Obama did not draw the red line.

[testarosa]

According to President Obama he did not draw the red line for the use of chemical weapons in Syria the international community did and it is their credibility on the line along with Americas and congress but not his. Wow I mean wow.
Obama says he didn’t draw the red line on Syria, the world did - KansasCity.com

Can someone rewind the teleprompter and play it back for him.

 

[mudwhistle]

This President is a pathological liar.

It's lies upon lies ... no surprises there.

Well no.

You folks are playing "gotcha" again.

Here's the actual quote:

“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said in response to questions at an impromptu news conference at the White House. “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 weapons moving around or being utilized.”

“That would change my calculus,” he added. “That would change my equation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html

No where did he marry the US to the use of force.

Yes, and he also said from day one that Benghazi was an organized attack by terrorists. Not protests from a movie.

 

[Antares]

He's denying that he said the red line was ours when he clearly said "...a red line for us...""

Now he is backpedaling saying that the red line is the world's red line so he either now speaks for the entire world or he is lying again.

Which of the two seems more likely?

Sorry?

I'm missing something.

Point to where military action was threatened.

You wanna play this "exact words" "gotcha" game...then you should be able to point that out.

I never said it was did I?

I am pointing out Obambam's backpedaling to you

He is lying.....again.

LOL, what a pathetic piece of shit you are...you like "semantics" do ya?

“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,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

Obama issues Syria a ?red line? warning on chemical weapons - The Washington Post

Swallow only an idiot like you would defend this cracka assed President any longer.

 

[Sallow]

This President is a pathological liar.

It's lies upon lies ... no surprises there.

Well no.

You folks are playing "gotcha" again.

Here's the actual quote:

“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said in response to questions at an impromptu news conference at the White House. “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 weapons moving around or being utilized.”

“That would change my calculus,” he added. “That would change my equation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html

No where did he marry the US to the use of force.

He's denying that he said the red line was ours when he clearly said "...a red line for us...""

Now he is backpedaling saying that the red line is the world's red line so he either now speaks for the entire world or he is lying again.

Which of the two seems more likely?

Moving goalposts?

Yeah..it is a red line for the United States, and the world.

The 1925 Geneva Convention prohibits the use of Chemical Weapons in warfare.

The World, including the United States signed on to that.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well no.

You folks are playing "gotcha" again.

Here's the actual quote:



No where did he marry the US to the use of force.

He's denying that he said the red line was ours when he clearly said "...a red line for us...""

Now he is backpedaling saying that the red line is the world's red line so he either now speaks for the entire world or he is lying again.

Which of the two seems more likely?

Moving goalposts?

I never said anything about military action so I did not move any goalposts.

Yeah..it is a red line for the United States, and the world.

The 1925 Geneva Convention prohibits the use of Chemical Weapons in warfare.

The World, including the United States signed on to that.

Then why not say that instead of saying "it's a red line for us"?

Obambam does not speak for the entire world and the entire world obviously does not have a red line as they ain't doing shit.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

What Reagan (a dead guy btw) has to do with this is irrelevant and I am no fan of Reagan as he was one of the biggest big government dupes ever so you bringing him up in response to my statement that Obambam is lying about what he said is moot.

 

[Jackson]

Well no.

You folks are playing "gotcha" again.

Here's the actual quote:



No where did he marry the US to the use of force.

He's denying that he said the red line was ours when he clearly said "...a red line for us...""

Now he is backpedaling saying that the red line is the world's red line so he either now speaks for the entire world or he is lying again.

Which of the two seems more likely?

Moving goalposts?

Yeah..it is a red line for the United States, and the world.

The 1925 Geneva Convention prohibits the use of Chemical Weapons in warfare.

The World, including the United States signed on to that.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

The US can determine it's own red line just as the rest of the world can determine their own red lines. Our dear president does not speak for the world although he may have visions of grandeur that he may...it's only in his own very big head.

Try as he might to back pedal and say that he did not draw that red line for the US...he did and the is no backtracking now. Trying to involve Congress is just a weak effort to place blame on another entity when something goes wrong. Typical Obama.

 

[Sallow]

He's denying that he said the red line was ours when he clearly said "...a red line for us...""

Now he is backpedaling saying that the red line is the world's red line so he either now speaks for the entire world or he is lying again.

Which of the two seems more likely?

Moving goalposts?

I never said anything about military action so I did not move any goalposts.

Yeah..it is a red line for the United States, and the world.

The 1925 Geneva Convention prohibits the use of Chemical Weapons in warfare.

The World, including the United States signed on to that.

Then why not say that instead of saying "it's a red line for us"?

Obambam does not speak for the entire world and the entire world obviously does not have a red line as they ain't doing shit.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

What Reagan (a dead guy btw) has to do with this is irrelevant and I am no fan of Reagan as he was one of the biggest big government dupes ever so you bringing him up in response to my statement that Obambam is lying about what he said is moot.

He said it was a "red line" for "us" meaning, everyone who signed on to the idea that chemical weapons were forbidden.

He said he would have to change the calculus for the President, should that red line be crossed.

It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[Sallow]

He's denying that he said the red line was ours when he clearly said "...a red line for us...""

Now he is backpedaling saying that the red line is the world's red line so he either now speaks for the entire world or he is lying again.

Which of the two seems more likely?

Moving goalposts?

Yeah..it is a red line for the United States, and the world.

The 1925 Geneva Convention prohibits the use of Chemical Weapons in warfare.

The World, including the United States signed on to that.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

The US can determine it's own red line just as the rest of the world can determine their own red lines. Our dear president does not speak for the world although he may have visions of grandeur that he may...it's only in his own very big head.

Try as he might to back pedal and say that he did not draw that red line for the US...he did and the is no backtracking now. Trying to involve Congress is just a weak effort to place blame on another entity when something goes wrong. Typical Obama.

Ahhhh.

So century old treaties and conventions are what, meaningless?

How far does this rabbit hole go? Contracts? Laws?

Man..

 

[Skull Pilot]

Moving goalposts?

I never said anything about military action so I did not move any goalposts.



Then why not say that instead of saying "it's a red line for us"?

Obambam does not speak for the entire world and the entire world obviously does not have a red line as they ain't doing shit.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

What Reagan (a dead guy btw) has to do with this is irrelevant and I am no fan of Reagan as he was one of the biggest big government dupes ever so you bringing him up in response to my statement that Obambam is lying about what he said is moot.

He said it was a "red line" for "us" meaning, everyone who signed on to the idea that chemical weapons were forbidden.

He said he would have to change the calculus for the President, should that red line be crossed.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Not if you have Obambam's dick in your mouth it's not.

He clearly said it was our red line.

Now he's saying he didn't.

it doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

[Jackson]

Moving goalposts?

I never said anything about military action so I did not move any goalposts.



Then why not say that instead of saying "it's a red line for us"?

Obambam does not speak for the entire world and the entire world obviously does not have a red line as they ain't doing shit.

Unfortunately Ronald "The Traitor" Reagan broke with that convention when he backed the use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran, and again by Iraq against it's own people.

What Obama said was the use of Chemical Weapon would change his, The President of the United States, "calculus" in how to deal with a very fluid and ongoing issue.

That might include force. That might include reminding the world of it's almost 100 year old obligation to make sure these weapons are never used.

What Reagan (a dead guy btw) has to do with this is irrelevant and I am no fan of Reagan as he was one of the biggest big government dupes ever so you bringing him up in response to my statement that Obambam is lying about what he said is moot.

He said it was a "red line" for "us" meaning, everyone who signed on to the idea that chemical weapons were forbidden.

He said he would have to change the calculus for the President, should that red line be crossed.

It's really not that hard to understand.

So, why weren't they standing up when it was time to be counted in as allies?

 

[blackhawk]

I have a question if President Obama had not made the red line comment would we even be considering military action against Syria?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I have a question if President Obama had not made the red line comment would we even be considering military action against Syria?

No, we would not. Barry would scold and cajole and then wait for the "news cycle" to move on to something else.

He ran his mouth, Syria called his bluff, his feelings are hurt and he is acting out.

You now see the left rushing to his defense - he didn't say this and he didn't say that. THEY know it's BS, but after all, he IS their boy don't you know. Got to protect that "legacy". So what if we kill a few thousand civilians in the process - Barry is the anointed!!!

 

[skye]

This President is a pathological liar.

It's lies upon lies ... no surprises there.

Well no.

You folks are playing "gotcha" again.

Here's the actual quote:

“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said in response to questions at an impromptu news conference at the White House. “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 weapons moving around or being utilized.”

“That would change my calculus,” he added. “That would change my equation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html

No where did he marry the US to the use of force.

You can defend the indefensible all you want .... but people have eyes and ears and can judge for themselves ... we know that to lie through his teeth is what Obama does best.

The extent of deceit, lies,manipulation and cover-ups of this Administration is unparalleled in history ... from Benghazi to denying the "red line" comment ...and everything in between.

So please, spare us your "gotcha".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Devil's Advocate says: "the international community declared the use of chemical weapons to be illegal under any circumstances, decades ago".

I believe the ban on mustard gas and such started after World War 1.

I'm thinking the American people are fed up with being the worlds unappreciated policemen.

After Iraq, many stopped seeing America as a "policeman" but rather a dangerous bully. Even though Republicans pretend it never happened or that once they passed that debacle to Obama they became absolved of all responsibility, the rest of the world hasn't forgotten. That GOP fiasco has damaged overseas relationships for decades to come.

This is the idiot that tells me that Obama is smarter than Bush because he has the world on his side.

Funny thing, Obama just blamed the entire planet for his failure to stop Assad from using chemical weapons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This President is a pathological liar.

It's lies upon lies ... no surprises there.

Well no.

You folks are playing "gotcha" again.

Here's the actual quote:

“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said in response to questions at an impromptu news conference at the White House. “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 weapons moving around or being utilized.”

“That would change my calculus,” he added. “That would change my equation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html

No where did he marry the US to the use of force.

What does that have to do with the fact that Obama lied?

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama did draw a red line.

so did the international community.



....but Obama did too.

It used to be a line in the sand.

Obama is the one who called it a red-line.


Guess it's the communist in him.

 

[Katzndogz]

If obama thought he was speaking for the whole world he has a bigger problem than the red line and deserves the world saying "no you don't".

In any event the terrorists have released a video taking responsibility, specifically targeting children.

 

[Bloodrock44]

He would have been better off by speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

 

[PixieStix]

Obama has no clue how to be the leader of the free world. He is disgusting, And a liar

He doesn't even have a clear goal.

 

[blackhawk]

As some here have liked to point out when Obama made his red line comment he said the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus but did not say he would use military force ok fair enough but at the time he made the comment we were taking no action of any kind in Syria so other than continuing to do nothing what could change his calculus have meant other than military force? Negotiations anyone think Assad would do that? Sanctions Russia or China would block that blockade Iran could get stuff into Syria overland so other than use military force I don't see what else change his calculus could have meant if someone else has idea please share.