A month ago, the Syrian forces loyal to Bashir al Assad carried out a massive attack on civilians with chemical weapons that killed about 1500 people. It was the sixteenth attack with chemical weapons by the Assad forces. It was also the first that was captured to a great extent on video, so the entire world got to see the dead and the dying. The American government labeled Assad a monster; Secretary of State Kerry likened Assad to Hitler. Around the world, Assad was condemned as a war criminal who had committed crimes against humanity.
Then last week, things changed. Russia gave president Obama a way to avoid having to conduct an unpopular military strike against the Assad regime, and a deal was struck that basically cements Assad into place as the leader of Syria for another six months at a minimum. While that deal may still fall apart, Obama took the course of accepting the Syrian presidency of Assad, the mass murderer, the war criminal, the Hitlerite, and the worst of the worst. It was a monument to hypocrisy.
Now the media is following suit. Today, I saw the second interview of Assad on an American television network. There was Assad responding thoughtfully to questions from an American reporter. No one would know from his answers that this man is a monster. He seems reasonable because the media gives him a platform from which to lie. Assad claimed that his forces never committed a chemical attack. The evidence, however, says that those forces attack sixteen times with chemical weapons. That is something which ought not be forgotten.
So here's the question: Just because president Obama wanted political cover for his chaotic foreign policy, must the media rehabilitate war criminals? Must America be presented with this depraved monster as if he were some loveable old father figure? I don't think so. This is not a man with whom we share basic beliefs but just have different opinions as to what ought to be done. This is a man whose conduct has earned him a place in the war criminal hall of fame. We should not forget this.
Then last week, things changed. Russia gave president Obama a way to avoid having to conduct an unpopular military strike against the Assad regime, and a deal was struck that basically cements Assad into place as the leader of Syria for another six months at a minimum. While that deal may still fall apart, Obama took the course of accepting the Syrian presidency of Assad, the mass murderer, the war criminal, the Hitlerite, and the worst of the worst. It was a monument to hypocrisy.
Now the media is following suit. Today, I saw the second interview of Assad on an American television network. There was Assad responding thoughtfully to questions from an American reporter. No one would know from his answers that this man is a monster. He seems reasonable because the media gives him a platform from which to lie. Assad claimed that his forces never committed a chemical attack. The evidence, however, says that those forces attack sixteen times with chemical weapons. That is something which ought not be forgotten.
So here's the question: Just because president Obama wanted political cover for his chaotic foreign policy, must the media rehabilitate war criminals? Must America be presented with this depraved monster as if he were some loveable old father figure? I don't think so. This is not a man with whom we share basic beliefs but just have different opinions as to what ought to be done. This is a man whose conduct has earned him a place in the war criminal hall of fame. We should not forget this.
No comments:
Post a Comment