White House States They’re Not Looking For Regime Change In Syria

If we do start bombing, what would be the point? A little spanking?

(The Hill) The White House said Tuesday that President Obama is not seeking “regime change” in Syria from any military strikes launched in response to President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

“The options we are considering are not about regime change,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “That is not what we are contemplating here.”

The White House spokesman said that the administration was instead simply weighing a reaction to the violation of “an international standard” barring the use of chemical weapons.

“It is not our policy to respond to this transgression with regime change,” he said.

So, what’s the point? As CNN notes, over 100,000 have been killed during the civil war (which includes lots of Islamists from a range of countries), so, does 1,300 killed in a chemical attack outweigh 100000 killed in conventional attacks? Either way you’re dead. But, one apparently crossed an arbitrary red line

Carney said Tuesday that Syria’s use of chemical weapons did pose an actual threat to the U.S.

“I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States’ national security,” Carney said.

He forgot to tell us exactly what that threat is. I’d like to hear what it is, and not just from the White House, but from others who have been pushing for action, such as John McCain. Because I don’t see it. Perhaps someone has a guess?

(The Hill) Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”

I can’t remember anytime that I’ve ever agreed with Kucinich, but, hey, there’s always a first.

Reuters is reporting that US spies intercepted calls proving that the Syrian government initiated the chemical attack. Iran is saying that Israel will be the first victim of a US strike.

I’m betting on 830pm Friday for the strikes. That would be 330am in Damascus. What’s your bet?

Oh, and when does Obama give the Nobel Peace Prize back?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “White House States They’re Not Looking For Regime Change In Syria”

  1. Trish Mac says:

    I don’t think they have a clue WHAT to look for. He has not made any right decsions in the Middle East to date.

    This is the most internationally inept president ever. And for all those Bush bashers- that man got more respect than ten Obamas. A true statement whether you liked him or not.

    In Middle East policy-Obama’s got nothing but a piece of red chalk and it doesn’t scare a single one of them.

  2. Wicked_Filner_Wednesday says:

    He and his party haven’t the foggiest idea that they are supporting terrorists. Even the liberal elite of our Repub party are blind to this.

    It’s almost as if…there is a supreme being that is blinding the fools in order for his plan to come to fruition.

    Who’d have thunk that Russia would come to the aid of Syria and Damascus would ever fear the threat of annihilation.

    But, the more Prez “IAMDEHLAW” Obama, blithely trundles ahead. Blind of all consequences.

    There is no winning this. Guest host on Michael Savage show last night said it right: Prez’s people are saying this is not a regime change cuz they don’t want to assassinate anyone. But, they will take out a large number of military bases.
    ?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
    So, it is OK to assassinate lower rank personnel but not the man who leads the military?

    What was one of the defining war winning actions that our founding fathers undertook during our Revolutionary War of Independence against the British and Germans? We took out their leaders!!!

    Take out the leaders (in those kinds of armies) and the lower rank and file have no idea what to do. They quickly fall apart.

    This will not end well for America. Or Damascus.

  3. john says:

    There are 22 million people in Syria 11 million ar children and 11 million are females. Should we allow Assad to gas those whom ever he wishes? The rightwing also refused to come to teh aid of European Jews in the 1930s and said taht THAT was none of our business. Shame on them

  4. Malicious_Filner_Monda says:

    DAMN BOY!!
    Those lies just slide right out of your mouth, like they breed there or somethin’.

    So, you claim:
    22 million people in all of Syria
    11 million (50%) are “children”
    11 million (50%) are women.

    Are you saying john, that Syria is full of women and children and that Syrian women reproduce asexually?

    The CIA says there are around 22million people. Tho, CIA also claims the Golan Heights are part of Syria – nice.

  5. That’s interesting, john, because you and the test of your leftist ilk are upset that we came to the aid of the Iraqi people. What’s changed?

    Of, and I remember when you dipshits refused to come to the aid of the Rwandands. What was the body count, 850 thousand?

  6. Wicked_Filner_Wednesday says:

    How ’bout them Nigerian christians, johnny?
    How ’bout them Coptic christians, johnny?

  7. blick says:

    Oh the irony if Obama finds the WMD that Bush was looking for.

  8. Trish Mac says:

    oh what kismet blick-

Bad Behavior has blocked 7020 access attempts in the last 7 days.