On the eve of addressing us about the Syrian situation and his need to be able to go in and bomb, Obama late today stepped into the bucket with his other foot. Caught with his pants down on the "red line" issue, Obama has had his minions out in the hinterlands stumping for support for his "imminent" attack on Syria designed to impress Assad with the seriousness of the matter. Assad has denied chemical weapons were used; Putin has backed Assad up saying they have proof that the weapons were deployed by rebels.
Monday, Putin suggested that an international agreement might be reached where the Syrian chemical weapons would come under control of the United Nations. That was followed by the revelation that the Iranians have been warning us for over a year that the Syrian rebels had acquired chemical weapons. Obama, instead of denying all of this, has said he is agreeable to discussion of the U.N. idea and Reid promptly announced that a scheduled vote on the Senate floor to allow Obama authority to bomb Syria has been postponed.
Are we dealing with another Benghazi scenario, where the initial story given to us was an outright lie? Just who really is to blame for that chemical attack? Is this really about changing the subject from the Benghazi Massacre, I.R.S., D.O.J., N.A.S. ad infinitum?
No comments:
Post a Comment