BHO's "red line" for dummies

[Mytzlplk]

of course some rightwingers would prefer that he simply jumped in with some warmongering like Bush or the warmonger McSame, but fortunately a thinker was elected instead of McSame.

The president spoke as political critics complain that he has not acted more quickly on reports that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons, an action he had previously said would infringe a red line and be a game-changer.

He said that before acting, Washington must first establish exactly who had used chemical weapons and when, in an apparent reference to the flawed intelligence that led America into war with Iraq.

“I don’t make decisions based on perceived,” he said, when asked by a reporter about perceived violations of US red lines.


“I can’t organize international coalitions around perceived. We’ve tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn’t work out well.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...o-stop-slaughter-in-syria-but-needs-evidence/​

 

[marvin martian]

Sorry to tell you, dude, but Obama IS McSame...

 

[NightSwimmer]

Pearls, swine... You've probably heard it before.

 

[Zam-Zam]

of course some rightwingers would prefer that he simply jumped in with some warmongering like Bush or the warmonger McSame, but fortunately a thinker was elected instead of McSame.

The president spoke as political critics complain that he has not acted more quickly on reports that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons, an action he had previously said would infringe a red line and be a game-changer.

He said that before acting, Washington must first establish exactly who had used chemical weapons and when, in an apparent reference to the flawed intelligence that led America into war with Iraq.

“I don’t make decisions based on perceived,” he said, when asked by a reporter about perceived violations of US red lines.


“I can’t organize international coalitions around perceived. We’ve tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn’t work out well.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...o-stop-slaughter-in-syria-but-needs-evidence/​

The President also said this today:


"I think we have both a moral obligation and a national security interest in both a) ending the slaughter in Syria and b) ensuring a stable Syria."



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/298281-obama-us-has-a-moral-obligation-in-syria



What does that actually mean in terms of what we are going to do?


Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Your guess is as good as mine.

None of our guesses are nearly so valuable as is the actual diplomatic strategy that will be implemented. They're useful for engaging in partisan political sniping though -- so there's that.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

we sure dodged two bullets not letting McCain or Romney near the presidency.

 

[Zam-Zam]

None of our guesses are nearly so valuable as is the actual diplomatic strategy that will be implemented. They're useful for engaging in partisan political sniping though -- so there's that.

I think it is important to note this wasn't an off-the-cuff remark, this was a prepared remark. He seems to be sending a message. A moral obligation would seem to indicate that it's not optional, it's an obligation. I doubt that he selected that phrase without a purpose.

What action is indicated by his choice of words, I have no idea.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Neither do the Syrians. What do you think that means?

 

[JackDallas]

When something costs Obama campaign money...THAT is his red line.

of course some rightwingers would prefer that he simply jumped in with some warmongering like Bush or the warmonger McSame, but fortunately a thinker was elected instead of McSame.

The president spoke as political critics complain that he has not acted more quickly on reports that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons, an action he had previously said would infringe a red line and be a game-changer.

He said that before acting, Washington must first establish exactly who had used chemical weapons and when, in an apparent reference to the flawed intelligence that led America into war with Iraq.

“I don’t make decisions based on perceived,” he said, when asked by a reporter about perceived violations of US red lines.


“I can’t organize international coalitions around perceived. We’ve tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn’t work out well.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...o-stop-slaughter-in-syria-but-needs-evidence/​

 

[Zam-Zam]

Neither do the Syrians. What do you think that means?

Maybe not a lot. They're embroiled in a civil war, both side fighting for survival.

 

[afella]

So what does it actually mean if it was the Assad opposition forces who used the weapons? Would that be a red line for the administration to support assad? Cut off all aid to the opposition? Or is their ambition for "democracy" something that supercedes that red line, meaning we keep funding them and promote support for the opposition from other outside sources?

Personally, I oppose all support for the opposition. I do not mind throwing our political weight around and saying to Qatar, or Saudia Arabia, hey that's alright with us go ahead and support them. However, if it was the opposition that used the weapons then there shouldn't even be that political weight thrown about towards other nations.

It will be interesting how it all pans out.

 

[Mytzlplk]

lol, why yes I have

 

[Mytzlplk]

you know it julie.

one shudders to think where we'd be now