Anne Bayefsky notes
how Obama has a double-standard on Syria and Iran:
First and foremost, the President cast the rationale for an attack on Syria as a “danger to our national security.” And yet, what is the single greatest threat to the national security of the United States – not tomorrow, but today? There is only one incontrovertible answer, and it is Iran. Not once in his rare appeal to Congress and the American people to use force, however, did President Obama use the word “Iran.”
He twisted and turned and alluded – in the plural – to “governments who would choose to build nuclear arms.” He simply would not come clean with his fellow citizens.
The acquisition of the world’s most dangerous weapon of mass destruction, by a country which is the leading state sponsor of terrorism, dwarfs President Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Syrians, too, would find their lives very different if Iranian support were eliminated from the equation.
If this President were truly serious about protecting America and civilization from WMDs he would set his sights firmly on Iran and take the only action still left to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Bayefsky makes some points about how every argument made about Syria can be applied to Iran as well. Yet, Obama vehemently refuses to bring up the issue of Iran along with Syria. And if he has no intention of dealing convincingly with Iran, then how can we expect the menace in Syria to be handled properly?
Labels: dhimmitude, iran, islam, jihad, syria, terrorism, United States, US Congress