Today, in the Chicago Sun Times, the editorial board put together a column entitled, "In Syria, U.S. must wait." They told us that sarin gas was likely used in Syria, and that means, as President Obama said, they, Syria, has crossed a line we warned them not to. Says the S-T editorial board: "But the White House refused to take a next step – possibly military action – despite President Barack Obama's threat last summer of unspecified action were the 'red line' of chemical weapons use crossed."
The folks at the S-T defended "their man," saying the administration is right to wait for the facts to come in. While I'm in agreement with that statement, I still have to wonder. Say the editors: "This is not a cop-out. Though deeply frustrating, as Syria's president continues his deadly assault on his own people, caution is the only right course. … Look no further than Iraq, where the U.S. launched an invasion based on erroneous intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction."
I cannot help but wonder if there is something more sinister at work here. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers the satellite images of the caravans of trucks leaving Iraq before the invasion began. And what was their destination, I ask? Syria. What was in all of those trucks? I don't know. Somebody does, however, and so I sit back in my chair and think, what would happen if U.N. or other inspectors were to get into Syria and found crates and crates filled with, among other things, canisters of sarin gas, all with the equivalent of "Made in Baghdad" stickers all over them? While I've no doubt that Assad's Syria is capable of making their own chemical weapons, if he gets desperate, why wouldn't he use whatever is handy? So if some of his warehouses had a lot of … well, you know …
Advertisement - story continues below
Hmm. Has anyone seen any satellite images of caravans of trucks exiting Syria lately?