Obama blames 'the world' for his foolish red line ultimatum

[Wehrwolfen]

By Thomas Lifson
September 4, 2013

The dog didn't eat his homework, but Barack Obama's latest attempt in Sweden to blame somebody else for the mess he has gotten himself into is scarcely more plausible. If you haven't heard yet, Lesley Clark of McClatchy writes:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday declared the world's credibility "is on the line" when it comes to punishing Syrian President Bashar Assad for his regime's purported use of chemical weapons.

Speaking at a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, ahead of a global economic summit in Russia where he will seek to rally support for a U.S. military strike against Syria, Obama said the "red line" he set against a year ago against Syria's use of chemical weapons isn't his, but an international standard.

"I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line," Obama said. "My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress's credibility's on the line."​

Michelle Obama's Mirror has wicked fun with this preposterous propaganda line: See
http://www.michellesmirror.com/2013/...l#.Uif7tLLD9jr


Read more:
Blog: Obama blames 'the world' for his foolish red line ultimatum

Hmm..., Oblamer didn't earn the name because he accepts responsibility for his actions. I guess he ran out of reasons to blame Bush. BTW his credibility is certainly on the line, On the world front the Nobel Peace Prize winner has a credibility rating of Zero.

 

[disneydude]

Wow...that's a stretch....you guys are getting so desperate that it isn't even shocking any more. The desperation is just sad at this point.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

in the name of the little baby jebus Friday, January 20 2017 seems SO far away :-(

 

[rjay]

Sounds to me like he is just doing what the article said: "Trying to rally international support"

 

[AngryOldGuy]

support for what?

 

[Cecil900]

I think Obama has a point actually. Doesn't the UN have laws against this? Or at the very least don't we have the Geneva Convention?

 

[Moot]

I think Obama has a point actually. Doesn't the UN have laws against this? Or at the very least don't we have the Geneva Convention?

There are several treaties.....the chemical weapons convention is the most recent. It would be difficult and hypocritical for any country that signed the treaty to now say there shouldn't some punishment or intervention to try and prevent Assad from using chemical or biological weapons.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biological Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....Syria is one of only 7 states which are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, it is party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in war but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer.

Syrian officials have stated that they feel it appropriate to have some deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons program when questioned about the topic, but only on July 23, 2012, the Syrian government acknowledged for the first time that it had chemical weapons[34]

Independent assessments indicate that Syrian production could be up to a combined total of a few hundred tons of chemical agent per year. Syria reportedly manufactures Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas types of chemical weapons.[35]

Syrian chemical weapons production facilities have been identified by Western nonproliferation experts at approximately 5 sites, plus one suspected weapons base:[36]..."
Chemical weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]