Daily News Editors - A Bloodthirsty Bunch Of War Criminals

There doesn't seem to be any bombing campaign, preemptive strike or out-and-out war the very serious men at Mort Zuckerman's Daily News don't like.

Yesterday in an editorial on Syria, they wrote the following:

The commander-in-chief of the United States of America is asking Congress for approval to punish the Syrian regime with the military might of the globe’s sole superpower. The Congress must authorize an attack.

President Obama’s grounds for striking the regime of Bashar Assad are sound beyond a reasonable doubt. In violation of long-standing international norms, the Syrian military targeted civilians with rocket-launched gas, killing more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children.

There must be retribution so as to dramatically degrade Assad’s power, chemical and otherwise, and to set a cautionary precedent for the world’s like-minded others. Here were the President’s words, spoken Saturday in the Rose Garden:

“This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm. . . . Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.”

Those full truths stood in sharp contrast to the half measure Obama uttered in closing: “I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage.” Yes, military brass are set to let fly the missiles with but a presidential nod, but, no, having gone on bended knee to Congress, Obama will not be “ready” until the members vote yes to some plan of action.

Obama sought no such blessing when American forces helped oust Moammar Khadafy from Libya. He properly asserted presidential power to put U.S. forces into a fight without Capitol Hill’s formal backing. That was called a war. This, Obama has described as a limited “shot across the bow” and still he cedes some of the power that is central to his office.

His move was an unfortunate and politically necessary byproduct of a muddled Syrian policy that brought the American people suddenly to the brink of entering a war that had seemed of minimal critical interest, despite 100,000 deaths, despite Obama’s wish to see Assad deposed, despite Obama’s all too casual warning that Assad would cross a red line with use of chemical weapons.

Then came the mass carnage, along with Obama’s August surprise for a public who had so often heard him say that the tides of war and terrorism were receding. Virtually no one knew what the administration’s conflicting voices were talking about. In their wisdom, Americans overwhelmingly told pollsters they wanted congressional consultation. So this humbled President asked permission.

Obama must not be humbled further. Congress must support a cause that’s just, maintaining presidential prestige and America’s moral authority.

Let's unpack all the bloodthirsty language the very serious men at the DN engage in with this editorial and think about the implications of the language they use.

We must "punish" the Syrian regime with the "military might" of the "globe's sole superpower."

Obama's grounds for striking Syria "are sound beyond a reasonable doubt."

There must be "retribution."

Obama should do this attack just the way he did his attack on Libya - without Congressional authorization.

He can "assert presidential power to put U.S. forces into a fight without Capital Hill's backing."

This is "called war."

"Obama must not be humbled further" by asking for "permission" to attack Syria.

Wow - what a bloodthirsty editorial full of jingoistic nonsense that points to some seriously sick psyches that the very serious men at the DN have.

These guys truly think they have the right to call for an attack on anybody at any time for any reason, regardless of the Constitution or legal rationale.

This is all about showing how tough they are and how tough the U.S. is.

This is about "retribution" - about "punishing" an enemy and showing the world how tough we are, and by extension, how tough they are

We must not "embolden" our enemies by wavering.

Just attack now!

As I read this editorial, I couldn't help but think about this George Carlin piece about the Gulf War and how much it pertains to neo-con psychos like the very serious men at the New York Daily News:
 

What happened to these very serious men as children that they've grown up to be such bloodthirsty jingos who never met an act of military violence they didn't like?