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.