On September 1st Seacoast Online wrote that…
Obama long ago said the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” Assad would not be allowed to cross with impunity.
August 28th, Nashua Telegraph…
Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” suggesting it would trigger U.S. intervention in the bloody, two-year civil war.
About a week earlier at Portsmouth Herald/Seacoast Online…
“That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria. It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us,” Obama said, underscoring that the U.S. wouldn’t accept the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government, rebels fighting the government, or militant groups aiding either side. “We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”
The president noted that he hasn’t ordered any armed U.S. intervention yet, but said: “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.”
Union Leader, Aug 28th,
Last August (2012), President Obama drew his line in the Syrian sand. “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.”
Keene Sentinel, Aug 29…
The U.S., the U.K., Germany, France and Israel have all conclusively spoken out about how the Syrian government is responsible for all past chemical use within Syria, with the U.S. explicitly saying there was “little doubt” Assad’s regime had used them. Specifically, Obama is currently attempting to solidify his stance on the matter, especially after the posturing he had to fulfill with his “red line” statement. The belligerence of the administration isn’t exactly radical, but it is telling.
The Sentinel’s, nor are any of the papers editorial positions as important as the point of the context; that they saw what everyone else saw, and felt, and came to understand. Regardless of his wishy-washy, paper-tiger diplomacy with regard to Iran, Syria, or anyone else, everyone agrees (up until Monday of this week) that there was a red line and Obama had drawn it, at least once.
Well he’s changed the context… Now it is the worlds red line, not Obama’s.
So what will Democrats do now? More importantly, will the NH Media call out this change of context, the return to leading from behind, or just wonder how everyone got the meaning of the red line wrong and toe the new red line on Syria as Obama has now defined it?
By the way. There is plenty of snark to be had on the Red Line change-O-context, but I found this comment to be perhaps the best so far.
https://twitter.com/lachlan/statuses/375249194468274177
One more point. Last May the UN claimed the rebels Obama has been funneling billions to, and wants to support with air strikes and possibly ground troops, had used Chemical Weapons against Assad’s troops and supporters. Nothing to see there, even though he had said he didn’t want to see the rebels using them either. So no one should be surprised that the Amateur is trying to sneak away from this yet again.
And having handed-off the responsibility to the world…how does that change what happens if Congress denies him his wish to help Al-Qaida rebels and Muslim brotherhood allies, or the world walks away?
