“Red line” and “game changer” not so much
According to Fox News, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel admitted today that there is indeed evidence that Syria employed chemical weapons against rebels there. The president recently said that use of those weapons would be a “red line” and a “game changer”. Of course, that game changing red line isn’t as serious as it used to be;
But Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said more information is needed.
“Precisely because the president takes this issue so seriously, we have an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria,” she said in a statement. “That is why we are currently pressing for a comprehensive United Nations investigation that can credibly evaluate the evidence and establish what took place. We are also working with our friends and allies, and the Syrian opposition, to procure, share and evaluate additional information associated with reports of the use of chemical weapons so that we can establish the facts.”
Yeah, there’s Caitlin Hayden, the minister of misinformation again.
When he was Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta said that he estimated that 100,000 troops would be needed to secure weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Now, I’m not saying that we need to deploy a couple of divisions to Syria, but what I am saying is that, if anyone on the planet took our President at his word, this situation might have been avoided, if they had any inkling that he might be serious. But this administration has half-assed everything they’ve done in regards to national security.
Calling the use of chemical weapons a red line probably sent chortles through Assad’s cabinet.
Category: Terror War
Reminds me of Khdaffy Duck back in the day… “Cross this line and I kill you”. We’d cross the line, and he would change its location.
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
‘the minister of misinformation’ – but that’s why she GOT that job in the first place, JL. She’s so good at it.
“That is why we are currently pressing for a comprehensive United Nations investigation that can credibly evaluate the evidence and establish what took place.”
A UN investigation?
As Bill Paxton said in the movie “Aliens”, “I feel safer already.” 😉
time for another pretty speech. That’s what POTUS is good at.
Hayden’s comments seem like they came directly out of The Duffel Blog’s “Ask a Public Affairs Officer” section.
@4 – I was thinking the same thing. UN investigation? A “comprehensive” one at that?
Yeah, we’ll never find out what really happened. In the mean time, the ‘red line’ will just get pushed back into obscurity like it always does.
Half assed is a misnomer…
These idiots are actually full assed and wear their asses on their faces !!!
So, the deaths were just a matter of what, mass heart attacks?
@5: No, that’s what his teleprompter is good at.
First, you need to understand that “red line” does not mean what you think that it means. “Red” is now what we used to call green, or brown, depending upon the phase of the moon, and “line” variously means a floating balloon, a widget and occasionally a trapazoid. It is never a cylinder.
Second, “game changer” has no current definition. It has become simply a collection of letters used as sentance filler. The most you can count on is whatever you perceive to be the intent of how you should interpret the words, that is not it.
Got it?
Am I misreading the article? I see allegation and speculation, but not ‘evidence’.
CI: perhaps you missed this in the basic Fox News article Jonn cited?
Secretary of State John Kerry further confirmed that there were two documented instances of chemical weapons use.
The White House, however, stressed that this was not enough to confirm how the nerve gas was released — though acknowledged it is “very likely” to have originated with the regime of Bashar Assad — and pressed the United Nations for a “comprehensive” investigation. The letter from the White House director of the Office of Legislative Affairs to leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the assessment was based in part on “physiological samples.”
I suppose my point of confusion is that the link states both “two documented instances” – and – “the intelligence community believes chemical weapons were used”.
We have State, the WH and the IC all dancing around the issue on whether or not they have ‘evidence’. Admittedly, when the media and politics are concerned, I tend to be far more scrutinizing of what the facts actually are.
Didn’t the Libtards crap all over Bush and WMD’s as a trigger to go into Iraq? The irony is delicious.
There’s that ten dollar communist code word, “comprehensive”…
CI: if there are “physiological samples”, it would appear that there exists reasonable proof of use. The only question remaining is who released it. And even there, the administration itself says that it is “highly likely” it was used by the Assad administration.
I don’t want to see the US involved in this mess on either side – IMO, we have no “skin” in this game either way, and no compelling reason to support either side. But I also don’t particularly like seeing the Administration make the US look like a bunch of feckless fools by issuing meaningless threats they have no intention of executing, either.
comprehensive, is just another pc slant on collective bullshit!
“Red Line” & “Game Changer” = “Skid Mark” & “TURD”.
Hondo – I’m not dismissing the possibility of weapon employment, and am fully on your team in regards to involvement….but can ‘physiological samples’ also be obtained as a result of spillage either in storage or during tranport?
Inviting the United Nothing to investigate is like asking a Teachers’ union investigate waste and misconduct
I don’t care how they kill each other. Stay the heck away from this mess.
@22 I would tend to agree. It reminds me of what Kissinger said when asked about the Iran-Iraq War – “It’s a pity they both can’t lose”. In a fight between Bashar Assad and Al-Qaeda linked rebels, we should all just pull up a Barcalounger, get a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the fireworks. Fuck ’em both.
@23
Let’s put up a big ole fence, though, so none of them get away.
I’m not a big fan of us going into Syria. Maybe if we were bored and didn’t have anything to do and had shitloads of money falling out our ass, sure.
But we have not the time nor money for this foolishness. Let’s ask Israel if they need anything, give them the number to the big red phone in the White House in case something comes up and watch it on the 11 o’clock news.
CI: in theory, yes,it could. But follow that to its logical conclusion and you’ll see that case is either a non-starter or proves the Administration is clueless.
Spillage in storage and transit would affect primarily personnel on the side possessing the sarin – not their opposition. The Administration has indicated they believe sarin was used twice, and that it was “very likely” used by the govt of Syria. They’ve also indicated they believe Syria’s WMD stocks are still under government control.
The physiological samples came from Syrian rebels (not stated outright, but the govt of Syria almost certainly isn’t providing the US anything). If it were spillage or a transit accident, this would imply the rebels had acquired part or all of Syria’s WMD stocks.
The Administration has thus painted itself into a corner. If this was a spillage accident, then they’re wrong about the status of Syria’s WMD stocks since the samples proving use of sarin presumably came from the rebels. And if it wasn’t, then Syria has used sarin against the rebels – which is exactly what the administration has suggested but is unwilling to say outright. In this latter case, the Administration looks like wishy-washy fools.
Unless you want to believe the US or Israel is giving the rebels sarin, those are the only two rational possibilities. And I’m reasonably sure neither we nor Israel are stupid enough to give rebels whose ranks include al Qaeda members any type of WMD.
Even Jimmeh Cawteh showed some backbone. He did pull us out of the 1980 Summer Olympics.