The Revenge of the Neocons and Bibi Netanyahu - Obama got played!

[Vinnie From Indy]

It seems to me that Pres. Obama got suckered into offering his now infamous "red line" on WMD's by Netanyahu and his Neocon allies.

**************************************************************
TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is largely to blame for the blundering red line that has painted US President Barack Obama – and now the US Congress – into a corner of bad options in response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Why?

For a full year prior to the Aug. 2012 White House press conference where Obama put forth his “red line” on the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Syria, Netanyahu and his emissaries were relentlessly pressing for a US red line on Iranian nukes.

At the time, Israel’s psychological warfare campaign against Iran’s nuclear weapons drive was in full swing. Then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak spoke openly about a “zone of immunity” that would complicate a prospective, unilateral Israeli attack.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu and key ministers grew openly contemptuous of Obama’s preferred policy of sanctions and diplomacy, arguing that only a clear and public ultimatum from Washington could roll back the mullah’s quest for nuclear weapons.

More at:
http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/09/bibis-to-blame-for-obamas-red-line/

[SidDithers]

1. Shorter: It's the fault of the Jooooz...

Sid

[Junkdrawer]

2. Netanyahu does not speak for all Jews....

THAT is an insult.

[SidDithers]

4. And Israel doesn't direct US foreign policy...

no matter how many opinion pieces or articles DUers want to post, implying our outright claiming, that they do.

Sid

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. Directing and influencing are two different animals.

Cheers!

[LibAsHell]

6. Clever choice of words

Sure, they don't "direct" it, but they have a huge influence on it; much more than they should. Sorry to break it to you.

[BeyondGeography]

3. He's got to be the dumbest guy ever to win two terms to the WH

[leveymg]

7. The same thing was also reported in the (always very antisemitic) NY Times

Almost exactly a year before the gas attack, on Aug 20,2012, Obama made a speech.

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“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 president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.

To many, Wednesday’s attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons deployed. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/

What is the context of that speech? According to the NYT the following day, Israel was signaling that if the US did not take a harder line, it would act preemptively as it had done in bombing a Syrian reactor under construction: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=world&

Mr. Obama, who has said little about Syria in recent weeks, stressed the regional risk from its unconventional weapons. “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria,” he said. “It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us.”

His comments seemed aimed as much at the Israelis as the Syrians. Israeli officials have indicated they might intervene if they thought those weapons were on the loose and might be unleashed on their territory.

By hinting that the United States might participate in locating and neutralizing the weapons, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to forestall the possibility of an Israeli move into Syria — and the reaction it might provoke.

[GeorgeGist]

8. He's da bomb