The Fallacies of an Incompetent Community Organizer

What if our current plan of involvement with Syria is just Obama's elaborate use of distraction away from other world atrocities, like those of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who are responsible for destroying over a dozen Coptic churches? What if the White House lied about who was responsible for chemical weapons use in Syria? Kenneth Timmerman, in the Daily Caller, makes a case about the second question in his article entitled: Verify chemical weapons use before sending the dogs of war. He shows how the Obama administration selectively used intelligence information to justify military strikes in Syria that makes what George W. Bush did in 2003 with the start up of the Iraq war look like a Boy Scout assignment. 


But what the article doesn't discuss is the systematic destruction of Christian churches and the killing of Egyptian Coptics and so far, we have heard but a tiny whisper of this from Obama and his motley crew.

If our president had spent any time in the military and no time as a community organizer, he would have known that broadcasting military strategies gives the enemy an advantage. He is like a high school kid telling his girlfriends about a date he has for the prom. He just can't help but blab his intentions because blabbing makes him look important and powerful.

It is noteworthy that Bashar al-Assad's (pronounced "Asshat") brother is named Maher al-Assad. I wonder what Bill Maher's feelings are about that. Just kidding--I don't care a fiddler's fart. 

But seriously, it seems that Obama's crew are using several logical fallacies to try and prove their point that we should blow Assad's butt out of the water. One is "hasty generalization;" if Assad has chemical weapons and chemical weapons were used, he must be using them." This seems to be what the administration is trying to convince us has happened. This is not a fact.

Another possible fallacy being used is the handy-dandy ad Hominem attack on Assad. "Assad is a thug and has been killing his people, therefore he is the one using chemical weapons on the civilian population." While there is no doubt that Assad is a thug and a piece of camel fecal matter, that is again, not proof that he was the one who did the chemical weapons attack.

Reductionism is another typical liberal ploy used to make an argument that flies as well as an aircraft carrier flies. This form of argument appeals to the emotions or uses slogans to convince you of its validity. Think OJ and Johnny Cochrane's: "If it doesn't fit, you have to acquit," referring to the gloves that OJ allegedly wore. It doesn't logically work, however, because the gloves didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldstein--OJ may have done the deed. 

Finally, at least from my end of speculation, we have the "Argument of Silence," (or "argumentum ex silentio," for you pretentious Latin buffs). It concludes that something must be true if there is lack of evidence to oppose the conclusion. That's like saying, "God is that tree over there." It cannot be disproved, and this is pretty much what Obama seems to be saying through his full-haired mouthpiece, Kerry.

In any case, let's assume for sake of argument, that Assad did use chemical weapons and is hiding out in Iran because Obama warned him that we're going to strike at such and such a time, day, and place, and Assad wanted to not get blown up. What is the strategy for attacking him with that proverbial "shot across the bow?" Is it Obama's way of taking off his fluffy white glove and smacking Assad across his chinless face? If so, then what? Does Obama have any other thoughts about what's going to happen with Syria? Does he have any plans for what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing to Christians in Egypt and other parts of the world? Does he perhaps support the Brotherhood's ultimate plan--they do, indeed have one--of making the world their caliphate Islamic oyster?

Too many questions; too much time for Obama to further destroy American credibility with the civilized world.

Tweet