In her allocution on Syria during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Obama's war request, California Senawhore Boxer explained her yes vote by saying that it was important to "send a signal" to those brutal and dictatorial regimes, "like North Korea," who "might be inclined" to use chemical weapons or to "terrorists" who "could obtain them or use them, on America or our allies or our troops, or for example against Israel..."
Isn't that wonderful... the United States should go to war against Syria because chemical weapons might be used by North Korea. If Boxer thinks this is logical she should be checked into a sanatorium
But her ensuing blather reveals the senawhore's true agitating motive. To urge that the United States embark on war against Syria in order to protect Israel from a hypothetical resort to chemical weapons borders on treason. It urges great expense and risk to the United States for some threat that is not only not imminent but not likely to anyone, even precious Israel.
How does Boxer overcome the fact that, in all the past decades and even during outright war, Syria has never used chemical weapons against Israel? She cannot. So instead she hypothesises some possible use by terrorists. She would have us believe that the way to prevent "some terrorists" from getting hold of Syrian Government stockpiles is to attack the Syrian Government and "degrade" its military capability. This sort of reasoning is not only insane it is psychotic.
But Boxer is not a psychotic... at least of that sort. She is simply a senawhore for Israel.
Let's cut to the chase. Syria is one of the few nations which has not signed the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty. Why not? The plain-as-day answer is because Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. In the absence of a nuclear deterrent to Israel's massive stockpile of nuclear arms, Syria plainly wishes to maintain an equivalent but cheaper counterbalance. Syria's chemical stockpile is simply the poor-state's alternative for Mutually Assured Destruction.
Is MAD mad? We all know it is. But it is the fulcrum on which states -- regional and global -- maintain their hegemonic balance. Israel upset the regional balance by refusing to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. Syria compensated by stockpiling sarin.
The race to maintain power parity is the product of one party's attempt to achieve destructive upmanship. The chest thumping exercise is costly and risky. Negotiated mutual arms reduction is the only way to reverse the spiral. But Boxer is not interested in that. She is shilling -- at great cost and risk to the United States -- for Israel. Failure to act against Syria, she cried,
"makes it more likely -- and this is key -- that Iran will view us as a paper tiger when it comes to their nuclear program and this dangerous not only for us, and our friends but for the world."
This is crap. There is no "risk" that Iran will ever view the United States as a paper tiger or that its nuclear programme will present a global military threat. Fukushima is a far great clear and present danger.
What Boxer is really advocating is for the United States to go to war against Syria in order to give Israel a regional power-edge over Iran. Gasping babies has nothing to do with it. Boxer was mum indeed when Israeli-deployed white phosphorous caused babies in Gaza to gasp.
Boxer is not only a whore, but a hypocrite as well. Someone might want to remind Boxer that she is supposed to represent California not Israel's contingency planners.
Once again the sordid spectacle that played out in Committee shows the need to abolish the Senate. Boxer is impervious to the public clamour against an invasion of Syria. She is in her eighties, will not run again and has five years left on her term. Quite frankly my dear, she could give a rats ass what anyone member of the California Republic thinks.
The idea that whores who are effectively insulated from public reproach or control should have the power to plunge the nation into war with all its attendants costs and risk is intolerable. But this is precisely what the present constitution of the Senate allows.
There is no need for an organ that can override the public will in this manner. Britain does well enough with a House of Commons as the effectively sole legislature of kingdom. The House of Representatives is equally capable of discharging that political function. If the Senate is to be retained at all, the term of its service whores should be shortened to four years and not staggered so that the entire Senate is up for reelection every four years.