Skip to comments.Obama Aide On Syria's Assad: 'If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, What’s That Got Do Do With Us?'
Posted on 05/05/2013 7:19:04 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Obama Aide On Syria's Assad: 'If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, Whats That Got Do Do With Us?' Daniel Halper May 5, 2013 10:12 AM
President Barack Obama got ahead of himself and his advisers when he said that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a "red line," the New York Times reports.
How can we attack another country unless its in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution? an unnamed Obama administration official tells the paper. If he drops sarin on his own people, whats that got to do with us?
But they concluded that drawing a firm line might deter Mr. Assad. In addition to secret messages relayed through Russia, Iran and other governments, they decided that the president would publicly address the matter.
Several officials said they recalled no discussion about the red line phrase but suspected that it came out of the election-year conversation about Iran and how far to allow its nuclear program to progress before being forced to take action. It was a concept that was embedded in peoples prefrontal cortex, one of the officials said.
While surprised at the presidents use of the term in regard to Syria on Aug. 20, advisers concluded that it had succeeded, at least for a while, since months passed with no chemical weapons attack.
But if the tough rhetoric "succeeded" for a time, it appears to have backfired in the long-run. Because Syria has now apparently used chemical weapons, and President Obama is not willing to do anything about it.
In fact, Obama is now downplaying any sort of response, even before settling on a specific response to Syrai crossing the red line.
As a general rule, I dont rule things out as commander in chief because circumstances change and you want to make sure that I always have the full power of the United States at our disposal to meet American national security interests, Obama commented on Syria, while speaking at news conference in Costa Rica. Then, Obama went on to contradict himself.
Having said that, I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in Syria, would not only be good for America, but also would be good for Syria, the president said.
The fact that you didn't even mention that his Bulls are still in the NBA Playoffs, shows just how out-of-touch you really are...
Kind of scary actually — America doesn't know who it is that gives Hussein his instructions.
Red line, shmed line, what difference, at this point, does it make?
He was only doing a poor imitation of Netanyahu anyway...actually TRYING to sound like a leader.
President Obama is right on this. Why should we be involved in Syria?
Why would diplomacy try to avoid public ‘red lines’? Especially on something like chemical weapons? Because terrorists are generally lazy. They would much rather toss a bomb into a pressure cooker, or strap it to a person, than go through the effort to create some extensive remote timed detonation system.
And you can use common household chemicals to create a similar result to militarized chemical weapons. If the terrorists who are attempting to topple Assad can get the US military to topple him for them by killing a few hundred innocents, it is an event that they’re more than willing to fulfill. Not only will the military do their work, but they can sit back and point at the great Satin who is once again bombing innocents, and forcing their way into Islam’s sphere without invitation.
I have no love of Assad, but creating yet another terrorist Mecca after making so many is hardly in our interests.
Actually his anonymous adviser is right on this in your opinion. He would appear to originally have been wrong as you see it but is now coming around to your way of thinking.
Now you’ve done it. The neocons are staging a frontal attack on you right is very second.
“President Obama is right on this. Why should we be involved in Syria?”
Now there are two things Obozo and I agree on:
1. Let the Syrians kill each other.
2. We both like arugula,
Leading from behind. REMF
“you can use common household chemicals to create a similar result to militarized chemical weapons. If the terrorists who are attempting to topple Assad can get the US military to topple him for them by killing a few hundred innocents, it is an event that theyre more than willing to fulfill. Not only will the military do their work, but they can sit back and point at the great Satin who is once again bombing innocents, and forcing their way into Islams sphere without invitation.”
Excellent what if, and a very probable one.
I don't find anything inappropriate about that comment.
The statement amounts to administrational dithering. Action is not required while dithering is in process.
History will determine that Obama lacked the ability to make decisions and dithered as a matter of policy
Agreed, a plague on both their houses. No matter who wins in Syria, we lose and Syrian Christians, what few are left, lose even bigger.
Doesn’t the _resident know he has more options than “boots on the ground?” Maybe he should ask Bill Clinton about the air war gambit.
Ah, taking lessons from Hillary. “What difference does it make?”
So, if Israel kills a few Muslims that attacking Israel, I don’t think the mooselimb in the whitehut will say those same words.
What’s it got to do with us?
For once I agree with Obama!
1. If Muzzies want to kill other Muzzies, I don’t see why we should interfere. Just doing the job Americans refuse to do. I see no upside in getting involved, and certainly no upside that would warrant wasting military resources (paid for by taxes confiscated from people like me at - ultimately - the point of a gun), nor any upside that would warrant wasting the lives of our best young men like my neighbor’s son.
2. Since WWII we’ve never really made any lasting positive difference with such military escapades anyway.
3. The Syrians are depleting their stockpiles of WMD (which could be used against us) - another plus.
4. All the newspaper ink, airtime and bandwidth now being devoted to this conflict and the indecisiveness on Obama’s part, can now become better focused on things that really matter, like his possible upcoming impeachment trial.