Editorial: Why Punish Libya, But Not Syria?

IBD Editorial ^ | March 28, 2011 | Staff

[Kaslin]

Middle East: Our secretary of state says there will be no intervention in Syria because its brutal dictator with territorial designs and nuclear ambitions is a "reformer." Our incoherent Mideast policy just got worse.

'It was ridiculous to call Bashar Assad a reformer. She should not have done that," Ammar Abdulhamid, a spokesman for Syrian protesters, told the Washington Times. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should not have said that because, first, it's not true and, second, it makes our Mideast policy look like Jimmy Carter is running it.

It was her husband who let Carter be our emissary to the mass-murdering North Korean dictatorship of Kim Il Sung. Along the way, Carter praised Kim as a "vigorous and intelligent man." Of North Korea itself, Carter said of that habitat for inhumanity, "I don't see they are an outlaw nation."

Apparently neither Mrs. Clinton nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees Syria as an outlaw nation. Both said Sunday that Syria was different from Libya and that we would not be lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus in another "humanitarian" effort.

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer," Clinton said without disputing the assessment. She also drew a distinction between Libya's use of tanks and aircraft against its protesters and "police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

When asked about Syrian President Bashar Assad's now-deceased father, Hafez Assad, who ordered a bombardment in 1982 that killed at least 10,000 people in the northern city of Hama, she said that Assad the younger was somehow "different" from his father.

[DTA]

Libya has oil, fosil water reserve and $1000B of sovereign wealth for plunder.That’s what Soros’ servants are after, in hope of securing it for the Soros’ boss.

[KarlInOhio]

Changing the government in Syria would aid Israel, which Obama cannot allow.

[ClearCase_guy]

A lot of people think that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction ended up in Syria. Perhaps the US is reluctant to go in and face them (although, of course, they never existed).

[Hodar]

We attacked Libya because Zero was vacationing in Brazil.

Now, if he had been vacationing in Belize, then we’d attack Syria.

You are asking for a rational reaction, from a President who only got his job due to Affirmative Action. He can barely remember his name.

[blackdog]

Because Syria has the nasty(chemical / biological) weapons that were moved out of Iraq not too long ago, along with a lot of North Korean boom-boom toys.

[blackdog]

Western countries sold the technology, parts, and materials / agents, to make the WMD’s. It’s not like they just vanished like a fart in the wind. The fact we won’t touch Syria tells the rest of the world that WMD’s are a cheap insurance policy.

[jennings2004]

Or, why punish Libya and not Iran?

[blackdog]

If we went to war with Iran, the Saudis would join in, the Israelis, and all of our traditional allies. If we tore the place to hell, hung the mullahs, and freed the public so they could read a frickin newspaper, kinetic actions in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other rabies infected $hithole wouldn’t be needed. They would STFU and mind their own business.

[jennings2004]

Well stated, my friend!

[raptor22]

Ping

[Vendome]

WTF?

Assad is a reformer? LOL Hell, didn’t Sec. Gates just tell the Syrian Armed Forces to stand aside.

Mo was more of a reformer having given up his ambitions for WMD and now we turn on the Bastuhd?

What a joke.

[Kaslin]

Hillary was the one who said it

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Kaslin.

[wolfcreek]

Symbolically choosing to side with America's enemies since 2007.

[dervish]

Yes.

Almost no one is talking about the fact that Libya struck a deal with the US and gave up its WMD. Result, easy pickings. Message to dictators, never give up your WMD or make a deal with the US.

Great foreign policy.