"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[The Mad Monk]

Because, you know, going to war is absolutely the only option.

[DinoDoc]

YEAH EVEN IF THE GAS ATTACKS WERE FAKE OBAMA STILL DIDNT FOLLOW THROUGH

BECAUSE GOING TO WAR IS AWESOME

ALL THE TIME
EVEN IF YOU ARE MANIPULATED INTO IT

AND **** POOR PEOPLE

Sava: Short of a video showing Syrian troops loading it into delivery systems and a signed confession from Assad, you're never going to reach 100% certainty in an intelligence analysis. Also insisting on a chain of custody requirement as the Administration has is simply ridiculous. The Admin should either say it has no intention of getting involved in a Syrian internal matter or that it doesn't believe the evidence of chemical weapons use but this playing hide the ball with where its "red line" is completely idiotic.

[Dinner]

100% certainty? Hell, I'd be willing to settle for a reasonable likelihood based on a preponderance of the evidence but so far we don't even have that.

[PLATO]

Step One apparently...get the Russians on board.

US President Barack Obama has voiced concern to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin about reports that Syria has used chemical weapons.

In a phone conversation, the two leaders agreed to stay in touch on the issue, tasking their foreign ministers to hold further talks.

The US earlier said it had "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been used in Syria.

The government in Damascus have denounced the claims as "lies".

'Game changer'

In a statement, the White House said on Monday that Mr Obama and Mr Putin talked on the phone on Monday, with the US leader "underscoring his concern over Syrian chemical weapons".

Washington has repeatedly criticised Russia - along with China - for blocking tougher action against Syria in the UN Security Council, including new sanctions.

Mr Putin and Mr Obama are scheduled to hold a face-to-face talks in June.

Mr Obama last week promised a "vigorous investigation" into the issue.

He warned that it would be a "game changer" for US policy if the reports about chemical weapons were to be proved true.

Both the US and UK have pointed to emerging evidence that Syria has used weapons such as the nerve gas sarin.

The Syrian government has dismissed claims that its forces have used chemical weapons, saying that the Western accusations "do not have any credibility".

More than 70,000 people have been killed since fighting between Syrian forces and rebels erupted in March 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22347669

[Dinner]

Assad's anti-aircraft defenses supposedly fired a missile at a Russian passenger plane today as well. Luckily, it missed but that would seem to indicate the Syrians are jumpy about air attack.

[DinoDoc]

It seems that he's now claiming to have misspoke earlier when he made statements about a red line: Obama expands on 'game-changer' threat on Syria chemical weapons

[Felch]

I don't support involving ourselves in Syria, and I'd like to stay the hell out. The mistake the President made was in saying that there's a red line, and then backing off. He'd have been better off keeping his mouth shut.

You never say I'm gonna fight you Steve. You just smile and act natural, and then you sucker punch me.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So now he speaks for the entire international world community (not merely America) and how the entire world community will react if nerve agents were used.

Interesting, where did he get that vested authority to speak on the other nations behalf?

[Sava]

Military action wasn't the consequence for crossing the "red line". I don't know why people think it was.

This is just more scandal hunting and grandstanding by the Republicans. Nothing to see here. I guess they gave up trying to find "the truth" about Benghazi.

I feel bad for them. This is just like with Clinton. All the Republicans can do is fish for scandals.

And nobody cares.

[Sava]

BTW, I thought Obama was a Nazisocialist. IIRC, they didn't need much of an excuse, if any, to go to war.

I can't imagine Hitler finding every excuse in the world not to invade Poland.

But whatever.

[PLATO]

You just don't like that Obama used "game changer". Be honest.

[Sava]

You just don't like that Obama used "game changer". Be honest.

Yes. That is the lesson that should be taken away from all this nonsense.

First. There's no game. Syria isn't a game.

Second. Nothing changed about it.

It's neither a game... nor a changer.

Now I'm starting to hear people in sports say it. You know what? Sports is a game. The phrase didn't come from sports. It's pop-political bull****.

A team makes a trade for a great player... OMG ITS A GAME CHANGER.

No. It's not. It's the same game. They just got better at it.

It's a stupid ****ing term. Anyone who uses it should be summarily dismissed and ignored. Their opinions are made worthless by their own stupid ****ing retarded inability to communicate properly.

RAWR

[PLATO]

Obama's 'red line' on Syria grows softer

WASHINGTON -- President Obama softened his threat to Syria over its possible use of chemical weapons, telling reporters that if conclusive proof of such activity emerges, he “would rethink a range” of retaliatory options that might not include military action.


Obama, who has called Syria’s use of chemical weapons in its civil war a “red line,” also made clear at a White House news conference Tuesday that the burden of a response is not the United States’ alone, but one that is shared by all nations.

“What’s happening in Syria is a blemish on the international community generally,” he said. Confirmed use of poison gas by Syrian forces would be “a game changer not simply for the United States, but for the international community.”

Obama was asked directly if that meant his administration would take military action.

“By 'game changer,' I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us,” he said. If the White House obtains conclusive proof of poison gas use, “that means that there’s some options that we might not otherwise exercise that we would ... strongly consider.”

Obama first warned Syrian President Bashar Assad last August that use of lethal chemical weapons, or transfer of such stockpiles to terrorist groups, would cross a “red line.” He left ambiguous what kind of response he might take, although it seemed to imply U.S. military action.

But since the White House last week announced that U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded with varying degrees of confidence that sarin, a nerve agent, had been released in Syria, Obama has made it gradually clearer that he is far from embracing a military option that might pull the United States into another war.

Obama emphasized Tuesday that while evidence indicates some use of chemical agents occurred, investigators have yet to determine if regime forces intentionally used poison gas, if it was accidentally released or if insurgents or other groups fired the weapons.

He said conclusive proof was necessary to win international support for action.

“If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we may find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do,” he said. “There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So ... it’s important to do this in a prudent way.”

Some members of Congress and other advocates have urged the administration to begin arming the Syrian rebels, to create no-fly zones to create protected corridors for refugees, or to use U.S. military force to destroy or seize Syria’s huge chemical infrastructure.

But White House and senior Pentagon officials fear that U.S. weapons shipments could end up in the hands of Islamic militants, who are playing a growing role in the revolt, or could increase the suffering in Syria without pushing Assad out of office. Officials say more than 70,000 people have died since the conflict began in 2011.

Conservative lawmakers and their allies say Obama has raised the bar so high that it is unlikely he will take action. They argue that Iran and North Korea will view his response as a signal that U.S. threats can be ignored.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-obama-red-line-syria-20130430,0,584035.story?track=rss

LA Times agrees that Obama's position is "softening" Are you listening Ahmadinejad? Are you listening Kim?

[Sava]

Ahmadinejad?

He's listening. Iran says chemical weapons are also a "red line".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-says-chemical-weapons-red-line-in-syria-but-urges-rebel-probe/2013/04/30/f0a61518-b1a0-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

so once again "conservative lawmakers" are wrong

[DinoDoc]

so once again "conservative lawmakers" are wrong

That making threats and running away from them after someone calls you on it is stupid? How are they wrong?