2013: Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons On Its Own People; Obama Has Said, "That would be a redline" for him to take action against Syria

Then they backtracked and said it was only on "a small scale."

How small? When does "small" become "mass"? And when does "small" become important enough as it is?

And will the mainstream media ever truly tell us if and when it becomes "mass" or "important enough," because then, Obama would be forced to have to do something because he brought up the redline himself?

Just like Bush did, when Hussein used chemical weapons, including sarin, on HIS own people, precipitating the Iraq War.

Isn't it interesting how it would be acceptable if Obama takes any action because he won't stand for Syria using chemical weapons against its people, but it wasn't acceptable for a Republican President to do it when Iraq used these same kinds of weapons against its own people?

Don't take my word for it: read Human Rights Watch on all that history.

"Genocide in Iraq - The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds" is Human Rights Watch's comprehensive report originally published in July 1993. It details the systematic and deliberate murder of at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds in just one area of several. Multiple chemical weapons attacks happened between February and September 1988, and the Kurdish victims were targeted on the basis of their ethnicity.

Go read about the "one-year-old baby...who was found [after the bombs dropped,] crawling around in the courtyard...[her] face turned yellow and she was gasping for breath and trying to vomit," who died within days.

THEN tell me that "only on a small scale" isn't important enough.

Here are the links:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/14/iraq13979.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/chemicalali.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqgas/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030327-chemicals01.htm

It's further fascinating how the press is ignoring that E N T I R E L Y .

As well as ignoring these snippets of news from way back then, about Iraq's chemical weapons of "small" or "mass" (take your pick) destruction being moved--wait for it--TO SYRIA BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR BEGAN:

"Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002." - Feb.15, 2006

"At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

"Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.

"'A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria,' Duelfer said. 'There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say.' - Oct. 16, 2004"

"Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

"Al-Tikriti says he knows Saddam's weapons are in Syria because of contingency plans established as far back as the late 1980s, in the event either Damascus or Baghdad were taken over. 'Not to mention, I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew,' he said.
... "Known as the 'Butcher of Basra,' al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991."

Of course, Syria was also a SUPPLIER of such weapons to Iraq then, as were Russia, Jordan, "Belarus, China, India, North Korea, South Korea, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, France, Romania and Turkey," according to a CIA report around 2003 or 2004. So maybe Syria had them all along. Or maybe they had them AND helped hide them for Saddam Hussein. Either way, they're all dangerous and villanous for using them, and the U.S. President then stood up against such practices and got vilified for it.

Will Obama be vilified if he makes the same kind of decision as George W. Bush did? Or will he be glorified if he just uses his drones or drops a few big bombs on Syria, to hell with the collateral damage, namely the innocent citizenry of Syria?

I'm not advocating war, no boots on the ground in Syria as we did in Iraq. I'm just pointing out the plain, simple facts. #1: like it or not, boots on the ground are the BEST way to minimize "collateral damage"--the indiscriminate killing of the innocent citizens of a nation. #2: your Obama is stuck in the EXACT. SAME. PLACE. now--- that GWB was in. And I guarantee you he doesn't like it--or loathe it--any more than "W" did.

I pray for the people of Syria, innocent and not innocent. I pray for our soldiers, not to lose their lives or limbs or minds in another war. I pray even for our President, even though he's a double-standards-supporting conniver and a self-serving opportunist who isn't and never has been a capable governor for this country.

And who also happens to support abortion whole-hog and in every time, place and situation, thus being a party to destroying more women (no, not just the unborn are destroyed) in his wake. Which is why I write about him at all in this space.

Someday, his own daughters may very well find this to be true, should they ever have abortions. I feel for them, too.