Obama Denies Setting ‘Red Line’ on Syria, After Setting Red Line on Syria

President Obama
The list of verifiably dishonest statements made by the President of the United States just got longer. After specifically drawing the ‘red line’ at which point the US would intervene in Syria, Obama now denies that he drew such a line.

At a press conference in Sweden Wednesday, the US President was asked a question by a reporter from the Reuters news agency. The question regarded Obama’s intentions towards Syria and whether military intervention was, basically, now a necessity to preserve his credibility, having set a ‘red line’ on the Middle Eastern country. Obama began his answer by saying “first of all, I didn’t set a red line…”

Flashback to August 2012: At a White House press conference, the President addressed the question of US action against the embattled Syrian regime by saying “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.”

The August statement was clear enough. Whether or not one believes that the United States should be intervening in the internal affairs of another country – as it has done so many times in the past, under previous administrations and, usually, with disastrous results – there can be absolutely no doubt that the President was expressing his belief that military intervention would become necessary, should either side in the Syrian conflict deploy, or plan to deploy, chemical weapons. It is also clear that Obama chose to use the term “red line”. The usual excuses for lies told by this President – and, at this point, they are almost too numerous to count – are that he misspoke, that he was taken out of context or merely that those accusing him of lying are doing so because they are racist. Which of these excuse will be trotted out this time?

After the President drew his red line last year, the statement was widely reported in the media. Nobody from the White House or the Democratic Party objected to those reports; no-one wished to clarify those remarks or make it clear that this was not what the President had said. He, his advisors and his party were quite happy for it to be reported that the Commander-in-Chief had issued a clear warning on the use of chemical weapons – that he had, indeed, set a red line.

Why, then, is Obama now flat-out denying that he said the very words that came out of his mouth last August? Perhaps it is because he has already lost all credibility, regarding the Syrian conflict. It is widely known that the Syrian opposition movement is dominated by two main factions: The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and its de facto ally, the al Nusra Front, an organization that is part of the al Qaeda terror network. The al Nusra Front has assassinated leaders of other Syrian rebel factions, it has launched brutal and deadly attacks against Syria’s Christian population, which lived unmolested under the Assad regime, and it was, according to UN investigators, responsible for a deadly chemical attack in April. The mere fact that the US President is even considering putting American troops in harm’s way, in support of America’s sworn terrorist enemies, is unthinkable enough. However; parsing the President’s 2012 comment, it is clear that he has already failed to follow through on his stated intentions. The red line that he set was not just a line that the Syrian regime was not supposed to cross; Obama said that he has been very clear to the Syrian regime “…but also to other players on the ground…” Well, Mr. President, those “other players” have already crossed your red line and, perhaps, that is why you are now denying that you set it.

So who does the President now blame for the red line being set? Strangely enough, this time, it is not George W. Bush’s fault; this time, apparently, it was the World that set the red line.

There is now, officially, no one left to blame for President Obama’s catastrophic occupation of the White House; having blamed the former President, ATMs, Global Warming, the “bitter clingers” of America’s heartland, the evil one percent – many of whom are vociferous supporters of the President’s policies – bumps in the road, headwinds, the banks, racists and, of course, the Republicans in Congress who do not even have a sufficient amount of control, or the will, to derail the President’s Socialist agenda, it is now the World’s fault.

Were the issue at hand not a growing human tragedy, it would be truly comical that Obama now denies drawing a red line on Syria after clearly doing so last year. Progressives are well-known for attempting to rewrite history and admit to doing so; the problem, for them, is that such recent history, recorded on video, cannot so easily be rewritten.


An editorial by Graham J Noble


4 Responses to "Obama Denies Setting ‘Red Line’ on Syria, After Setting Red Line on Syria"

  1. Fred Grivas   September 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    Another boring example of conservative revisionist history. (yawn)

    • Graham Noble   September 7, 2013 at 8:06 pm

      Really? So he never made that RECORDED speech in which he said the very words I quoted? And then, he never made the RECORDED speech in which he denied saying the words?

      Don’t let those pesky facts get in the way, will you.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login