Minuteman follows the bouncing red ball: "The buck stops everywhere."
So that "red line" wasn't drawn by Obama but by Congress and the world and maybe George Bush. Funny thing, though, is that the White House Press Secretary didn't quite convey their complicity:
We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community. It's precisely because we take this red line so seriously that we believe there is an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria.Emphasis added for credit and/or blame. In fact, this statement clearly does not include the international community but - hey - now it does. Because the time has come to seek an accomplice.
Extra - Twitchy: "President Pass-the-Buck." And there's Legal Insurrection.
More - The Other McCain: "The Sting of the Rodeo Clown 'Red Line'."
6 comments:
"Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? ...Some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people... Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th... Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously."
--President Bush, October 7, 2002
Is this a fat pitch over the plate? Are we supposed to forget that Dubya got both U.N. and Congressional approval before Iraq? That the coalition against Iraq included over 40 countries?
This is either a comment in support or the worst rebuttal ever.
The above comments were spoken before the Congressional vote on Iraq, and before the UN Security Council authorization. They were part of Bush's campaign to drum up support, just like Obama's now.
Fat pitches? The lying arguments, inept planning, and astronomical cost + death toll of the Iraq debacle are the #1 agent behind the current reluctance to take on Syria.
You may not want to hold up Bush's words as the credible counterweight to Obama's off-script remarks and rhetorical exaggerations.
"... just like Obama's now." Without the support.
I liked Byron York's guide to authorization in Syria:
1) Surprise Congress with call for vote
2) Play golf
3) Make some calls
4) Leave country
Add to that list: 5) Call Russia a bunch of jerks
Congress and Russia will, in fact, greet Obama as a liberator.
Reorganizing the order of comments works, too:
1. The lying arguments, inept planning, and astronomical cost + death toll of the Iraq debacle are the #1 agent behind the current reluctance to take on Syria.
2. "... just like Obama's now." Without the support.
3. This is either a comment in support or the worst rebuttal ever.
Post a Comment