The lead article in the Sunday New York Times normally covers the story that the editors of that paper consider the most important. Today, the Times is running a long explanation about how president Obama accidentally boxed himself in with regard to policy on Syria by using the words "red line" last Summer. You must remember that: Obama told the world that for the Assad regime, moving around the chemical weapons or using those weapons would be crossing a red line and "changing the calculus". The Times devotes the top of its front page today to tell us all that Obama really did not mean it. He was speaking in an unscripted manner we are told. Then, the Times actually says this:
"Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the nuance got completely dropped.”
Get it? Obama did not have his teleprompter, so he said something he did not mean, according to the Times. Obama did not mean just small chemical attacks that only kill 30 or 50 people like those which have happened so far. No, Obama meant only attacks causing mass fatalities. In the Times' world of protecting Obama, 50 dead are not mass fatalities, at least if the dead are Syrian. Think of the Times' response to the Boston Marathon bombing that left 3 dead. That was MASS FATALITES according to the Times.
It is disgusting to watch the liberal media try to explain the muddle that is the Obama policy on Syria. Obama announced the red line/chemical weapons point last Summer. He then repeated it again and again. If Obama really meant something other than what he said, he had plenty of chance to correct it. If his advisers were really surprised by Obama's comments, they had a multitude of opportunities to convince him to clarify his remarks. Obama did not modify his red line comments; he reinforced and repeated them. The Times' charade of a story is a despicable attempt to rewrite history to protect thier hero.
Obama announced American policy. His red line has now been crossed. He can either back away and destroy his credibility (and that of the USA) or he can act. We will all have to wait and see what happens. Meanwhile, I suggest that we all ignore the Times.
"Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the nuance got completely dropped.”
Get it? Obama did not have his teleprompter, so he said something he did not mean, according to the Times. Obama did not mean just small chemical attacks that only kill 30 or 50 people like those which have happened so far. No, Obama meant only attacks causing mass fatalities. In the Times' world of protecting Obama, 50 dead are not mass fatalities, at least if the dead are Syrian. Think of the Times' response to the Boston Marathon bombing that left 3 dead. That was MASS FATALITES according to the Times.
It is disgusting to watch the liberal media try to explain the muddle that is the Obama policy on Syria. Obama announced the red line/chemical weapons point last Summer. He then repeated it again and again. If Obama really meant something other than what he said, he had plenty of chance to correct it. If his advisers were really surprised by Obama's comments, they had a multitude of opportunities to convince him to clarify his remarks. Obama did not modify his red line comments; he reinforced and repeated them. The Times' charade of a story is a despicable attempt to rewrite history to protect thier hero.
Obama announced American policy. His red line has now been crossed. He can either back away and destroy his credibility (and that of the USA) or he can act. We will all have to wait and see what happens. Meanwhile, I suggest that we all ignore the Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment