Obama's language of betrayal

Stephen Hayes:
...
 "To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and—more profoundly—our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." 
Amnesty International reported at the time “hundreds have died in Libya since unrest began.” Others put the death toll in Libya as high as 1,000. 
The death toll in Syria today is at least five times that number, with some opposition and human rights groups putting the figure as high as 8,500....
Hayes asks why inaction now is not a betrayal.  It is a good question, but I think the answer is probably that Obama was trying to rationalize a decision he had already made in the case of Libya and he fears making a similar decision now even if it is seen as a betrayal.   In other words, he is a hypocrite.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Russia attacking Iranian forces in Syria

Shortly after Nancy Pelosi visited Laredo, Texas and shook hands with mayor of Nuevo Laredo this happened