Some bozo lawmaker in Florida spoke to his constituents on a range of issues yesterday, mostly on Syria and whether President Obama is in a position to even suggest a strike on Bashar Al-Assad.
The conservative lawmaker, whose name I didn’t catch because, frankly, I didn’t care for anything he was saying when he was quoted on NPR this morning, adamantly voiced his concern about spending U.S. tax dollars and resources to intervene in Syria’s civil war. He was against the very idea that the U.S. was in any way responsible for what happened so far or that it could be held accountable for refusing to add to the casualty count. His constituency, hard right conservatives who basically believe in Obama as an eternal nightmare, gave the bozo a thunderous applause.
But — let’s face it, we all knew this ‘but’ was coming — there is one situation, no matter how farfetched it is, that would incline the bozo lawmaker to change his mind. If Al-Assad’s chemical weapons, he said, were to change hands and be used by Hamas against Israel, then the U.S. would be obligated to strike.
So many things — principally, morally, practically, politically — are wrong with that statement that it’s no wonder he’s an American lawmaker. Who else gets to say such outrageous things and be lauded a hero for it?
What he’s effectively saying is that Israeli lives are worth more than Syrian lives. Not even the loss but the threat of the loss of a single Israeli life weighs more than the deaths of over 100,000 Syrians and potentially many more.
He’s also implying that Hamas is the most likely to use chemical weapons in the region. This, of course, is false considering Israel’s already extensive use of white phosphorus against the people of Gaza. It’s quite a remarkable feat to be as daft as this lawmaker who has managed to concoct such an unreasonable conspiracy theory about Hamas while staring right in the face of Israel’s and Al-Assad’s use of chemicals against human beings.