| More

Scoot's Blog

Tune in to "The Scoot Show" for lively, candid discussions about news, politics and culture with WWL's "Radical Moderate!"

Weekdays 1pm-4pm

Twitter: @scootwwl
Email: scoot@wwl.com
Facebook: Scoot on the Air

Scoot: Is President Obama ?Wagging the Dog??

When a devout liberal and Obama supporter, like filmmaker Michael Moore, tweets that the Obama administration has “lost all credibility” following revelations about the NSA program to collect phone and internet records from millions of Americans, it was the perfect time to shift national attention by announcing from the White House that the U.S. will support the Syrian rebels.

It was confirmed today that the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons against its own people.  Last August, President Obama said if Syria used chemical weapons that would cross a“red line” that would lead to U.S. involvement.  With the potential scandals the White House has been dealing with and the release of classified information that the government has been tracking the phone and internet activity of millions of Americans, this would be the right time for a major story to distract from news that has plagued the White House.

In the 1997 black comedy, “Wag the Dog” starring Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman, the White House distracts America from a sex scandal by hiring a movie producer to create video of a fake war with Albania.  The expression, “wag the dog” comes from the idea that a dog is smarter than its tail and if the tail were smarter, then the tail would wag the dog.
It is widely known that administrations attempt to control the daily news with the release of agendas and by taking on hot-button social and political issues, but would an administration actually time the announcement of something as significant as involvement in a conflict in another country in order to deflect the attention of potentially damaging news?

The answer is “yes” – and not just this administration.  The news media may not always bite on the White House’s bait leading to a new, distracting story, but you can be sure that manipulation of the news is part of the inter-workings of every administration.

Since the White House has been deliberating for months on reports that the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons, it’s fair to question the timing of today’s announcement that the U.S. will now support the Syrian rebels.

Following recent involvement in conflicts in this region of the world, arming the rebels in Syria does not come without great risk.  We have supported leaders like Saddam Hussein, who changed from ally to enemy.  Can we be sure that by supporting the Syrian rebels we are supporting a group that will be our ally if and when, Assad is removed from power?

To further complicate the decision to get involved in the conflict, Russia and Iran are becoming stronger supporters of the Assad regime.  Russia still has its nuclear weapons and Iran is working in that direction.  Could U.S. involvement in Syria lead to increased tension with Russia and Iran?  And, could that only solidify the relationship between two of our potential adversaries?

It is difficult for the American people to watch the horror of a civil conflict, like the one we are witnessing in Syria, and not want to intervene, but we should have learned through recent wars that we cannot be the world’s police, and aiding rebels without a definite understanding of their ultimate motives can lead to American men and women facing another enemy in another part of the world.  Or, should we always judge the motives of a rebel group opposing a murderous dictator in that moment in history and not be concerned about what could happen in the future?

Tags :  
Topics : PoliticsWar_Conflict
Social :
People : AssadDustin HoffmanMichael MooreObamaRobert De NiroSaddam Hussein

06/13/2013 8:09PM
Scoot: Is President Obama “Wagging the Dog?”
Please Enter Your Comments Below
06/13/2013 11:27PM
Nukes are dangerous
Obama is trying to prevent the Iranians, armed with the latest Russian arms, from getting to the Israeli border. The Iranians have a massive army that can fight. Israel might not be able to stop them, if the Egyptians attacked too, without using a nuke. Guess where that could go.
06/14/2013 7:12PM
Scoot you are a liberal joke
You don't belong on WWL! Your liberal views will be the death of this great country. And don't try to tell me your 'independent' your record on the issues and your talk at night prove otherwise.
06/15/2013 9:53AM
@Nukes are dangerous
to Ps 83;Ezek 29:10 and Ezek 38&39 maybe in that order. Tower of Syene is the Aswan Dam.
06/16/2013 3:46PM
Could you repeat that
Tell me again, why did Barack Hussein Obama receive the Nobel Peace Award?
06/16/2013 6:52PM
Title :
Comment :
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
No Tags Found !