Let's review: al-Qaida shows up to battle the Ba'athists, and we're supposed to pick a favourite? @JohnGormleyLive #syria
— Katewerk (@katewerk) August 27, 2013
Drudge has the headlines.
Related: Senator Joe Biden in 2007: I Will Move To Impeach If President Bush Bombs Iran Without Congressional Approval
G you are right to be suspect. Too often we have been led to believe as fact things that turned out not quite as advertised. There weren’t any nuclear weapons in Iraq, though indeed there were lots of other obnoxious things. But remember clearly, the Bush administration meant nuclear weapons in the buildup to the Iraq invasion, and we were clearly told that. The IAEA doesn’t go investigating for chemical weapons; it goes looking for fissile material, and that’s why it was in Iraq in 2002.
Not to pick on Bush, the current administration has been even more deceptive. It supplies AA missiles to the Libyan opposition, avoiding mentioning at every turn that eastern Libya is a prime recruiting and training ground for Al Qaeda. They just sort of neglected to mention that they were providing these missiles to people quite prone to pointing them at civilian air liners. Ambassador Stevens was a casualty of this policy of deception and supplying weapons.
So the only thing present here is a large batch of second-hand accounts, no direct evidence that it was even used, let alone who used it. What irritates me endlessly is the chorus shrieking “Responsibility to Protect” led by types like Lloyd Axworthy and Paul Heinbecker are also the first ones to denounce the military measures being taken in support of their policies. The worst kind of warmonger is one who leads the charge for violent “solutions” and then stabs in the back the military expected to carry it out under ridiculous rules of engagement.