Vs. 
Why so, Syria - U.S.?
Posted on 09/12/2013 9:39:41 AM PDT by mojito
Apparently, once again with respect to Syria, the White House was caught off guard by events they are frantically reacting to instead of shaping. Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper, a White House official publicly responded to Russian President Vladmir Putin's New York Times op-ed with the admission that Putin "now owns" and has "fully asserted ownership" of America's current foreign policy focal point; pushing Syria to surrender its chemical weapons:
“That’s all irrelevant,” the White House official said in response [to Putin's op-ed]. “He put this proposal forward and he’s now invested in it. That’s good. That’s the best possible reaction. He’s fully invested in Syria’s CW disarmament and that’s potentially better than a military strike – which would deter and degrade but wouldn’t get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver.”
On its face, the lack of statesmanship in the language of "owns this" is troubling enough. And while it is apparent that what the White House is trying do here is frame a failure to rid Syria of its chemical weapons as a personal failure for Putin, once again we have a White House playing checkers as Putin plays three-dimensional chess.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If Putin is not careful O will be for bombing Russia next. Obama doesn’t take criticism well. lol
Indecisive Obama passes the buck with ‘don’t blame me’ and looks for a scapegoat in Putin.
Putin has been more adult regarding this issue than Obama.
The American asshat in chief is reaping what he sowed.
Three more years of feckless incompetence . . .
Vs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.