BOMBING A CHILD-POISONER

Predictably, some have opposed the latest US military intervention in Syria.

US President Donald Trump

Predictably, some have opposed the latest US military intervention in Syria.

An element of this opposition is due to partisan politics. A considerable number of people and organisations will reject any action taken by President Donald Trump because they reject anything at all done by Trump. These same people and groups were remarkably silent during any military action taken during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Further opposition comes from those who reject any and all military action, even following the use of chemical weapons. These people presumably imagine Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime can be brought to heel through gentle discussion. Unlike the tragic children of Khan Sheikhoun, slaughtered in their dozens by suspected sarin gas attacks, these people are not instructed to hold their breath.

Former US newsreader Dan Rather’s opposition might have been the most pompous and sanctimonious. “The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility,” Rather wrote following precise US bombing on Syrian targets.

“Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets,” Rather continued. “But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.”

Speaking of knowing when NOT to act, someone ought to remind Rather why he’s a former CBS newsreader. In 2005 he departed the network in shame after presenting bogus documents slamming President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record. That’s why Rather’s latest announcement was made on Facebook instead of a major news network.

In any case, if Rather and others won’t listen to Trump’s reasons for bombing Syrian fighter jets, perhaps they’ll listen to another prominent US political identity.

"Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," this particular individual said in New York just a day prior to the Trump-authorised bombing.

"And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them," the individual continued, saying of former president Obama’s less aggressive approach: "We should have been more willing to confront Assad."

The speaker? None other than Hillary Clinton.