Obama draws a "red line" for Syria: That was then, this is now (Congress, Iran)

[Little-Acorn]

That was then:

Barack Obama's red-line warning to Bashar Assad: The president repeatedly warned the Syrian regime not to use chemical weapons against its own people. - Slate Magazine

Remarks by President Obama to the White House Press Corps – August 20, 2012

"We have put together a range of contingency plans. 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."


And this is now:

Obama: I didn’t draw the red line on Syria, world did | McClatchy

Remarks by President Obama to a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, September 4, 2013

"I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line," Obama said. "My credibility’s not on the line."


Aren't you glad we finally have an administration that deals with us squarely and forthrightly, on such important issues as going to war with a foreign country?

[ntwrkguy1]

This is the kind of results we can expect when we elect people that have no substance, have no character, and have no integrity.

His credibility, indeed, is not on the line. But that's because his credibility is in the toilet.

[BoomBen]

Leadership in our Government is all but extinct.

Afterall our President was elected with Zero executive or managerial experience in his life.
Community organizer my a$$.

[Little-Acorn]

Remember when Romney was running for President, and the liberals were screaming how terrible it would be to have someone so inexperienced and out-of-touch to be handling foreign affairs with other countries? Particularly middle Eastern countries?

[EntropyGuardian]

So are you for invading/bombing Syria or against it? Or is it just a dig at Obama?

I'm glad he isn't wasting any tax dollars getting involved in yet another middle eastern conflict, so the change in his position is a good one to me. You sound like you want the US involved and are upset he moderated his position.

[Little-Acorn]

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by EntropyGuardian

So are you for invading/bombing Syria or against it? Or is it just a dig at Obama?

I'm glad he isn't wasting any tax dollars getting involved in yet another middle eastern conflict, so the change in his position is a good one to me. You sound like you want the US involved and are upset he moderated his position.

Translation

Obama got caught lying but I don't care and I will back him no matter what.

[BoomBen]

Originally Posted by EntropyGuardian

So are you for invading/bombing Syria or against it? Or is it just a dig at Obama?

I'm glad he isn't wasting any tax dollars getting involved in yet another middle eastern conflict, so the change in his position is a good one to me. You sound like you want the US involved and are upset he moderated his position.

I agree with your premise. However a President should also lead.

Why can the people not get a straight answer? Or a blount assessment?

How about this : "Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war. While the United States in no way supports violence it would not be prudent to interfere in another nation's internal conflict."

Instead we get all of these mixed signals. "its about Naitonal security" "its about sending a message to Iran" "its about credibility (BS!) with the world" its ALL a Bunch of BULL****.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by BoomBen

I agree with your premise. However a President should also lead.

Why can the people not get a straight answer? Or a blount assessment?

How about this : "Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war. While the United States in no way supports violence it would not be prudent to interfere in another nation's internal conflict."

Instead we get all of these mixed signals. "its about Naitonal security" "its about sending a message to Iran" "its about credibility (BS!) with the world" its ALL a Bunch of BULL****.

This is what I don't like. The rationale has not been clearly stated or supported. I don't know what we're trying to accomplish. Regime change? Decisive attack? Shot across the bow? Uncertainty seems to be "The Obama Doctrine."

[EntropyGuardian]

Originally Posted by BoomBen

I agree with your premise. However a President should also lead.

Why can the people not get a straight answer? Or a blount assessment?

How about this : "Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war. While the United States in no way supports violence it would not be prudent to interfere in another nation's internal conflict."

Instead we get all of these mixed signals. "its about Naitonal security" "its about sending a message to Iran" "its about credibility (BS!) with the world" its ALL a Bunch of BULL****.

Because he, like everyone else in the government, is a politician.

I wish he'd come out and say "Hey, gay marriage should be the law in every state, so should marijuana use, also we're done with middle east wars that don't serve the US's interest while we are bankrupt at home". Instead we get a center-right politician who does just enough to **** off everyone.

I, for one, am happy he pulled back on the ridiculous Syria warmongering. Now he is going to throw the ball to congress and the UN for a security resolution which will fail or fizzle out. Could he or should he just say "Bombing Syria is a dumb idea and I can't believe I vaugely threatened we'd do it"? Yeah. Not going to happen though. They'll all make a show of it on both sides but I don't really think anyone wants to attack Syria but the people who make the missles.

Edit: Sucks about the chemical weapon attacks and all but it is a ****ty country, a ****ty situation, and Syria has had dozens of governments over the past couple of decades. The middle east is a huge honey trap we just throw money and lives into we don't have to spare. The sooner we just leave the whole mess alone the better (for us).