Obama wants Syria to surrender over their chemical weapons because they used them. So … what does that mean his policy was before?
Was it the inverse?
- You can keep them if you don’t use them
Or was it the converse?
- If you use them, then you have to surrender them
Or maybe even it was the contrapositive of what we have now:
- if you don’t use them, then you don’t have to surrender them
Astute readers will notice that in the end these are all the same.
Astute thinkers will note that the only way your statement, its inverse, its converse, and its contrapositive can all be the same is if nothing changed at all.
I always said that the best thing about Bill Clinton was that he didn’t believe his own bullshit. It’s very clear that the Obama administration, in claiming that they have a policy to address chemical weapons use, do believe their own bullshit.
You’ve got to wonder at what level they’re internally aware that they’ve just let 1,500 people be gassed and their best response is to hope no one notices that they haven’t changed anything at all.
BTW: I’m not claiming that there’s a better policy, or that Obama’s is the first administration to choke in the clutch. I am claiming that they just fumbled, and they’re not getting the defense out on the field.