Over on my website, I discuss how the primary reasoning for a U.S. attack on Syria has reached the point of being insulting to one’s intelligence:
Did the Syrian government, or did it not, use chemical weapons “” that is the question that will apparently decide whether the U.S. will enter another, messy war, one that may have many long term consequences.
That is the question the media and its talking heads are abuzz with.
And yet, that is also the question that “” to any objective, independent thinker “” is wholly irrelevant.
Why? Because the fact is, from one end of the world to the other, outrageous human rights abuses “” many much worse than the use of chemical weapons “” are going on.
As Bruce Thornton recently put it in a FrontPage Magazine article:
[A]ll this rhetoric about “crimes against humanity” and the “responsibility to protect” reeks of hypocrisy and moral preening. The President said, “We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale.” Who’s he kidding? We already have, in Hussein’s Iraq. Change “gassed” to “bombed,” “fire-bombed,” “hacked to death,” “machine-gunned,” and “starved” and you can cover the globe with the victims whose deaths on a “terrible scale” we have “accepted.” We have stood by and watched millions of women, children, and innocent civilians murdered in all sorts of ways equally as, or more gruesome and painful than, dying by poison gas… Continue reading