Maybe it’s jet lag.
Maybe it’s the sleeping pills.
Whatever. Barack Obama has melted down. Reality has slipped his grip like a wet salmon. Obama has always been one to take credit for everything (“I got Bin Laden”) and own everything (“my military”) yet never, ever take responsibility for anything. At his news conference in Sweden he said things that a rational person could never utter.
STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
The world set the red line? Which world is that??? Not this world. Let’s crank up the Wayback machine.
Obama issues Syria a ‘red line’ warning on chemical weapons
“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,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
That sounds very much to me like he set a red line.
Obama said Syria does not pose an imminent threat:
“We may not be directly imminently threatened by what’s taking place in a Kosovo or a Syria or a Rawanda in the short-term but our long-term national security will be impacted in a profound way and our humanity’s impacted in a profound way.”
Wait- what? That’s not what he’s been saying.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLkvuXsMnCs[/youtube]
Again, the Wayback machine:
In a speech at a 2002 anti-war rally, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, conceded that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was “a brutal man,” “a ruthless man,” “a man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.” He noted that the Iraqi dictator “has reeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”
In short, there was no question that “the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” Still, Obama said, “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States.” Hence a U.S. invasion aimed at overthrowing him would be “a dumb war,” “a rash war,” “a war based not on reason but on passion.”
Notably, Saddam’s crimes against his own people included using chemical weapons against Kurds in northern Iraq, a campaign that killed some 5,000 men, women, and children. That murderous assault, in Obama’s view, did not justify U.S. intervention.
Today, by contrast, Obama says a sarin-gas attack that caused about 1,400 of the 100,000 deaths so far in Syria’s civil war demands an American response in the form of missiles aimed at President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” Obama asked in a speech on Saturday. Presumably the same message he was willing to send when he opposed war with Iraq.
And BTW, his credibility is not on the line. Ours is.
“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — For more than a week, the White House had been barreling toward imminent military action against Syria. But President Barack Obama’s abrupt decision to instead ask Congress for permission left him with a high-risk gamble that could devastate his credibility if no action is ultimately taken in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that crossed his own ‘‘red line.’’
The stunning reversal also raises questions about the president’s decisiveness and could embolden leaders in Syria, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, leaving them with the impression of a U.S. president unwilling to back up his words with actions.
This is astonishing, even for Obama.
Let’s be very clear here. Obama blurted out the “red line” thing. Not the world. Obama put his credibility on the line- not ours. He is now desperate to drag us into something most Americans oppose. I do not believe it has to do with anything other than pulling his ass out of the fire alone. We have seen no compelling evidence for action. He has not made the case to the UN. Speaking which, the UN Secretary General said that any action by the US without UN approval would be illegal.
And that makes things very interesting.
Should the US act alone- is it an illegal act in the eyes of the world? What would that do to our credibility? Would Russia be justified in responding to such an illegality? Would Iran? Would Assad be justified in tossing some munitions at US bases in Iraq?
Hardly anyone supports action right now, especially in the absence of proof and has been posted here and here, there are a lot of doubts.
It is only fair for the rest of us to wallow in the same self-righteous indignation Senator Obama so enjoyed prior to sitting in the big chair.
It’s not so easy, is it?
This is about Obama’s ego more than anything else. I hope that liberals will finally catch on to this charlatan, this empty suit. If it’s the world’s problem, let the world take care of it. If the world set the red line, let them handle it. It can’t be our credibility on the line for something the world did.
It’s time to put on the big boy pants, Barack, and stop blaming everyone else. As you sow, you know….
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Joseph P. Martino
yes very well stated , they haven’t talk about the opponent being responsible
for that multiple killing, they should now that it was confirmed by the UN,
BYE
Obama stated 7th grade math was above his pay grade, yet we are suppose to trust his “calculus”?
Old Guns and Sense
hi,
and we can have a better calculus by looking at his own previous calculus,
to figure his next MEASURE in SYRIA.
WELCOME
@Greg:
It’s funny, we declared war on Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor. But Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to limit the US war making abilities so we would be unable to respond to their Asian expansion. We had every right to declare war, we were attacked.
Yet we are going to attack Syria to limit their war making abilities and it is called a limited military response, not war.
@Richard Wheeler:
Do you remember when the Palestinians were lobbing missiles across the border into Israel and Israel decided to fight back? Do you remember how the missiles were hidden in family neighborhoods, next to hospitals and schools, by the jihadists?
You believe that Assad is evil enough to use CW against his own people. What makes you think he will not follow the example of the Palestinians and hide his CW in family neighborhoods next to hospitals and schools. If he is evil enough to kill his own people, he would not be bothered one iota with us killing them.
Hillary Rotten Clinton was only a lackey of the Obama administration. Obama was her boss, and he was ultimately in control of what she said and the talking points she put out. But if she was the culprit, as you seem to think, what has continued to prevent the Administration from releasing all the documents on Benghazi now that she is gone?
One simple point, Richard; Obama is the one sitting at the Resolution Desk (or rather, putting his feet on it), not Hillary, not Kerry, not Clapper or Brenan or Casey. Obama. And the buck stops with him. He, ultimately, is the one in control and the one who is to be held responsible for what his Cabinet members say and do. For you to excuse his lack of leadership, by trying to divert the attention elsewhere, is, at least, pathetic.
@Joseph P. Martino:
What you say may be true, but what about future tensions between the U.S. and Russia over the rationale for any type of future intervention in the Middle East for years to come? All because of Obama dithering over a minor military reprisal for a universally agreed moral outrage. Something big has been lost.
one more thing very important to keep in mind is the CHRISTIANS IN LYBIA ARE PROTECTED
BY ASSAD REGIME, WAS JUST STATED BY A CHRISTIAN LEADER,
IT SURE TELL OF WHO HAS THE MAGNANIMITY AS A LEADER OF A COUNTRY, SO DIVIDED,
TO ACCEPT BOTH IN HIS COUNTRY,
@Joseph P. Martino:
I am more familiar with fire team tactics, but before committing the firepower of our fleet and asking our troops to fight another war with an arbitrary ill-defined mission, basic logic demands an objective and strategic tactics. Sending Assad messages attached to cruise missiles may only strengthen his resolve and lessen America’s image domestically and internationally. America’s ability to affect regime changes are abysmal. While Obama has decided to employ America’s military to install his beloved Muslim Brotherhood fanatics in place of dictators, the citizens of those affected countries, have a difference of opinion with Mr Obama. Should we be going to war to install Islamic Fundamentalists across the Middle East because our president prefers to have homicidal maniacs in power or should we let the people decide their own fate and form of government.
Libya and Egypt have rejected Obama’s preferred form of religious fascism, are we willing to endure more Benghazi debacles while Obama installs his fanatics? Is this the new role of our military?
Unless English is your third primary language, I think you’ll find the general consensus here is “none of the above”, john. As I said, you really should refrain from typing prior to thinking. And I’d sure like to know how you came to the conclusion that the Israelis consider the Saudis – the heart of Islam’s Wahabbi – an ally.
Any escalation of more engaged warfare following an attack on Syria is “absolutely wrong”? Where did you buy your crystal ball, Richard? And you do realize that it’s not calibrated correctly in light of ME analysts input on the subject, or the rhetoric of Assad himself, yes?
A “surgical strike” of the CW caches, even if we knew where both Assad and the rebels, kept them, is not feasible. Perhaps you might believe the Marine Corps Times?
In light that most indicators point to an escalation of war in the aftermath of a strike, and that going after CW sites is actually pie in the sky nonsense that will kill yet more innocents, are you ready to stand down now?
@retire05: Assad is a ruthless SOB. If he moves his WMD’S to “civilian safety” it will confirm his “madness” and cowardice. We will strike surgically and keep collateral damage to an absolute minimum. His days are numbered and he knows it. If he’s smart he’ll try to avoid a Gadaffi ditch ending.
Btw I agree with those like Mac who say this strike should have taken place “yesterday”
those in CONGRESS WHO SAY OKAY FOR THE ATTACK, DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE PEOPLE’S DECISION BY SO FAR 59 PER CENT OPPOSE,
SO DOING AGAINST THE MAJORITY MEAN THEY WILL LOOSE THEIR SEAT NEXT ELECTION,
DONE BY THE PEOPLE,
@This one:
Seems as if Secretary Lurch is lying to make the case for his boss. Would we choose to believe US and European intelligence or secretary Lurch. Easy call for me.
Why does Congress even bother? Obombo said he’d bomb them even without Congress’ approval.
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, obviously you didn’t read what Mata quoted immediately above your comment. There is ‘no such thing’ as a ‘surgical strike’ against CW stashes. and I’d like to point out that Assad is likely not the only ruthless SOB involved in all this. You said:
If you were in Assad’s position, would you move the WMD’s to civilian safety areas? Would you consider yourself ‘mad and cowardly’ for doing the ‘completely logical’ thing to do to prevent being attacked? Your blind loyalty to a lying snake such as Secretary (reminiscent of Genghis Khan) Lurch just completely baffles me. I wouldn’t follow him if he were leading me to a gold strike.
@Obombo: Absolutely and now that we know that it was more likely the rebels that used the CW, it makes even more sense to make President Hopey Changey take the credit for the military actions.
Don’t give him a blank check.
@Richard Wheeler:
No one is denying that, Richard. Most powerful men are ruthless, in one way or another.
It will confirm his desire to stay in power. I do not believe that he is mad any more than I believe Obama is mad.
Oh, OK. So what you are saying is that although you are concerned about the “children dying” in Syria now, a few dead kids due to an American “surgical” strike is OK as long as it is held to a “minimum?” How do you lob a “surgical” strike and not hit a building in a heavily populated area? How many dead children will you support?
And what happens to the Syrian Christians once Assad is gone when he is the one that kept Islamism down to a minimum? What happens when AQ, or some AQ affiliate, is in control in Syria?
BTW., John McCain is a doddering old fool that needs to retire or finally admit he is nothing more than a progressive with an (R) behind his name.
@retire05: Retire, I just read this:
If all that is true, then I’m quite sure RW and Greg will change their minds and ‘support the Libs’
Can you believe that ” a majority of the activists don’t believe Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are being honest” I don’t know if Obama will remain calm if he is deserted by his fellow libs, however, I’m sure this is likely just a distraction. I don’t believe everything I read.
@Redteam: i appreciate the Marine Corps position. I also understand The Pope’s plea for peace.
I do believe the ideal would be for Assad to negotiate a departure leaving a coalition and a secure arsenal. I believe he has committed atrocities against civilians that go way beyond any acceptable norms. I understand you and others disagree and apparently feel his atrocities are not the business of the civilized world community.
You say let them settle this without outside interference. I say, this incredible beacon of light we call America, must continue to shine brightly to expose tyrants wherever they reside.If not US then who. Has isolationism worked in the past century?—“peace in our time” ??
Of course the far left code pink is against this.Don’t count me as a member of that group. I’m a JFK/FDR Dem–civil rights and human rights are truly important.
RICHARD Wheeler
KEEP IN MIND THE OPPONENT OF ASSAD DID THE MASSACRE ON THE PEOPLE,
NOT ASSAD
what does the MARINES SAY ABOUT GOING THERE,
we would like to know their point,
they are very important for us to learn,
after all they are the one to execute the orders,
well maybe you cannot divulge it publicly
if OBAMA SAY THE RED LINE IS THE WORLD, THAN HE GET THE ANSWER FROM THE WORLD,
DON’T ATTACK SYRIA EVEN THE POPE ANSWERED,
MEYGAN KELLY NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK ON THE POST,
SPECIALY NOW, YOUR OPINION COUNT,
BEST TO YOU
Are you linking expert opinions, and actual historic bombings showing the impossibility of surgically striking Syria’s stockpiles with a “plea for peace”?? Either an escalation of war, or the repercussions of a supposed surgical strike, result in yet more deaths. That’s the bottom line, Richard.
You said that if you thought any such US military action lead to further deaths, you’d stand down. Apparently that’s all bullshit. You’ve stated several times that you were for war intervention in the past, and you’re still for war intervention. Please do not attempt to make this some bogus “for the children” argument.
@Richard Wheeler:
Let’s assume for a moment that you are being sincere, then why is America only a beacon of light when a Dimocrat is president? I’m relatively sure that you didn’t feel that way when Bush wanted to go into Iraq? or did you?
While I’ll agree that JFK (that’s Kennedy, not Kerry) was for civil/human rights, you can’t say the same for FDR. It wasn’t on his agenda.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees The Marines will go wherever they are sent and and engage with extreme prejudice. At this point I don’t believe we’ll see them in Syria. I assure you—They are ready.
There seems to be some disagreement about who is responsible for the Aug.21 massacre. I feel strongly it was the work of Assad and his Army. You feel otherwise. I tend to stand with an American POTUS and Sec. of State be it “W” and Powell or BHO and Kerry. You may prefer to believe a dictator like Hussein or Assad. Certainly you and others have the right to do so in our free society.
Semper Fi and God Bless America and our leaders in time of crises.
@Richard Wheeler:
Are you saying America is in a time of crisis? If so it’s only in the mind of Obama and Lurch, and their loyal followers.
Richard Wheeler
yes I respect your conviction, and understand it for a MARINE to follow the leader,
that is your life long OATH IT IS THE OATH TO AMERICA YES,
AND TO OBEY THE COMMANDER NO MATTER WHAT COMMAND HE GIVE YOU, YES?
@Richard Wheeler:
I believe God was one of the reasons this started thousands of years ago, a holy war.
Do you really believe that? a surgical strike would keep collateral damage at a minimum? These are people who hide behind women and children and are not afraid to use them as human shields. Regardless even if it were a drone hit there is collateral damage and innocents do get killed.
This is not our fight. The Constitution and the War powers act state that IF our country is being threatened, the president (SIC) can act without congressional approval. We are NOT being attacked, we are NOT in danger. This is a personal problem within Syria. There is no reason whatsoever to get into a war because barry’s buddies want to save his credibility. What about the men and women who would be putting their lives on the line because barry’s ego has been singed? These soldiers are NOT expendable just so barry can feel good about himself. The man is a meglomaniac
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, following the orders of the Commander in Chief is only required for ‘lawful’ orders. Not ‘all’ orders. It’s still questionable if Obama is the CinC legally.
Redteam
thank’s for the info, I think it is highly important for a MILITARY COMMANDER to never doubt it,
so to protect his men and woman fighter with all their might, for one purpose
that is for AMERICA’S FREEDOM ONLY,
@enchanted: So true, enchanted. Can you imagine if you were the mother and/or father of an 18 year old US Marine and he were killed in Syria for no reason other than to satisfy the ego of Obama? What a tragedy that would be.
@Richard Wheeler:
I doubt anyone that has posted, either on the left or the right, believe Assad. That is just a liberal catch-all Rich. If we don’t agree with a position, we’re either racists, hate the poor, or support evil.
There are members of congress that have seen the classified report that don’t believe this is a clear cut case. I haven’t seen the evidence, so I have to rely on those that have. So now it comes down to a matter of credibility. Since I don’t believe a word uttered from anyone in the beltway, that’s a problem.
@Redteam: As a member of the World Community it is a time of crises.
“Only Dems. shine Beacon Of Light” Grenada 83 and Panama 89 come immediately to mind.
As mentioned I Supported Bush/Powell call to arms.
Bees I would support any CIC command that I believed was lawful. High bar to overturn.
Those who believe this CIC is not legitimate——-
Aqua Posters on here have clearly stated they believe Assad’s assertion he had nothing to do with Aug.21 gassing of civilians.
Aqua
yes, and when in doubt, stay put, don’t attack,
I think it’s the right thing to do, when lives are at steak,
bye
@Richard Wheeler
Richard, are you of the impression that a Dimocrat was president in 83 and 89? Just wondering….
@This one, #95:
I agree. He was bashed for inaction on Syria, exactly as he had previously been bashed for inaction in Libya. He announced the U.S. would selectively provide arms to moderate Syrian rebel factions. He was bashed for that decision, and the funds necessary to do so were effectively blocked in Congressional panels. He then announced his intention to respond to the Assad regime’s use of nerve gas on civilians. That decision, he was told, should be taken to Congress. He did so, and was promptly accused of trying to dodge responsibility. Meanwhile, the argument was quickly forwarded—by the Assad regime, the Russians, and the American right—that it probably wasn’t the Assad regime that used nerve gas to begin with, assuming it even was nerve gas. Most likely it was the rebels. Besides, what are 1,400 or so civilians, compared with the 100,000 Obama has allowed to die thus far through his deplorable inaction? As all this goes on, the entire issue of an unstable dictatorial ally of Iran situated next door to Israel having chemical weapons, biological weapons, and effective long-range delivery systems is deemed pretty much irrelevant, while the right simultaneously touts the strategic wisdom of having invaded Iraq out of fear of WMDs—which many of them insist were spirited away to Syria.
Does that about sum it up?
@Greg:
How many do you think the Boko Haram or the Janjaweed have slaughtered?
Where is Obama on them?
Greg
the problem is he started by the tail of this beast,
he claim to attack in readiness mode ,
and came back to ask CONGRESS but maintain he could do it alone
more arrogant words to CONGRESS than that is hard to find,
by diminishing the CONGRESS POWER , he did so many times,
on another note; he did not find any urgency to send help to BENGHASI,
WHEN ASK FOR IT 7 TIMES BEFORE, THOSE WHERE AMERICANS
RW and Greg, have you seen the video of the ‘rebels’ executing, by shooting in the back of the head, the seven Syrian troops? I guess those 7 soldiers mothers are happy that they were killed humanely by a bullet than having to take a whiff of gas to kill them. Yes, they are just as dead. And that’s the forces you want to support because the Syrian government is committing atrocities. Maybe the definition escapes me.
@Greg:
So Greg, you are happy with the way BenGhazi has been handled?
So, your answer to this is to remove Assad and turn those weapons over to the rebels? Yeah, that should work out just fine……
@retire05, #142:
What I think is that many on the right don’t actually give a flying f–k about anything other than destroying Barack Obama and regaining political power by any means possible. Any international issue or crisis is nothing more than a means to that end.
@Greg:
What a strange statement by a War Hawk (while a Dim is in office)
@Redteam, #145:
I’ve seen the video. Are you suggesting that these extremist psychos are representative of anti-Assad factions in general?
I would argue that you either support more moderate rebel factions, or you allow Islamist lunatics such as these to gradually take over.
Other than your speculation, based on Kerry and Obama’s claims about this recent attack.. of which you have been provided NO proof whatsoever… would you mind documenting Assad’s “atrocities against civilians that go way beyond any acceptable norms” for us please?
While you’re at it, you might want to also put up the list of documented atrocities committed by the rebels… i.e. the execution of Syrian soldiers, shelling of the Christian village today, their potential culpability of the first attack of a sarin non military grade earlier this year, and the second chlorine attack. Their own actions has earned them a stern warning from the UN last month.
Do tell us, Richard… just what did you use to decide that the rebels are wearing the white hat vs Assad’s black hat? Love to see any evidence, other than blind faith in evidence that is tantamount to “I know, but I’m not going to tell you” from Kerry?
Or could it be that no one there wears the white hat?
Country Music legend Charlie Daniels said this recently:
ah ahem… let me remind you of my observation to you on this same tactic you employed on another thread. I’ll repeat it for you, Richard.
You are again reveling in the gutters of debate with this extremist rhetoric that if we don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that Assad is behind these attacks, that we choose Assad over Obama. I called you on this BS once, and I’ll call you on it again, Richard.
If you want to base your beliefs on phony emotional patriotism instead of evidence, then I don’t want to hear another word from you about Iraq.. where post war evidence supported not only the existence of WMDs and proscribed weaponry, but his associations with Islamists.
@Greg
What I’m suggesting Greg, is that there are no ‘good’ guys in Syria. We should let them decide their internal issues. Would you be agreeable to them launching Tomahawk missiles into the US in the midst of our internal strife’s.? Just asking.
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich,
I have been asking over and over for someone to show me the evidence that things happened as asserted by this regime. To my knowledge, it’s all circumstantial and there are a million things to question. Maybe that’ll be the next post.
@MataHarley:
Now we know this has meaning. Obama has canceled a $32,000 a plate dinner.
No word about the round of golf, though.
Charlie is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but it’s of no more importance than anyone else’s. Generally speaking, once a critic mentions Obama’s golf, I know that they have no sense of perspective. They’re unable to distinguish the trivial from what’s actually important.
@Greg:
You just described the Democrats in 2007. Upon letting a non-candidate into the WH, the expected result was incompetence. That’s not bias, but now you sound like a Bush apologist, except the media is for Obama rather than against.
This mess we are in is because the dems lost their way and let the radicals hijack the party. Enough said. Do something about it next election instead of being tricked by fanfare.