won't include US troops in Syria, except John Kerry says that it might.
2. Obama told John McCain that the strike would substantially degrade the ability of the Assad regime to deliver chemical weapons in the future which includes a major reduction in Assad's air power. On the other hand, we hear from other administration sources that the attack will be limited to about 150 cruise missiles, a force that could hardly degrade the Syrian air force in a meaningful way.
3. Obama announced that lethal weapons aid is going to the "vetted" Syrian rebels, but then we are told that since this was first announced in June, nothing has arrived. (By the way, does anyone else wonder who is doing the vetting of the rebels? Maybe Edward Snowden?)
Wouldn't it be nice if Obama had actually gone on national television in prime time and told us all what he actually is planning for Syria and why it is necessary. Wait, on second thought, that probably would not have helped. After all, who would believe him?
1. President Obama wants authority for a strike on Syria. He tells us that it won't include US troops in Syria, except John Kerry says that it might.
2. Obama told John McCain that the strike would substantially degrade the ability of the Assad regime to deliver chemical weapons in the future which includes a major reduction in Assad's air power. On the other hand, we hear from other administration sources that the attack will be limited to about 150 cruise missiles, a force that could hardly degrade the Syrian air force in a meaningful way.
3. Obama announced that lethal weapons aid is going to the "vetted" Syrian rebels, but then we are told that since this was first announced in June, nothing has arrived. (By the way, does anyone else wonder who is doing the vetting of the rebels? Maybe Edward Snowden?)
Wouldn't it be nice if Obama had actually gone on national television in prime time and told us all what he actually is planning for Syria and why it is necessary. Wait, on second thought, that probably would not have helped. After all, who would believe him?
No comments:
Post a Comment