President Obama Says ‘World Set a Red Line’ on Chemical Arms

From article:

“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference here in Stockholm. “The world set a red line.”

He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”

Mr. Obama laid blame for the Aug. 21 attack directly on Mr. Assad, whose government is known to have enormous stockpiles of banned chemical munitions including sarin gas, a nerve agent that American intelligence has said was deployed in a rebel-held part of the Damascus suburbs.

American intelligence has not disclosed any evidence that Mr. Assad personally ordered the use of sarin, but the White House has said he remains responsible as the leader of the country and its military. Mr. Obama’s language on Wednesday appeared to go a little further in singling out Mr. Assad.

“We believe very strongly with high confidence that in fact chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad was the source,” the president said.

Read rest of article here....

I'm feeling generous today, so I'll help the president out. Here's a speech he gave about Iraq in 2002, I've just replaced the various nouns appropriately:

Quote:

---

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Bashar al-Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Syrian people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that al-Assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Syrian economy is in shambles, that the Syrian military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Syria will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Syria without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I'm feeling generous today, so I'll help the president out. Here's a speech he gave about Iraq in 2002, I've just replaced the various nouns appropriately:

---

Seems the MSM would pickup on this and remind him what he stated.

that was before he got in the clutches of the MIC

What a weasel that Nobel Peace Prize winner is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

What a weasel that Nobel Peace Prize winner is.

---

What a weasel that community organizer is.

His only self-admitted executive experience prior to getting elected in 2008 [[running his campaign) did not prepare him well for the office of President nor for the role of Commander-in-Chief of our military [[it's not "his" military).

^^^ Don't forget the 'gyrations' of Kerry - his latest speech is quite revealing - the way he parses our pending 'limited' environment. Even if your a dyed-in-the-wool dem this stuff has got to be getting close up around the neck. The repubs are no better. Beyond the political partisanism from which we are entreated to appropriately align, there's a broader agenda here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeg

What a weasel that community organizer is.

His only self-admitted executive experience prior to getting elected in 2008 [[running his campaign) did not prepare him well for the office of President nor for the role of Commander-in-Chief of our military [[it's not "his" military).

---

The last president qualified to run OUR military was Eisenhower so give it a break. I know you just love to put OUR president in a catch-22 whenever you can. If he had done what presidents over the last 30 years have done and just attacked Syria he's a war monger. If he tries to get approval from Congress first then he's a weasel. Oh and by the way history books will detail and document the running of his two campaigns for president, both campaigns were very different in nature but extremely effective, those campaigns will be the model for how campaigns will be run moving forward.

What bothers me is that they are floating that "the arabian countries might foot the bill for our activities" crap. Has Kuwait ever paid us back for getting Saddam out of their country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

The last president qualified to run OUR military was Eisenhower so give it a break. I know you just love to put OUR president in a catch-22 whenever you can. If he had done what presidents over the last 30 years have done and just attacked Syria he's a war monger. If he tries to get approval from Congress first then he's a weasel. Oh and by the way history books will detail and document the running of his two campaigns for president, both campaigns were very different in nature but extremely effective, those campaigns will be the model for how campaigns will be run moving forward.

---

He's not being a weasel for trying to get Congressional approval, that's just OUR president looking for some political cover after having dallied too long on this issue and letting the disconnect between his rhetoric and actions become painfully obvious to all.

Instead, OUR president is a weasel for attempting to deny his very own rhetoric [[see below) on what is a very serious issue, perhaps the most serious issue OUR president will have to address during his presidency.

Community organizers can get away with lofty rhetoric and impressive threats and subsequent weasel-wording when results fail to materialize. Whatever happened to that quaint notion that "The Buck Stops Here" in the Oval Office?

Here's the video from Aug. 20, 2012 when OUR president said:

Quote:

---

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

---

Go to this April 25, 2013 statement that appears on OUR president's own web site and you will read some very clear and emphatic ownership of the "red line":

Quote:

---

... the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us...

... it is absolutely the case that the President's red line is the use of chemical weapons...

... the President means what he says when he set that red line. And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that marker.

---

Finally, here's the Sept. 4, 2013 video where OUR President attempts to deny it all when he said:

Quote:

---

"First of all, I didn't set a red line..."

---

The "red line" talk is such an embarrassing distraction. Only partisan hacks care about it.

Merge with Syria thread, IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noise

The "red line" talk is such an embarrassing distraction. Only partisan hacks care about it.

---

Obama is embarrassing. To defend his arrogant, W. Bush like, foreign policy, he is trying to blame the international community. This was after Kerry claimed that an attack on Syria would be a "military intervention" rather than a "classic war". Oh? Maybe that's why dumping bombs on Syrians to punish them for killing each other doesn't seem to rattle the Constitution to these people. Ever been in a class with a whiney kid who blames everyone else? How could we ever guess one of those whiners would be elected President? Spouting this nonsense while abroad is really embarrassing. The more they open their mouths, the more embarrassment is heaped on the US. Putin must be having to hold it in saving his laughter until he gets back to his room.

Maybe Russia's "red line" is that if they don't attack the US after telling us multiple times not to interfere in Syria, against the will of the UN, they lose credibility. Also it shows that the US disrespects and does not follow the guidelines of the United Nations.

Dangerous game.

Quote:

---

Russia sends four warships to Mediterranean, one with ‘special cargo’


Two land ships and a reconnaissance vessel had already passed through the Dardanelles Strait, the gateway to the eastern Mediterranean, according to Russia’s Interfax news service. A third landing ship was en route from the Black Sea, and was just making a quick stop to pick up “special cargo” in Novorossiysk, before heading on to the Mediterranean. The report did not further define the special cargo.Interfax reported a fourth ship was on its way to the region.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2e8V5EFUI
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

---

China's in on the act now, too:

Quote:

---

Chinese, Russian warships and combat troops entering the hot zone...

As the American naval presence off the coast of Syria awaits for potential orders to launch an attack on the civil war ravaged nation, the Yanks aren't the only ones beefing up their respective armadas, as reported by the Madras, India based TheHindu.com on Sept. 5, 2013 and the Russian-language news aggregate Telegrafist.org[[The Telegrapher) on Sept. 4, 2013.

---

All it is going to take is one mistake by either side and this will spin so far out of control no one will know how to stop it. In Sunday's paper there was a small article drawing some similarities between now and August 1914. The book "The Guns of August" was mentioned.

I wish to believe there is true concern about the murders of the innocents here; the use of chemical weapons, etc? Yet other atrocities are ignored.

Perhaps it's time to dig out Sun Tzu's TAOW. No one else seems to have a copy relative to the continuing talking and spouting heads!! Madame Pelosi is weighing in her two cents which must be further entertainment to the world stage:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._on_syria.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Obama is embarrassing. To defend his arrogant, W. Bush like, foreign policy, he is trying to blame the international community. This was after Kerry claimed that an attack on Syria would be a "military intervention" rather than a "classic war". Oh? Maybe that's why dumping bombs on Syrians to punish them for killing each other doesn't seem to rattle the Constitution to these people. Ever been in a class with a whiney kid who blames everyone else? How could we ever guess one of those whiners would be elected President? Spouting this nonsense while abroad is really embarrassing. The more they open their mouths, the more embarrassment is heaped on the US. Putin must be having to hold it in saving his laughter until he gets back to his room.

---

Let us hope these reports are just more conservative 'talking' points :rolleyes: and what not so we can go forth planning our weekends and seeing what new mess is on the tube for the fall season, right? Surely you don't suggest a big deal here do you? Kerry said it's not gonna get too 'involved'. LOL! I trust them. Don't you??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papasito

Maybe Russia's "red line" is that if they don't attack the US after telling us multiple times not to interfere in Syria, against the will of the UN, they lose credibility...

Dangerous game.

China's in on the act now, too....

---

Interesting read I am sure *sarcasm* -- Old time stuff. Who knows anything beyond a ten year span of history? Hah.

Actually, a just cursory read on the history of Syria reveals how big this can get and world wars have started for less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lpg

All it is going to take is one mistake by either side and this will spin so far out of control no one will know how to stop it. In Sunday's paper there was a small article drawing some similarities between now and August 1914. The book "The Guns of August" was mentioned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Interesting read I am sure *sarcasm* -- Old time stuff. Who knows anything beyond a ten year span of history? Hah.

Actually, a just cursory read on the history of Syria reveals how big this can get and world wars have started for less.

---

George Santayana said "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Applies here.

^^^ I was just thinking about that quote.

Red line or not, AIPAC gets what AIPAC wants and what they want is war.

Weeks have now passed, his red line was crossed and he hasn't done a thing. He's a man of his word!