summer patriot, winter soldier: does nobody give a shit that recent stories confirm that george bush was slandered and besmerched by the democrats so that barack obama could gain the presidency? .... is the news that "old?" ....

recent stories at nti, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-contingency-plans-syria-call-fielding-elite-unites-seize-chemical-arms/ , and the los angeles times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-syria-20120823,0,6157005.story , confirm the presence of chemical weapons in syria. this is done to support the obama administrations planning to send "elite troops" into syria to secure those weapons, to prevent them passing into the hand of hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

(odd, given that the u.s. government doesn't think there are any terrorists in the world. but, that's another story. isn't it?)

with regard to how syria obtained these weapons the los angeles times said only, without further comment:

"u.s. intelligence agencies believe syria has over the years produced or acquired [my emphasis: jjj] hundreds of tons of sarin nerve agent and mustard gas, a blister agent, and has sought to develop vx, another powerful nerve gas." los angeles times, world, august 22, 2012 by david s. cloud and shashank bengali.

now, in a previous post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2012/08/the-us-is-worried-about-syrian-chemical-weapons-now-just-where-in-the-hell-did-they-come-from-.html , i asked an obvious question regarding just where the nerve gas agents were obtained by syria, seeing as how they don't really have nor had they ever really had the ability to manufacture such weapons.

this later point is pretty much confirmed, in a bass ackward sort of way, by the following observation in the same article as linked and quoted above:

"the toxicity of some chemical agents degrades significantly over time, so it is unclear how lethal the stockpiles are." ibid.

this means syria hasn't made any lately, and is not likely to make any in the immediate future, confirming that it really doesn't have the capacity to make it. therefore, it seems relatively open to reasonable inference and conclusion that it got it from someone else, some time ago, at least long enough ago that its quality and potency may have significantly deteriorated.

this means to anyone besides the clinically brain dead and terminally credulous that syria obtain the chemical weapons from sadaam hussein.

now, i pointed to this same conclusion in my previous article. it seems obvious enough to me. and, i point to the equally obvious circumstance of a very cynical and partisan press confirming the presence of the very same poisonous gas in syria that it denied being present in iraq under sadaam hussein. it seems patently clear that to deny this gas in iraq was politic & politics, and that to affirm it is syria is politic & politics, and all done to promote the political welfare of the political left and barack "the one and true hussein" obama.

the response to my story has been total indifference, a resounding "thud" as it has crashed to the ground almost without notice.

i find this most curious.

now, it could simply mean that most of the political reporting i do is to be ignored.

but, goodness.

this set of facts and circumstances seems to me an amazingly clear confirmation of the fact that george bush, a good and decent man in my opinion, though perhaps fallible and flawed like the rest of us, was ridiculed, savaged and castigated for his position that the war prosecuted against iraq was done so to take away his control over "weapons of mass destruction."

that no such "weapons of mass destruction" were found in large quantities was the foundation of the vicious democratic mantra that "bush lied, & people died," and that no firm rationale existed to prosecute the war in iraq.

well, that rationale has been found, apparently to the satisfaction of the press, to be present in syria in the form of "weapons of mass destruction" whose presence is taken seriously enough to posit the intervention of american troops to take possession of it. and, then, presumably to "destroy" it. again, this is to prevent the stuff from falling into the hands of terrorists that the obama administration says really don't exist.

there is, after all, in the view of the hilary clinton united states department of state, "no such thing as a bad boy."

nobody seems to care.

the facts are clear enough that anyone could reach the same conclusions i have, indeed, they seem rather mandatory in the exercise of logic, yet no one seems to care to take the time to take this through.

and, no one seems to think in relevant within the context of this election cycle, that the last election cycle was purposefully tainted by the electioneering tactics of barack obama and the democratic party. they ignored the salient facts, miscast them (indeed, conveniently forgetting that at the state of the spool up to get the second invasion of iraq going and authorized by the u.n., which it was, that very many democrats who later savage george bush initially also advanced the position that weapons of mass destruction were being manufactured and were stockpiled in iraq. can no one remember this?), and exploited them to attack the administration and to advance the election of barack obama.

i think this history relevant within the context of this election.--

especially the cynicism and "intellectual flexibility" of a democratic party that can condemn bush's policies, yet take credit for the success of wars in iraq in afghanistan that followed policies crafted by bush and his administration.

yet, none of my colleagues, if such they be, seem to think this warrants much more than a yawn.

i don't know why?

do they think the defeat of barack obama is such a foregone conclusion that they don't want to cause any unnecessary "rancor" that might disrupt the orderly eviction of the clown from office? well, i got news for them. it is not a foregone conclusion, and it is not going to be that damned orderly.

and, analysis like this is relevant for public consideration.

those of us on the right ought to be screaming bloody murder about this, especially about the cynicism and cupidity of politicians and press in league who argued "no weapons" in iraq and now utter "weapons" in syria, because it fits the aims of the obama administration.

i am positively at loss to explain or understand why nobody else on the right takes this at all seriously, even enough to comment on it. it cannot be that they are that damned dumb, because nobody could be that damned dumb.

john jay @ 08.26.2012