« | »

ABC News Tries To Blur Obama’s ‘Red Line’ Line

From ABC News:

President Obama’s ‘Red Line’: What He Actually Said About Syria and Chemical Weapons

By Chris Good | August 26, 2013

President Obama’s “red line” on Syria isn’t quite as straightforward as it’s been made out to be…

Here we go. Our media guardians have gotten so used to covering for Obama, they do it as a reflex even when it isn’t necessary. Such as in the case of Syria, where Obama is not even trying worm his way out of his ‘red line’ statement.

But ABC News is trying to give Obama some wiggle room, anyway.

Today, the office of House Speaker John Boehner asserted that Syria had crossed the “red line” staked out by Obama last year – the use of chemical weapons on its own people.

“The Syrian regime has blatantly crossed President Obama’s red line, the White House has acknowledged, by using chemical weapons on its people,” wrote Boehner communications aide Brendan Buck, calling on Obama to consult with Congress and address the American people if he pursues a response…

Lest we forget, Bush had Congressional approval to invade Iraq. As well as UN approval. Obama had neither for his war in Libya.

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

You see? Others, like John Boehner, are too stupid to understand Mr. Obama’s amazing nuance.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“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,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

You see how different that is from saying that "If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House"? It’s worlds apart. (Not.)

Chemical weapons might be "being utilized," but we don’t know if they are "moving around." So Obama’s ‘red line’ might not have been crossed.

Besides, it’s clear Obama wasn’t reading from the teleprompter when he said that last year. So we don’t know if Valerie Jarrett actually signed off on this policy or not.

It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law.

That didn’t stop him in Libya.

In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention…

In other words, he wants to be able to hide behind other countries’ skirts. He wants to lead from behind. As usual.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, August 27th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “ABC News Tries To Blur Obama’s ‘Red Line’ Line”

  1. But what Obama said was a little less clear. “We have been very clear…”
    Let me be clear, at least clear enough that it sounds clear, but that later on will be more murky than actually clear. A kind of murky clarity.

    It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Yet more murky clarity.
    I look forward to a strenuous and harshly worded letter. Please. Empty rhetoric isn’t fooling anyone (other than the mindless masses of Obama worshipers in our own country). We are the laughing stock of the world thanks to our impotent complainer-in-chief. Barrack Hussein OBlameless. Mmmmm Mmmmm Mmmmmm.

  2. Reality Bytes

    From accounts on his youth, Obama may be more obsessed with crossing a couple white lines than red.

    Who would vote for this clown? The president I mean; not the guy in the rodeo.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »