Michael Collins

A rush to judgment is a rush to war.

It's put up or shut up time for President Barack Obama.

Will the president wait for the completion of an objective study to determine the source of a chemical weapons in an attack on a Damascus suburb on August? Or, will he fix the results, declare the Syrian government guilty, and unleash some form of military attack? If he chooses the later option, the similarities to the George W. Bush WMD lies will be too close to ignore.

Added to Obama's refusal to get Wall Street crooks prosecuted, his weak efforts on jobs, the NSA spying on all citizens coupled with his outright denial of the effort, Obama's presidency will lack even the most rudimentary form of legitimacy.

Obama has been pressured to attack Syria since the start of the rebellion against the government of Bashar al-Assad began 2011. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled the world demanding that "Assad must go." Others in the perpetual war faction have lent their voices to the chorus.

Last year, the president announced the following policy:

"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons." CNN, August 21, 2012

Preliminary reports in the corporate media blame the Syrian government for the attacks. The White House has leaked that a cruise missile attack on Syria is in the offing if they're the source of the attack. At the same time, the White House is claiming that it is waiting for the results of the United Nations inspection before acting.

pposition to any military action in Syria is clear. Gallup Poll, May 31, 2013

These results are consistent with polls by other organizations. Public opinion polling in the United States, Great Britain, France and countries in the Middle East shows strong opposition to any military involvement in Syria.

Obama's temptation

It is no secret that the Syrian government has chemical weapons. The Syrians have informed the U.S. where the weapons are and any required movement. The government's stated policy is that these weapons will be used only against other nations that attack Syria, not within the Syrian state.

The Syrian government and rebels have exchanged charges of chemical weapons use in the past. In May, UN Human Rights Carla del Ponte indicated that the rebels may have been responsible for chemical weapons use in northern Syria.

The August 21 attack on civilians in the Damascus suburbs killed 355 civilians according to reports from Doctors Without Borders. Supposedly, 3,500 civilians were affected.

Initial reports in the Western media blamed Syria, without any evidence to support the claims. It is not known how long a thorough investigation may take. One thing we do know is that there has been no investigation. Therefore, those media sources blaming the Syrian government are doing so for propaganda purposes to justify military action. They don't deserve any trust in the future.

A few in the Western media have raised obvious questions. For example, BBC's Security correspondent Frank Gardner asked, why would the Syrian government risk carrying out a chemical weapons attack when the government is winning battles against the rebels all over the country? Why would the government do this just as UN inspectors arrived?

There is an investigation underway to determine the source of the chemical weapons attack. Any preliminary findings are fiction. Any final findings are not final until examined objectively by third parties.

A rush to judgment is a rush to war.

Will Obama succumb to the temptation to revive the very worst behavior of the Bush administration?

END

Also see, A Solution to Obama’s Syrian Dilemma By Michael Collins, on August 22nd, 2013

Creative commons 3.0