Right Turn; Conservative Perspective: Obama Erases His ‘Red Line’

[Purveyor]

Posted by Jennifer Rubin on April 28, 2013 at 12:00 pm

“U.S. not rushing on signs Syria used chemical weapons.” That’s how the New York Times headline put it. Another might be: “Red line is no line at all: Obama punts.”

After personally laying down a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, after Britain, France and Israel confirmed the use of chemical weapons and after our defense secretary said that the U.S. government believed “with varying degrees of confidence” that such weapons had been used, President Obama evaded, ducked and erased whatever line he had drawn. He has said that he “doesn’t bluff.” But that is precisely what he has done in Syria, and now with his bluff called, he has only double talk left.

He told reporters Friday as he sat next to Jordan’s King Abdullah in the Oval Office:
What we have right now is an intelligence assessment. And as I said, knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used. Obtaining confirmation and strong evidence, all of those things we have to make sure that we work on with the international community. And we ourselves are going to be putting a lot of resources into focusing on this.

--clip
Translation: Red line? What red line?

This is a pathetic and dangerous farce. As former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams put it, “The problem today is not only that this may leave [Syrian leader Bashar al-]Assad free to use chemical weapons again. A related issue of great consequence is what the administration has said about the use of chemical weapons: that it would be a game changer, that it is a red line, that it is unacceptable, and that all options are on the table for a U.S. response. Sound familiar? The administration has used exactly such language – ‘unacceptable,’ ‘all options are on the table’ – about the Iranian nuclear program. If such terms become synonyms for ‘we will not act,’ the regime in Tehran will soon conclude that there is no danger of an American military attack and therefore no need to negotiate seriously. They may have reached that conclusion already.”

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/28/obama-erases-his-red-line/

The neocon knuckdraggers are just besides themselves that President Obama isn't doing the goosestep with them.

Carry on Mr. President and DON'T GO THERE!

[JaneyVee]

1. I will support any intervention into Syria that does not include guns, bombs, or US Troops.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Hm. Drones, mercenaries, missiles, and spies. Check.

[JaneyVee]

8. Pretty sure those fall under bombs and guns category.

[yurbud]

11. you left out drones, bayonets, and CIA "help"--otherwise, I agree

the third is obviously well-underway.

[JaneyVee]

12. Drones=Bombs.

[reformist2]

2. I hope he erased it. Drawing 'red lines' in the sand is bad foreign policy.

It only encourages people to claim the line has been crossed, and that now we *have* to go to war!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Jennifer Rubin - she's one of the worst and dumbest.

[Purveyor]

5. That's why I like to point 'them' out... :) eom

[tularetom]

4. Of course this is bullshit but it will be used in the 2014 elections

"He drew a line in the sand and then rubbed it out".

"He wants to take away your social security".

Is the umpteen dimensional chess master being checkmated by Bartles & James?

[bluestate10]

9. After two costly wars, I think americans will be smarter than to rush into a third war.

If republicans try the "Benghazi" attack again, they will get the same result they got in the 2012 elections.

[sabrina 1]

13. It can also be used positively. Why do people always think they have to worry about what

criminals like Elliot Abrams, a man who should still be in prison, will try to say about a President AVOIDING a brutal and unnecessary war?

WE have to create the dialogue and stop allowing those war criminals and liars to do so out of fear.

What the President said is a fact. We do not know who used chemical weapons in Syria and in case anyone forgets, it was what they euphemistically called 'faulty intelligence' that got us into the travesty in Iraq, losing the lives of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a crime of massive proportions, which he should point out. No way should this country even think of going down that road again.

I am certain that if chemical weapons were used, the most likely suspects are the Western backed 'rebels' most of whom are from outside the country and many of whom are Abrams & Cos old friends and creation, Al Queda.

Now is the time to start the dialogue, to educate the American people about what these PNACers are trying to do to this country. Attack them, expose their lies, PROSECUTE them for Iraq which we always said should happen otherwise they would continue to betray this country.

France, Britain and Israel, the perpetrators of the war crime that was Libya, the same liars who created the travesty there also. Who in their right mind believes a word they have to say.

The President is right. And if he sticks to his position, which is the correct one, the world will back him as the world knows the story of Iraq and would love to see Abrams, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest of that gang of war criminals finally held accountable for the major war crimes they committed. THAT is the way to stop them.

[spanone]

6. call the UN

[L0oniX]

10. Switch to goal posts on castors. Save the red dye number 4.