Daily Delawhere 8.28.13
From TC Davis on Twitter.
History says don’t do it. Most Americans say don’t do it. But President Obama has to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s homicidal regime with a military strike — and hope that history and the people are wrong. If it is true that the regime killed hundreds of civilians with nerve gas in a Damascus suburb last week — and Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons is “undeniable” — then Obama has no choice. Such use cannot be tolerated, and any government or group that employs chemical weapons must be made to suffer real consequences. Obama should uphold this principle by destroying some of Assad’s military assets with cruise missiles. I say this despite my belief that Obama has been right to keep the United States out of the Syrian civil war. It is not easy to watch such suffering and destruction — more than 100,000 people killed, millions displaced, cities pounded into rubble — and do nothing. Now I believe we are obliged to hit Assad. But then what?Obama should have never drawn a red line. By doing so, he boxed himself in to using military force if the line was crossed.
The problem in Syria is that the opposition is no longer preferable to the regime and the regime is beyond redemption. Until I see evidence that contradicts it, I am not going to assume that Samantha Power is unaware of this conundrum just because she wrote a book condemning historical indifference to genocide in the West. The assumption is that she favors military action because she's always argued that we should not stand idly by while evil regimes slaughter their own people. But all that tells us is that she is morally opposed to doing nothing when we can intervene at an "acceptable risk." The problem in Syria is that there are no acceptable risks.
Yesterday our son Beau underwent a successful procedure. He is in great shape and is going to be discharged [Thursday] and heading home to Delaware. He will follow up with his local physicians in the coming weeks.I said at the time that I thought, based on earlier reporting, that this successful procedure was in fact the biopsy, and thus until we hear the results, this health crisis for the junior Biden was not concluded. Commenter Puck disagreed, saying:
It’s possible the “successful procedure” was in fact the treatment. There are minimally invasive radiosurgery procedures that could have been done in that timespan in Texas, and conceivably would have constituted full treatment. It’s also possible there is no issue of cancer, but rather some type of abnormal cluster of blood vessels which might require the same kind of treatment. I know this is just speculation, but I’m willing to indulge a little.Could be. It would explain the very vague yet optimistic statement from the Vice President above and his statements on Friday in Scranton, PA:
“And I just want you all to know, since so many of you have asked me about my son, things are – it’s not only good to be here, but things are good at home in Delaware. My son Beau is fine,” he said, eliciting applause and cheers from a crowd of approximately 2,500 in the Lackawanna College student union.The problem is though, with these vague statements and no further comment, is that Beau's recent medical crisis and his overall medical state remains unclear at best. You don't travel from Indiana to Chicago and then to Philly and then to the best cancer center in the country in Houston for a minor issue.