Krauthammer "cul-de-sac"another fine journalism mess

Republican pundit Charles Krauthammer pontificates with authoritave, albeit wrong minded, flair. He reminds me of a political version of Oliver Hardy, of the popular Laurel & Hardy comedy team. 

Oliver Hardy of the team of "Laural and Hardy"

Like Hardy, who performed his comedy in hundreds of features and films, Krauthammer acts like he knows what he's doing in every situation, as though he's an all knowing expert. Similarly, Krauthammer typically has a talent for capturing the moment (just like Hardy!) but at the the end of his argument, his credibility fails and his bumbling reasoning is exposed.  

Krauthammer's short memory and his opinion about President Obama's immersion in the currently disintegrating Syrian crises is another example of "Hardy-onian" fumbling punditry.

It's convoluted thinking for Krauthammer to criticize President Obama's Syrian policy. He knows that Republicans have blocked every foriegn policy initiative, whereby a US led coalition could have helped to prevent the Syrian humanitarian and civil war crises.

In fact, Krauthammer's short term memory is also blocking the historic facts. His opinion, published in The Washington Post, completely overlooked how the Republicans stopped an intervention when the evil Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas, to kill his own people!  Although the US is a signer on the Geneva Protocol, outlawing the use of poison gas, the US Republican led Congress chose to ignore this obligation and, likewise, ignored Assad's evil and deadly use of the poison.  

Krauthammer selectively chose, instead, to remember his own "Hardy-onian" reinvention of the Syrian crisis. He writes, "Against the advice of his top civilian and military aides, Obama refused to intervene (in Syria). The widows and orphans (Obama) now so ostentatiously champions are the product of his coldhearted refusal to do anything that might sully his peacemaking image." This is a reinvention of history. Republicans are culpable in the Syrian disaster and humanitarian genocide.

Dear Mr. Krauthammer, I remember the development of the Syrian crisis differently. In fact, only God knows how many mothers lost their children during Assad's use of poison gas on his people, while the Republican congress ignored the Geneva Protocol.

Moreover, Krauthammer contributes to the unfounded fear about innocent refugees who are not terrorists. He writes, "Obama charged the Republicans with cowardice, afraid to grant admittance to '3-year-old orphans'. He gave zero credit to the very real concern of governors and other officials that terrorists could be embedded amid the refugees. This is no theoretical proposition. At least one of the Paris attackers came to France by way of Greece."  
Oh paaaleeze Mr. Krauthammer! 

As a journalist, you have an ethical obligation to report the news, rather than to create it. There's no evidence that any of the attackers in France were Syrian refugees. Rather, the killers were terrorists who somehow avoided international surveillance. 

Instead, Krauthammer should write (in Maine Writer prose), "President Obama gets credit for reminding Americans about how difficult it is for any refugees to enter the US, and this diligence is essential to protect Americans from the risk of ISIS "look alike" attacks". 

Fueling refugee mania, when there's no evidence to support your fear mongerng is buzzing on yellow journalism.

Unfortunately, Krauthammer writes his salient opinion point at the very end of his article, assuming the reader can endure his narrative long enough to read it.  He writes, "...Trump-like anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, now anti-Muslim, anti-Arab rhetoric — and don’t forget those cunning Chinese stealing our jobs and ruthless Mexicans raping our women — will not play well in a general election. Politically, it will be fatal. John Kasich has forcefully denounced this slide into the swamp. Where are the others?"

Advising Charles Krauthammer about journalism is like telling Oliver Hardy he isn't really funny. But, in my opinion, Krauthammer should remember journalism 101, ie to begin his essays with the point to be made in the narrative. 

Krauthammer's essay, "The Syrian immigration cul-de-sac", is "another fine mess" he can't explain with accuracy.

(And, if you don't mind my asking.....how did the metaphor "cul-de-sac" fit with your opinion, anyway?)

Lobbying Against Genocide - Nobody

Let's face it, Syrian diplomacy between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov worked, at least for the time being, because Russia and President Putin didn't want to deal with the outcome of a US weapons attack on Syria, post the chemical massacre of civilians on August 21, 2013. This massacre occurred for no reason, except, because Assad's government wanted to do it.  Subsequently, the US Congress didn't have any gumption to follow up on enforcement of a ban on chemical weapons, as ratified in the Geneva Protocol, because, frankly, there are simply no lobbyists in Washington DC who are paid enough to petition against genocide.  Nevertheless, the evidence for retaliation is there. Moreover, there's also a case to be made for a US national security risk, because, if Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, then there's absolutely no restraint, whatsoever, against using the same deadly gas to kill American military or other opposition forces.  

Even Syrian President Assad doesn't seem to have much steam in opposing what the world is calling his government's Sarin attack on innocent civilians in a "chemical massacre" aka genocide. Nevertheless, many nations, notably Great Britain, appear to be reluctant to retaliate against this henious crime. Athough President Obama made a valiant effort to demonstrate anger and retaliation against Assad's genocide and to uphold the world ban on the use of chemical weapons as established in the Geneva Protocol, these threats were abandoned to make way for diplomacy to work out what could be a better solution than an overt attack, meaning the removal of Assad's Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, will Assad really remove those weapons? Ahhhh, well, it all looks good in print and in photo-ops, but enforcement is still an ambiguous science, to say the least.  It seems to me, Assad won't take well to being told what to do by Russian President Putin or anybody else.  If he doesn't do what he's told, however, he is likely to loose his job.  Of course, he's probably already been "fired" by Putin, anyway, because the egocentric Russian leaders is thriving on the limelight he's soaking up in taking a central role to help resolve the Syrian chemical weapons crisis.  Assad is, at this point, a puppet and his Russian controlled strings could be snipped off at any time.  

As a matter of fact, a descriptive people's cartoon is in the normally censured Syrian media showing President Putin putting a heart defibrillator on Assad's chest.  No explanation needed.

Let's face it, Assad is a terribly unpopular and incompetent Syrian president. He's dealing with a horrible civil war while over 2 million of his citizens are living in refugee camps in surrounding countries.  Now, he's gone and massacred over 1,000 civilians with Sarin poison gas, besides! There's no way President Assad can be a legitimate leader of Syria after being at the center of the catastrophic incidents he's been unable to control.  

Nevertheless, the Syrian opposition sees the US-Russian tentative agreement, sans Assad's involvement (it appears) to be a setback to forcing a regime change. Well, that's probably true, but, on the other hand, another Syrian president will probably be hand picked by Putin, anyway.

Meanwhile, over 1,000 civilians were murdered while they slept because President Assad killed them with Sarin gas. Our US Congress was unable to rise to the occasion to retaliate in support of those dead people because, frankly, no lobbyists were evidently hanging around their Washington DC offices or in their staff meetings to protect Syrians from genocide.  

It seems to me, the National Rifle Association's Wayne Lapierre could do a little to redeem himself as a quasi anarchist if he put some of his high paid time protecting Second Amendment rights for Americans, into defending civilians against genocide.  

But, the tragedy that doesn't end is the lack of sincerity in compassion for those civilians gassed by Sarin gas in a chemical massacre. They will undoubtedly melt into the litany of genocides listed on the website genocides in history. 

Nobody, apparently, are lobbyists against genocide.

Syria - Five Reasons to Support President Obama

Of course it's easy to say "No" to military intervention in Syria, even when the country's President Assad used chemical weapons to murder well over a thousand civilians who he apparently felt were, somehow, threatening his leadership.

Nobody in their right minds would deliberately choose the risk of war over the opportunity to simply stay neutral, regardless of how many innocent civilians were murdered in the Syrian Sarin gas genocide.  

But Assad's deplorable use of chemical weapons against civilians crosses an international, global red line, said Secretary of State John Kerry speaking in Paris, France.

Obviously, the easier decision is to ignore the use of chemical weapons, because their use didn't violate American national security. Yet, support for a response is obviously a more difficult decision. Any reasons in support of a US military led response to the Syrian chemical weapons attack on civilians are fraught with risk for a wider war.  Nevertheless, doing nothing will likely postpone another, even worse, issue, at a later time. Evil dictators who use chemical weapons once will do so again and, worse, open the door to other like minded tyrants to do the same.

Here are five important reasons the United States should lead in response to the genocide of Syrian civilians who died as a result of the Sarin gas genocide.  

Of course, the most important reason is because Assad committed genocide against his country's citizens. This one reason is so evident, it supersedes all others. 

Here are five others:

1.  War is evil and destructive, but adding chemical weapons to the arsenal of any military initiative puts momentum in the direction of the side with the most poisons. There's no end to this acceleration with nothing but devastating outcomes for both sides.  Leaders who use chemical weapons without retribution will do so again.

2.  American credibility is on the line. To do nothing will reinforce our nation's vulnerability among our allies. America will need the help of allies in unknown future conflicts, but they could become reluctant to support a nation where ambiguity replaces leadership. Moreover, no response gives our enemies, like Al Qaeda, a sense of empowerment, as lack of a response will indicate weakness.

3.  Chemical weapons are a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).  President Assad crossed an international red line, ratified to ban the use of chemical weapons.  The Geneva Protocol prohibits the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. Most civilized nations in the world signed this Protocol.

4.  Syria is a shield for Iranian nuclear weapons development. Senator John McCain has been prophetic about the risk of doing nothing in Syria. Allowing the Syrian rebels to go undefended serves to shield Iran from the intense scrutiny of its own nuclear weapons program - a diversion.  McCain has been a proverbial voice in the wilderness about the dangers of inaction in Syria.  In July, 2013 he said arming Syrian rebels against President Assad is an important step in deterring Iran from its nuclear ambitions.  Speaking to Army Radio on a visit to Israel, the Republican Senator McCain deflected concerns that weapons provided to rebels could fall into the hands of terrorists, who might use them against the United States and Israel. Rather, arming the rebels will help prevent Assad from expanding his influence in the Middle East while providing cover to Iran's nuclear weapons program.  

“There’s [sic] no good options,” said McCain, “Would you rather have these weapons – perhaps some of them – in the hands of the wrong people, or would you rather have [Syrian President] Bashar Assad prevail and then encourage Iran to further their ambitions on nuclear weapons?”

5.  Genocide is genocide is genocide.  Look to the past as an indication of the future.  Past genocides have remained in historical memories far beyond the experiences:  (a) French genocides of the Huguenots beginning with the 1572, St. Bartholomew Day's massacres; (b)  1755 Engliish genocide and deportation of French Acadians called Le Grand Derangement, from Acadia, modern day Nova Scotia, an event immortalized by American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in the epic poem "Evangeline", published in 1847;  (c)  the Armenian genocide of 1915 also known as the Armenian Massacres and by Armenians as the Great Crime was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. It took place during and after World War I and was implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and forced labor, and the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches to the Syrian Desert.  The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians, the Greeks and other minority groups were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy; (d) the evil Holocaust perpetrated by the German Nazis, against the Jewish people; nine million Jews resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed in Nazi Extermination camps located throughout Europe; (e) Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia during the 1970s, led by the tyrant, a Cambodian named Pol Pot.

A somber and daunting genocides in history reads like a doomsday list on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Assad, held responsible for the Syrian genocides, is now included in the death list. Nevertheless, Assad has the additional distinction of joining a short list of tyrants to use deadly chemical weapons to kill civilians - his evil comrades are Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

Of course, opponents of Syrian retribution have an easy position to defend. They claim that any US attack against the Assad regime will engage our nation in a conflict where our involvement may not significantly change the outcome of the conflict.  Maybe opponents of intervention are right, but doing nothing can't be "right", either. 

Looking to the future, we can only use the past as an indicator of how doing nothing in the face of genocides creates centuries of unresolved anger.  Let's support President Obama, who is dedicated to doing something to prevent future genocides by evil leaders who will find the easy use of chemical weapons can quickly prevent uprisings. We must show the world how any leader who engages in genocide will receive justice.  There are plenty of reasons to support a retribution against Assad in Syria, but all of them are difficult to put into a bumper sticker or sound bite.  

Obviously, President Obama must make a convincing argument to a justifiably reluctant American public, who have every reason to resist Syrian involvement.  

But, we certainly don't want any other Assad's killing civilians because, eventually, left unchallenged, that's exactly what will happen.

Syria and Sarin

President Obama needs the persuasive ability of Winston Churchill to convince Americans about the need for moral leadership against the use of Sarin poison gas in Syria.  Perhaps General Petraeus and his strategic military leadership will help.

Americans are politically divided about a lot of issues that don't rise to the threshold of life versus death. Issues like immigration reform, Obamacare, Medicaid and tax equity would disappear like sea smoke on a sunny day if US citizens were threatened with death by Sarin, a weapon of mass destruction poison gas. 

Even the National Rifle Association would oppose the use of Sarin poison gas against innocent civilians!

Syrian citizens who were victims of Sarin didn't have a choice on August 21, 2013, when the government of President Bashar al Assad murdered over a thousand of Syrian citizens with the poison gas.  Assad's leadership has been threatened in a protracted civil war.  Assad obviously doesn't "get" that his leadership might as well have been "gassed", along with the innocents he murdered, because no dictator can survive the genocide of his own citizens.  It's just a matter of time before Assad is taken out as President of Syria, either by assassination or jailed as an international criminal.

Meanwhile, the dead innocent people who were caught in this genocide are the evidence of this violation of the Geneva Protocol, "The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare".

Although Americans saw some video images of the massive civilian Sarin victims, the US Congress was shown more graphic images of the tortuous deaths suffered by the victims.

CNN reports images of men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background.

These are some of the hard-to-stomach images that the Obama administration has shown a select group of senators in closed-door briefings to make the case that a limited military attack on Syria is justified.

CNN obtained 13 different videos seen by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that depict the gruesome scene of an chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. The administration told senators that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community.

The attack, allegedly carried out by Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad, touched off a critical foreign policy question: Is a military response merited?

The videos capture a moment of panic, as those who are standing try to feed water to those who appear incapacitated. Prayers are repeated.

Meanwhile, retired four star General David Petraeus has gone public to help explain the risks of not responding to the Syrian genocide.

General Petraeus is a highly skilled military professional.  

Petraeus backs Obama administration on Syria

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus announced Saturday he's behind the White House's plan for limited military strikes against the Syrian government.

In a statement, President Barack Obama's former CIA director called for Congress to support the administration's call for airstrikes against President Bashar al-Assad's forces, warning that rejecting the president's request would embolden "Iran, North Korea, and other would be aggressors."

"Failure of Congress to approve the president’s request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world," Petraeus said.

Petraeus also said that the planned aerial assault "is necessary" to both enforce the international laws forbidding the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Assad's overall military capabilities.

Petraeus’ statement was endorsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), who described the retired general as “the most respected military leader of our time.”

In addition to the persuasive skills of the knowledgeable General Petraeus, the list of knowledgeable people who support taking action against the murderer Assad includes Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain and the President of France Francois Hollande.  

Obviously, this short list of impressive leaders will need to engage in a non-stop communications campaign to educate the understandably reluctant American public about the urgency of responding to Assad's Sarin attack.  

Unfortunately, politically divided Americans are asked to unite about a crises happening half way around the world. Moreover, the crises in happening in Syria, a Middle Eastern nation where the people are nearly as culturally different from Americans as Aboriginal Australians are from Alaskan Eskimos. 

But, regardless of how politically divided we are, Americans must care about our fellow human beings who are victims of genocide.

Syrians murdered with Sarin will not be an isolated incident if Assad gets away with genocide.  Although Assad's days are numbered, his evil act opened the door to other evil dictators to potentially use the same tactics to subdue rebellions.  Syrians attacked by Sarin eventually deserve the satisfaction of justice.  More important, responding to the Syrian Sarin attack will be a badly needed warning to future perpetrators of genocide because, tragically, there always seems to be another one lurking in the wings of tyrannical power.  

Humanity's Red Line in the Sand

House Speaker John Boehner asserted that Syria had crossed the “red line” staked out by Obama last year – the use of chemical weapons on its own people.

This Red Line Was Drawn by Humanity in 1925:

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928.  This protocol is humanity's line in the sand for evil doers, military leaders and dictators who would use chemical warfare for the purpose of inflicting genocide as a means of terrorizing people into intimidation and submission.

President Obama launched the threat of drawing a red line in the sand as a threat against Syrian use of poison gas to subdue civilians who are sympathetic with the country's rebels currently engaged in a civil war against the government.  This line has been crossed.
Over a thousand of innocent people were gassed by Al Assad in his relentless attack on Syrian rebels.  Al Assad didn't kill militants with Sarin gas.  In fact, he murdered children.

Now, of course, the media and Congress are asking what kind of retribution the "red line" requires to enforce the threat?

Although the international buzz is all about the "red line", the reality of the situation is the line of innocent bodies lined up on floors in makeshift morgues.  These lines of small bodies are now  a bloody trough. Something must be done to punish President Al Assad for committing this extraordinary act of genocide against his own people - or any other people.  

Al Assad's assault on civilians including children didn't only defy President Obama;  his evil arrogance has put him on a short list of evil people who have been doomed as a result of using similarly terror tactics.  This short list includes Al Assad with Adolf Hitler and the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  

As for American national security, there's no question about the impact of letting an arrogant dictator have his way with crossing the "red line"of genocide, by any means.  Recall Pol Pot (mass assassination), Adolf Hitler (Holocaust), Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, to name a few.

Allowing Al Assad to violate the Geneva Accord and assaulting civilians also puts all military at risk during any conflicts.  

Obviously, an understandably war weary American public are horrified by the prospect of another Middle East military engagement.  But, if Al Assad gets away with genocide, because he violated the Geneva Accord, the consequences will horrify Americans even more than targeted actions needed to punish his evil deed.

Humanity drew a red line against the use of chemical weapons in 1925, and the enforcement of the Geneva Protocol must hold Al Assad accountable for his evil arrogance.