“If [Assad] drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”
The line is from an Obama aide, in this New York Times article dedicated to walking back Obama’s previous declaration that if Syria used of chemical weapons, that would cross a “red line”:
Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.
“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”
. . . .
The advisers reviewed an array of pre-emptive military options and quickly discounted them as impractical. The evidence was not strong enough to warrant a pre-emptive strike, they concluded, and military officers said the best they could do with airstrikes or commando operations would be to limit the use of chemical weapons already deployed.
Mr. Obama’s advisers also raised legal issues. “How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution?” another official said, referring to United Nations authorization. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”
It’s a red line that might change our calculus, except not really; it was kind of an unscripted accident, after all — and anyway, it has nothing to do with us, so who cares?
Tough rhetoric from Washington.
a veritable beacon of liberty are we
go team
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 2:51 pmThe administration that attacked Libya without a self defense rationale and with no Security Council resolution suddenly thinks that they need a self defense rationale and a Security Council resolution …
Empty Suit(tm) … actually empty would be an improvement.
SPQR (768505) — 5/5/2013 @ 2:55 pmSyria better mind itself or President Peace Prize might seek a UN resolution criticizing their actions. He might even convince them to “strongly criticize” the use of chemical weapons.
JVW (4826a9) — 5/5/2013 @ 3:10 pmRemember when he had the unique skill set and temperment to fix all our international problems?
JD (b63a52) — 5/5/2013 @ 3:40 pm“If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”
I can tolerate your sentiment as long as you (and if you’re in the Obama administration, it’s 99.99% guaranteed you lean left) and other like-minded people don’t fall for the idea that liberal biases imbue one with wonderful, humane, generous, compassionate, tolerant qualities. They don’t.
Mark (2e68b2) — 5/5/2013 @ 4:04 pmYeah, as SPQR points out, none of these concerns concerned The One’s Administration when they bombed Libya.
It’s also kind of pathetic because the Alinsky Obama Sycophants are the ones who wish to do away with citizenship, borders, national sovereignty, and the law—particularly when they belong to America—yet here they’re diddling themselves over issues regarding citizenship, borders, national sovereignty, and ‘the law.’
Elephant Stone (a59d01) — 5/5/2013 @ 4:26 pmWatch your ass, Syria.
Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/5/2013 @ 4:38 pmi see what you did there
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 4:48 pmWatch your Assad, Syria !
Elephant Stone (a59d01) — 5/5/2013 @ 4:56 pmIn the words of an aspiring President who apparently speaks for every Democratic Party leader:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/5/2013 @ 4:57 pmAs I said previously, I think the Iraq war started in large part because Saddam and everyone else did not believe Bush meant what he said. I think Saddam, with support from Russia and others, counted on being able to string along the US still longer with his version of “rope a dope”, and getting his WMD stuff out of sight before allowing another round of pseudo-cooperation with inspections. Low and behold, an American president meant what he said, hence Saddam lost the bet with a tremendous miscalculation.
I think the world would be a much different place today had not the Dems decided to undermine Bush and American resolve. Had Syria and Iran (like Libya) continued to fear a US that meant business things might be much better overall today.
Democrats lied and many more died.
Now we’re back to empty threats that mean nothing.
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:14 pmI bet Israel’s working group on the Iranian bomb is discussing this as we type. And perhaps their strikes into Syria are a reaction to Obama’s failings here.
Off-topic, the next new moon is on May 10.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:15 pmNot only Democrats though, there were some nominally Republican idiots, who did their part;
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/05/lawrencewilkersons-shame-and-colin-powells-chemical-weapons/
narciso (3fec35) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:18 pmt minus five days and counting til the pesky werewolves?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:20 pmno that would be like 4 days or whatever
I’m not really steeped in moon lore to tell you the truth
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:21 pmI think that President Obama is doing exactly the right thing in Syria: absolutely nothing. Considering just who the rebels are — wanna-be Islamists and other thugs — the best thing to do is to let them keep fighting and fighting and fighting, until there is so much death and destruction that whomever emerges as the winner will have so many domestic problems with which to deal that they won’t have either the time or the resources for international mischief.
President Obama’s real problem was that he ran his mouth, and issued an empty threat. Now, actually doing the right thing looks like weakness, and the President’s word cannot be either trusted or even taken seriously.
The coldly realistic Dana (af9ec3) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:55 pmhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
I would be surprised if they didn’t. Assad’s patron Vladimir Putin spent nearly 20 years in the KGB. Planting evidence to throw people off the trail was a classic KGB maneuver.
Which isn’t to say the rebels didn’t use sarin. But look at who the Syrian regime and its backers are dealing with? Obama demands a “chain of custody” for these weapons before he’ll blame the regime. Are you kidding me, in a civil war?
Obama loves to blame the “fog of war” for his inaction. If he wants to hide behind fog, Putin as well as Assad’s KGB-trained intelligence and security agencies would be happy to create some fog for him.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/5/2013 @ 6:57 pmit’s a bloodbath but we could make it less so without altering the fundamental dynamic of attrition
there’s no dog in that fight for democracy or liberty or free enterprise
but we should send a message that no you can’t just cavort like murderous pigthugs and not have something very near and dear to you go boom
but Obama’s fascist failmerica lacks the necessary flexibility
Putin Putin lick lick lick says America, feigning the sort of passion long practiced by thai lady boys and tijuana donkey women
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 7:11 pmPresident Prom Queen wandered off The Reservation (the WH staff’s affectionate nickname for the teleprompter) and ran his mouth about red lines.
Which were heavily caveated red lines from the start. And now prove not to be red lines at all.
Why does it matter? Just look at the countries that also have to deal with threats like Iran and North Korea. We’ve already demonstrated that a sneak attack on an allied nation’s patrol combatant, the Cheonan, isn’t a red line. Now the President’s personally established chemical weapons red line isn’t a red line. And if the rebels used the sarin, then AQ affiliated groups seizing WMDs isn’t a red line.
Nations like Japan, South Korea, and Israel are supposed to trust us?
I don’t advocate going to war in Syria to save this idiot’s credibility. But the likely consequences of not doing so include an arms race, possibly including nuclear weapons, in East Asia and unilateral Israeli action against Iran.
Which would still be preferable to going into Syria and installing a bunch of Sharia-loving Caliphate-lusting Salafists in power. But those consequences wouldn’t be so likely if this President would just shut his pie hole.
I am officially declaring I’m not longer complaining about President Tiger Beat’s golf career. Keep him on the golf course all day, every day and away from microphones.
Again, what is the evidence this guy is actually smart? It hasn’t shown up yet as far as I can tell.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/5/2013 @ 7:13 pmWell Volodya has been right on this point, now it may well be that Russian proxy’s like Kadyrov in Chechnya, the utterly unpronounceable one in Dagestan, cultivate this kind of radicalism
narciso (3fec35) — 5/5/2013 @ 7:15 pmYou do realize if that’s the standard, Mr. Feets, we’re going to have to fight both sides in Syria.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/5/2013 @ 7:16 pmok that’s fine
near I can figure we got nothin better to do with those cruise missiles
boom boom boom all yous b!tch3s go back to your room
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 7:18 pmand putin you do your worst
take your shirt off get fierce and jiggy with it
yawn
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/5/2013 @ 7:30 pmThere are no WMDs, hence, can be no Sarin gas.
htom (412a17) — 5/5/2013 @ 8:07 pmhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578428141862143714.html
It’s behind the paywall, but:
I’m thinking we all know how this turns out. You can take the boy out of the jihad, but you can’t take the jihad out of the boy.
I’m not feeling motivated to lift a finger to help this guy do this kind of thing better.
Remember the old saying about buying a model T. Ford would sell it to you in any color you wanted as long as it was black.
Well, you can side with any faction in Syria and get any result you want, Mr. Feets, as long you want a bloodbath.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/5/2013 @ 8:11 pm==President Obama’s real problem was that he ran his mouth, and issued an empty threat.==
In the past he’s been more than eager to criticize actions by others which in his estimation were too hasty or not-well-thought-out. Preesy should take his own medicine and say “I acted stupidly”.
elissa (fc49fa) — 5/5/2013 @ 8:24 pmhillary clinton
Colonel Haiku (84a691) — 5/5/2013 @ 8:46 pmis about to find out what
difference it makes
26. I linked this theory a few days after Benghazi when Walid Shoebat offered the camera video referred to with translation:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/05/that-crazy-benghazi-conspiracy-theory.html
Yeah, I know, as McVain would protest the Dog is a patriot. I don’t at bottom doubt it just the side.
Even then you quibble he’s a coward. Well, what do you call people shooting from behind children while dressed in burkas?
Martyrs.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/5/2013 @ 9:22 pmMark @5, I don’t think that quote has anything to do with liberals expressing a callous, inhumane, intolerant attitudes toward other people.
If you look at the whole quote the official is clearly wondering how you can possibly justify using military force where the President chose to draw his own personal red line. Which is a legitimate question to ask. At some point the Obama administration would have to justify to someone their decision to intervene. To Congress one would hope. What’s he going to say, that Assad threatens the vital national interest we all have in not letting foreign powers demonstrate Obama says stupid things when he slips his leash?
You’d be hard pressed to identify a national interest at stake in what Obama chose to declare a red line.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/5/2013 @ 11:21 pmOur real policy should be to find some olive oil and symbolically wash our hands if the affair unless some action threatens our ally Israel. Now, I am not at all sure that is something which would be wise or politic to declare so bluntly. So we probably need to dance around it.
There are no good guys in this fight in any serious measure. We would find ourselves either assisting Assad/Hezbollah/Iran, al Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are outnumbered and “out-violenced” by the other three. And the area Christians are lost, forlorn, and royally screwed. Neither of these potential good guy groups has any particular organized militants taking part in the battle anymore.
So if Muslims care to mercilessly kill other Muslims, “I should care?” If both sides declare that I am toast if they have their way in this world, let them kill each other as we relax and enjoy the show. Yes, that’s a nasty cynical view on the situation. But sometimes the world is nasty and cynical. Besides, if we watch it carefully maybe at some point the nasty people may be so weakened we can effectively step in and install a Christian government in Syria – and Lebanon as a side effect.
{^_^}
JDow (1a2024) — 5/5/2013 @ 11:25 pmI don’t think that quote has anything to do with liberals expressing a callous, inhumane, intolerant attitudes toward other people.
Steve57, but that unnamed official, as is true of most on the left, undoubtedly likes to feel weepy eyed over most socio-political issues—foolishly and mindlessly. So his (or her) comment actually is a window into his mind. IOW, would he (or she) ever say “If lots of people are dying of AIDS in Africa, or lots of people are impoverished in South America, what’s that got to do with us?” Of course he wouldn’t.
So the peculiar combination of a liberal’s anti-imperalist, anti-war sentiment, mixed together with his pro-Third-Worldism, wedded with his patronizing sentiments towards Islam (compared with his flippancy towards, say, Christianity) are the real reason he’ll express a hands-off attitude about Syria.
BTW, I’d say that the Middle East — including Syria — is full of Hobson’s Choices and no-win situations. That’s why an isolationist response towards those societies by the US makes about as much sense as any other. But that’s not the main reason — or, for that matter, any of the reasons — why people who insist a lame video posted to Youtube fueled an attack on an American consulate, or why “workplace violence” was behind a pro-Islamic US military enlistee murdering a bunch of his fellow enlistees, will feel isolationist about Syria.
Mark (2e68b2) — 5/6/2013 @ 12:09 amThe cool thing is Israel is proceeding as tho there is no hyperpower and they’re on their own.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/6/2013 @ 3:40 amWe shouldn’t get involved. Let Israel defend itself. But it is kinda fun seeing The One’s empty rhetoric shown to be just that. Again. Really though it’s trivia to us.As awful and sad as this is, it’s not our fight, there are no good options and only bad actors.
Bugg (b32862) — 5/6/2013 @ 5:32 amMr 57 wrote:
If you look at the whole quote the official is clearly wondering how you can possibly justify using military force where the President chose to draw his own personal red line. Which is a legitimate question to ask. At some point the Obama administration would have to justify to someone their decision to intervene. To Congress one would hope. What’s he going to say, that Assad threatens the vital national interest we all have in not letting foreign powers demonstrate Obama says stupid things when he slips his leash?
The blogger Dana (3e4784) — 5/6/2013 @ 6:11 amCrap! Hit the send button too soon!
Mr 57 wrote:
Maybe President Obama didn’t really intend for it to come out this way, but the White House just endorsed the Bush doctrine of unilateral, pre-emptive action.
And yes, that is completely shameless blog whoring. 🙂
The blogger Dana (3e4784) — 5/6/2013 @ 6:14 amMr 57 wrote:
Nahhh! They’re doing a quite good job of making things go boom to each other all by themselves. Both sides are seeing things near and dear to themselves going boom.
The cynical Dana (3e4784) — 5/6/2013 @ 6:17 amMr 57 wrote:
Oh, don’t worry: they didn’t have much faith in Teh Won’s word even before this. President Obama’s credibility had already been shot; this was just more proof, but didn’t really damage it any further.
The only real question is whether this will open the eyes of a few of his supporters. My guess: probably not.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 5/6/2013 @ 6:22 amThe blogger Dana #33 & #34:
Presumably Obama would say the same thing he said when he intervened militarily in Libya:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:00 amIt’s interesting that Obama effectively characterizes his own statements as “empty words.”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:02 am“It’s interesting that Obama effectively characterizes his own statements as “empty words.””
DRJ – One of the few time he has been caught telling the truth.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:13 amWe assume that living quietly among the belligerents in Syria there’s ad hoc majority of good and honest people who desire to live in peace with their neighbors and to raise their families to be strong and healthy citizens of their native land. And, we’d like to support them, as opposed to the Assad regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any and all al-Qaeda affiliates or other group of tyrannical fanatics.
It’s a pleasant, generous, and self-serving assumption which arises organically from the well insulated safety of our political philosophy grounded in Lockean liberalism well slathered with a presumptuous layer of naivete.
Yet, we should remind ourselves that George W Bush fell prey to similar assumptions about the good democracy loving people of Iraq.
The assumptions which find near universal acceptance in the 21st century West are regarded with suspicion and contempt among 12th century Muslims. They know better, in the Middle East John Locke wears a burka, and Thomas Hobbes rules the roost.
ropelight (4ace92) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:38 amDRJ: In the case you mentioned, he prefaced it by referencing the “entire international community,” which gave him some sort of cover that it wasn’t just a unilateral action, and that it wasn’t for the purposes of our defense. This time, his spokesminion simply said that Israel, “as a sovereign government, has the right to take the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people.”
Those are two very different things.
Of course, it could be that his spokesminion misspoke.
The Dana taking the distinction (3e4784) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:46 amPerhaps, in the interest of furthering our own defense, we ought to provide arms to both sides in Syria. 🙂
The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:49 amMark @31, of course it’s a window into his mind. And he’s asking what US interest is at stake. Which would indicate he’s not in fact a liberal like you describe. He’s apparently not a big fan of the “responsibility to protect” nonsense as he’s asking about what US interest is threatened by Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria.
He may not in fact be a liberal. Do you know if this unnamed official is in fact an Obama political appointee and not some career official that’s was simply in a position to advise the Obama administration because of long service? That happens, too, you know.
I would take the term “adviser” advisedly, so to speak. I seriously doubt Valerie Jarrett or Obama’s Chief of Staff is complaining about Obama’s choice of words. But rather people in a position to provide input to Obama’s inner circle, but not those composing the inner circle themselves.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 12:53 pm“I don’t bluff. On second thought…
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/6/2013 @ 2:39 pmthere doesn’t seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for doing anything to stop all the killing in Syria
that’s what Putin wants, and he’s a gay homosexual, so it’s weird to see so many otherwise conservative conservatives fall into lockstep with him
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:25 pmC+ for effort Mr. Feets what with bringing sexual orientation into this.
Which seems to be a fixation of yours.
But the fact is no one has suggested a way to “stop all the killing in Syria.”
Not even you Mr. Feets. All you’ve suggested is a way to add to it.
Why would I want to send a few cruise missiles Syria’s way if all I’d be doing is piling killing on top of killing? Sure, in the very short term it might be emotionally satisfying in the “at least I did something” kind of way. But it wouldn’t stop the killings that are guaranteed to follow, Mr. Feets, no matter who wins.
Why would I want to participate in that?
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:51 pmok fair points Mr. Steve
but still at the end of the day you stand with the flamboyantly gay Mr. Putin whereas I stand with thems, stalwart and true, what do not find the status quo acceptable with respect to all the people dying in Syria
if we have to bomb the rebels and also the weirdo chinless dentist freak and also his scuzzy hooch then I say surely we have us some bombs somewheres what are nearing their expiration date so all we need to pay for really is some jet fuel, which we can write-off at the end of the year
we can make a day of it even – order some fried chicken – just sit around and watch carol the cnn news crone cackle and burble on about how all this just makes food stamp’s peace prize glow with an inner light of peace
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 8:58 pmand plus c’mon we can at least rustle up some token refugees and get them out of harm’s way
that’s just the christian thing to do and good karma besides
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:01 pmIf you can point out “them, stalwarts and true” I’d stand with them, too.
The fact of the matter is though, Mr. Feets, is that in the ME the enemy of your enemy is likely to be a real s***bird just the same as your enemy.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:03 pmyou’ve done a lot more reading on this than I have
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:04 pmit’s not really fair
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:04 pmAlso that jet fuel won’t be cheap.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/03/not-to-worry-dod-still-buying-59gallon-green-jet-fuel-despite-sequester/comment-page-1/
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:06 pm“there doesn’t seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for doing anything to stop all the killing in Syria”
Mr. Feets – I think if people in Syria climbed on board the SSM train there would be so much joy and happiness that they would stop fighting each other, plus they would be forced to join together to fight off annihilation from members of a mostly peaceful medieval death cult seeking to wipe them out for adopting wicked and sinful ways of the Western world just because they are popular.
Sometimes that box needs to be thought outside of. Just sayin.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:07 pmthe dod has its shared of dumbtards
there’s no shame in that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:08 pmok well actually yeah it’s a wee lil bit shameful but what’re you gonna do
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:09 pmit sure does seem to have worked for rhode island Mr. daley
you’ve given us a lot to think about
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:11 pmEvery group has its share of dumbtards, Mr. Feets. But that only ever says anything about the group when it’s the Catholic Church or the GOP.
I know. CNN and MSNBC told me so.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:12 pm*share* of dumbtards I mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:13 pmBashir is a slimy little weasel, his minions basically allowed jihadists to stream into Iraq, however those same folks are the ones fighting him,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:16 pmblowing thing up, the tribesmen of that area, are the same on each side of the border
the GOP is dumb dumb dumb but the “Catholic Church” is on balance a force for good in the world (granted this is a lot cause of it’s a VERY fallen world)
I think a lot of it’s kinda silly how they don-t let womens be priests and stuff but you know whatever it’s not my problem
they’re all about the baby steps
and I’m digging the third world pope dude – that really surprised me – I figured we were gonna get another pasty sclerotic eurodude
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:16 pm*don’t* let womens be priests I mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:17 pm“it sure does seem to have worked for rhode island Mr. daley”
Mr. Feets – I did not know Rhode Island was in the middle of a civil war and using WMD’s on its own people, but nobody tells me nothing.
Thanks for putting me in some knowledge.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:21 pmthey were *right* on the verge Mr. daley
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:23 pmIt’s all our fault I’m sure, narciso, for dismantling the Ottoman Empire the way we did. Expect a historically inane speech from Obama a la the Cairo speech or more recently his campaign speech in Mexico lecturing us we can’t blame Turkey for the Armenian genocide. Or something.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:32 pmand now we have no place to put our feet
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:35 pmI got some notion about this, in McCrystal’s memoir, which goes into the tracking of the Ghadiya network, which is even mentioned in Bowden’s book, before all the hagiography of all of Obama’s wisdom, gag.
narciso (3fec35) — 5/6/2013 @ 9:37 pmBronco Bama doesn’t agree with that sentiment, Mr. Feets. As recorded by the WH photog who by the way doesn’t have his job threatened by sequestration.
http://www.investors.com/image/ObamaOvalOfffFeeetUpfonesmilePeteSou12-09_600.jpg.cms
Another pic by our WH guaranteed to calm teh mooslims down what with their shoe fetish and all.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/6/2013 @ 10:50 pmRepublicans have no consensual talking points.
mg (31009b) — 5/7/2013 @ 3:20 amThey suck.
We only have the facts, bummer, and McCain and Graham don’t even have that.
narciso (3fec35) — 5/7/2013 @ 5:51 amAs DEnnis Miller put it, it’s like a Lewis and Martin reunion tour;
http://freebeacon.com/corker-i-think-we-will-arm-the-syrian-rebels-soon/
narciso (3fec35) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:16 amSupposedly, Bashir al-Assad and his minions have killed multiple thousands of Syrians with bullets and bombs, and we have wrung our hands. Now he may have killed some with Sarin gas, which crosses a supposedly red line set by some dolt in Washington.
The question as far as I am concerned is: are those who have been killed by sarin somehow deader than those killed by bullets?
The Dana who doesn't see the difference (3e4784) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:36 amDana, you might as well ask if the Assad regime is quaking in its boots due the threatened consequences of crossing Obama’s “red lines.”
Holy bejeebus! If Assad uses chemical weapons that will “alter my calculus” sez Tiger Beat. Jiminy Christmas; leaders across the globe quiver at the threat of Prom Queen altering his/her calculus.
Now he’s threatening to rally the international community. Oh, that’s worked out well.
I said at the time that not reacting to the deliberate attack on the Cheonan would have consequences. Hillary! can pound the table all she wants in front of dumbfounded congresscritters and demand to know at this point what does it matter. But there is an answer to her idiocy, even if the idiots in Congress can’t come up with it.
Steve57 (da9e0e) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:50 amTrue, recall Hama rules, which apply to Aleppo, Tartus, et al.
narciso (3fec35) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:57 amOh, Mt 57, I am sure, sure! that President Assad is quaking in his boots over our esteemed President’s ire and promises. /sarc
Getting away from the sarcasm, it’s really a simple calculation: if the regime believe that they must use chemical weapons to have a chance to win, and that they will lose if they do not, then they must use chemical weapons if they have them. The alternative to winning is not a nice home in exile in the south of France, but the wrong end of a rope. How will they be punished more for losing if they use chemical weapons than if they don’t? And if they win, they won’t be punished at all.
The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 5/7/2013 @ 7:50 amWTF? It’s muslims killing muslims. I don’t see a downside.
Greg (bc5060) — 5/7/2013 @ 11:59 amComment by The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 5/7/2013 @ 7:50 am
The alternative to winning is not a nice home in exile in the south of France, but the wrong end of a rope.
That’s why, instead of idiotically calling upon Presidenty Assad to leave office (without specifying where he wiuld go – they hope Russia maybe but Russia won’t do it – President Obama should be touting the nice prison conditions in The Hague. And safe conduct to the International Criminal Court, where he can be tried by a tribunal that has no death penalty. The alternative might be like Qaddafi.
The US should state there is one caveat: they don’t just atke anybody – if anyone from Assad and company wants sto go there he has to bring evidence of his own guilt – how about for the murder of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon?
bthInternational
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:24 pm