Obama Flip-Flops: "I didn’t set a red line"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2013 7:40 PM GMT
    And people actually believe him!

    "I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line," Obama said.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201163/obama-i-didnt-draw-the-red-line.html#.UieLbH95GSo
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2013 8:43 PM GMT
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2013 10:42 PM GMT
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 12:28 AM GMT
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 12:39 AM GMT
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?


    Because he's now saying he didn't say it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 1:02 AM GMT
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?


    Because he's now saying he didn't say it.

    Where does he say he didn't say it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 2:08 AM GMT
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?


    Because he's now saying he didn't say it.

    Where does he say he didn't say it?


    Refer back to the OP. Please.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 3:38 AM GMT
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?


    Because he's now saying he didn't say it.

    Where does he say he didn't say it?


    Refer back to the OP. Please.

    Where does Obama claim he did not say where the red line is? The words "set" and "say" mean different things. Last year Obama said where the red line is. Today he claimed he did not set that line.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Sep 05, 2013 4:02 AM GMT
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said

    Refer back to the OP. Please.

    Where does Obama claim he did not say where the red line is? The words "set" and "say" mean different things. Last year Obama said where the red line is. Today he claimed he did not set that line.


    There seems to be a consensus about how shortsighted it was for Obama to draw the "red line" and not really strictly enforce it when crossed. His is trying to backpedal and rhetorically dilute his prior statements and its making matters worse.

    Today in Sweden he tried to distance himself from his own comments. Which is unfortunate for him and his reputation. Instead of being defensive he could have said this "red line" is my red line because its the world standard.

    But he really did not say that today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 4:31 AM GMT
    HereAndThere saidAnd people actually believe him!

    "I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line," Obama said.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201163/obama-i-didnt-draw-the-red-line.html#.UieLbH95GSo


    Of course they would believe him. There's Obama's red line as he presented it, Congress's, and then there's the UN's. And the world (popular)in general. Why would there be only one?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 5:02 AM GMT
    Hmm...that's like saying,
    if the car driver is drunk and he made an accident, the driver says, "don't blame me! Blame the alcohol!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 1:49 PM GMT
    This "story" goes all the way back to Rush Limbaugh, and it's classic Limbaugh style. He cherry picked one sentence from Obama's press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm. Then he spun it to imply Obama meant something different than what he said. In this case all he had to do was obfuscate the difference between "to say" and "to set." Then the people who want to believe him take off with it and think they have a story.

    For those who want to know the truth, the full transcript of the press conference is posted here.

    Here is the portion relevant to Limbaugh's "story."
    JAY CARNEY (White House press secretary): The first question from the American press goes to Steve Holland of Reuters.

    Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria, whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

    Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that -- in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

    And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it. That’s point number one.

    Point number two, my credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. How can this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

    And so the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons? And I do think that we have to act because if we don’t, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity.

    And those international norms begin to erode and other despots and authoritarian regimes can start looking and saying that’s something we can get away with, and that then calls into question other international norms and laws of war and whether those are going to be enforced.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Sep 05, 2013 2:19 PM GMT
    Philibuster said
    Here is the portion relevant to Limbaugh's "story."
    JAY CARNEY (White House press secretary): The first question from the American press goes to Steve Holland of Reuters.

    Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria, whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

    Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that -- in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

    And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it. That’s point number one.

    Point number two, my credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. How can this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

    And so the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons? And I do think that we have to act because if we don’t, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity.

    And those international norms begin to erode and other despots and authoritarian regimes can start looking and saying that’s something we can get away with, and that then calls into question other international norms and laws of war and whether those are going to be enforced.




    Are you kidding me? so the fact that Limbaugh touches a legitimate topic its now neutralized from criticism?

    Its in your own plain text you posted. I completely understand what Obama is saying here. But words do matter and how Obama worded his answers tells more about him and how he feels about his situation.

    He could have said, YES i drew the line, so did most of the world with the treaty against chemical weapons and also Congress when it ratified the treaty. But he really didnt say that did he.
    He implies he was merely acting as a some UN functionary not as the President. And he cannot really rely on the world and congress now because these are up in the air now aren't they? The world and even the Swedish Prime minister is saying that action in Syria without UN approval would be considered ILLEGAL according to the U.N.

    So Obama degraded his already shaky position. It is very unfortunate and I wish he didnt telegraph this mental "calculus" it doesnt project strength at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 5:37 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    musclmed saidSo Obama degraded his already shaky position. It is very unfortunate and I wish he didnt telegraph this mental "calculus" it doesnt project strength at all.

    It projects total weakness in the eyes of most here and around the world according to numerous reports. Trying to parse his words to get a different meaning of what he said fails.


    +10000
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 5:59 PM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    topathlete said
    musclmed saidSo Obama degraded his already shaky position. It is very unfortunate and I wish he didnt telegraph this mental "calculus" it doesnt project strength at all.

    It projects total weakness in the eyes of most here and around the world according to numerous reports. Trying to parse his words to get a different meaning of what he said fails.

    yeah, if by "most here and around the world" you mean "the small number of (white) reactionary racists in the U.S. who've never gotten over having a black man in the their White House", why then you're right.

    So true, so true. With some edits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 6:18 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Aristoshark said
    topathlete said
    musclmed saidSo Obama degraded his already shaky position. It is very unfortunate and I wish he didnt telegraph this mental "calculus" it doesnt project strength at all.

    It projects total weakness in the eyes of most here and around the world according to numerous reports. Trying to parse his words to get a different meaning of what he said fails.

    yeah, if by "most here and around the world" you mean "the small number of (white) reactionary racists in the U.S. who've never gotten over having a black man in the their White House", why then you're right.

    So true, so true. With some edits.


    You are the true racist. And your cowardice at avoiding the issue is quite telling of the kind of character you possess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 8:15 PM GMT
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?


    Because he's now saying he didn't say it.

    Where does he say he didn't say it?


    Refer back to the OP. Please.

    Where does Obama claim he did not say where the red line is? The words "set" and "say" mean different things. Last year Obama said where the red line is. Today he claimed he did not set that line.


    Really?

    "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. That would change my equation.”

    The "we", "us" and "my" in the Presidents, now year old, quote suggests that he and his administration did set the "red line", not the world, not the UN and not the congress. You can play word games and contort yourself with all the mental gymnastics all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that where this President and his foreign policy are concerned it's always amateur hour.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 05, 2013 8:18 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    HereAndThere said
    Philibuster said
    From the article you linkedObama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.


    But you can spin it however you want.


    He said it. He owns it.

    Of course he owns it. Why wouldn't he?


    Because he's now saying he didn't say it.

    Where does he say he didn't say it?


    Refer back to the OP. Please.

    Where does Obama claim he did not say where the red line is? The words "set" and "say" mean different things. Last year Obama said where the red line is. Today he claimed he did not set that line.


    Really?

    "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. That would change my equation.”

    The "we", "us" and "my" in the Presidents, now year old, quote suggests that he and his administration did set the "red line", not the world, not the UN and not the congress. You can play word games and contort yourself with all the mental gymnastics all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that where this President and his foreign policy are concerned it's always amateur hour.





    Obama-shh.jpg
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Sep 07, 2013 2:24 PM GMT
    I find this whole mess going on with Syria quite ironic --- Who'd have ever thought that Obama would want to maintain the "The U.S. as the world's police" mindset? This is all just really REALLY scary at the same time. I'm hoping the senate votes against intervention, sad and tragic as what is happening in Syria that it is. We have a lot of sad and tragic things going on right here in this country. Who's coming to help us with that? With Putin just waiting for an excuse to flex his muscles, the U.S. doing anything overtly aggressive toward Syria, or anyone else unilaterally, is probably going to lead to even more costly chaos. I don't see this ending well at all.