Bugs Obama, Yosemite Assad, Wile Iranians and Red Lines - Granite Grok

Bugs Obama, Yosemite Assad, Wile Iranians and Red Lines

The Charlatan in Chief blustered and threw down a red line last August to the Assad regime on chemical weapons.

Or so it seemed to his fans at the time.

He went forth to the adoring throngs with their laptops, tech Pad du jours, and cameras clutched and at the ready. Their attention hung on every bleated word as it made its way from the beguiling and Smartest President Evertm into their pixels and ink. Emotionally woozy, the reporters didn’t follow up for clarification; they just transmitted the text before the vapors overwhelmed them. “Ooooh, he’s so brave. He mentioned a red line. Did you hear that? He put down a red line… ‘scuse me I need to head to the restroom.”

Well, what he actually said was (emphasis mine):

“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.  That would change my equation. ”

(Just a quick side note. Saying that you’re being clear doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being clear.)

Once again, the “let me be clear” President, is anything but. “whole bunch… moving around”, what does that mean? Or what about “change my calculus… my equation” from what to what? Of course the press either didn’t catch that or ignored it because they queried about the safety of the chemical weapons in their follow up. In response to that the crystal clear president stated (again, emphasis mine):

“We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.  That would change my calculations significantly.”

Ahh, okay. Part of that is clear (though only ephemerally so): “use of chemical weapons”. Use. But “enormous consequences” and changing “calculations significantly” remain opaque. So opaque that it means nothing. That could mean withdrawing diplomats and assets from the region, closing embassies, moving assets to the region, war, a strongly worded letter, ordering deep dish instead of thin crust etc. Your guess is as good as mine, and that’s the way he wants it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he should spell out in complete detail his plans, but something needs to be provided to be credible.

 Alas, that was August, so naturally the administration pull corded the fogger to provide several more “clarifications” to be clarified by this “let me be clear” administration in the intervening months. Time magazine counts seven, and with every clarification, the definition and consequences of the red line made the observers feel as if they were witnessing members of the administration competing in a “Most Oblique” competition (see for yourself) because as Time put it the, “…’red line,’ and… response by the U.S., has never been clearly defined by the White House…” despite several attempts.  The red line resembles more of a smear, smudge or blotch than a line.

 I’m not surprised, that’s the way he rolls.  I, like many conservatives and independent political observers, view Obozo to be a morally unmoored, charlatan huckster serving no higher purpose than his own.  He invidiously uses ever malleable words and phrases and opacity to blunt political criticism and escape responsibility while simultaneously declaring “let me be clear” to woo the gullible into thinking, “if he says ‘let me be clear’, he must be trying to be clear”.  (There’s a glimpse into some of his “calculus”).

Of course his sycophantic fellow leftists and progressives don’t share this view and still orgy on every word he utters regardless of the consequences of his blunders.  Still others simply think he’s a “good guy” even if he can’t manage his office, but I suspect this view may change.

Especially, when the consequences of this administration are life and death.

The relentless flow of opacity and ambiguity on issue after issue has consequences.  The foam covered mouth of a Syrian dead from nerve gas coupled with the continuous flow of information about how the FBI, CIA, and DHS were informed before the bombing that one of the bombers was a suspected (now verified) terrorist and did nothing about it focuses the klieg lights on his “red line” and competence and on his credibility as an ally, as a leader, as a president, and as a man.

Nice guys in charge are all the rage until a bomb goes off.  Then suddenly they take the shape of a blinkered ill-equipped fool.

It reminds me of Bugs Bunny drawing a line in the sand and warning Yosemite Sam not to cross it.  Of course Sam does, and Bugs draws another with the same admonition and in turn Sam crosses again. This goes on for quite some time and is pretty funny.

The same scenario played out by our President and the Assad regime doesn’t have that same jovial spirit to it. It comes across as more of a douche chill that you can barely watch because you can’t believe how much he’s embarrassing himself and his country and most know it, okay at least the Iranians know it.

The scenario extends to the press as well.  Here the press plays the Bugs role drawing a journalistic integrity line beyond which President Sam mustn’t cross or else Bugs won’t cover for him and look the other way.  Of course we’ve seen an encouraged Sam cross it over and over again and Bugs the Journalist looked away and re-drew the line every time (the Bengahzi attack and “Fast and Furious” quickly come to mind, but there are more).  How many more lines will the press re-draw and give O cover?

Who knows.  Maybe the administrative bungling of intelligence leading to the bombing and the ever shifting Syrian red line may push the press to finally hold strong on theirs and hold the administration to account. Maybe.  In any case, the Iranians see the president for what he is, a silly cartoon.

>