As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama’s Syria Policy Fails. Again.

President Obama’s Syria policy has not just failed once, but twice! Or three times. Losing count. Anyway, the United States lost all credibility some time ago under Obama, so what does it matter?

This morning, we were treated to the headline from the Associated Press that President Obama was “mulling options” on Syria.

Mulling. After 150,000 deaths, he’s still mulling.

Not that there’s much we can do this point. Except to keep ourselves from being disgraced. Which we have not. But then we knew that was coming.

Syria is not even living up to the deal Secretary of State Kerry accidentally proposed and the Russians purposely ran with to give up its chemical weapons. Syria was supposed to have handed all of it over by now.

According to reports, Syria has handed four percent of it over.

You read that correctly. Four percent.

The Syrian’s intention with the weapons deal was not to give up chemical weapons, but to get Obama off his thinkin’ that maybe he’s gonna bomb someone for crossing a red line. Worked like a charm.

Fox News’ Ed Henry held White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s feet to the fire Tuesday. Carney accused Henry of conflating things. The only thing Henry was conflating was seriousness and the president of the United States.

HENRY:  But, Jay, wasn’t it the President himself who, at that podium, set the red line almost two years ago and said, if they were to use these chemical weapons, it’s a red line, enormous consequences.  Where are those consequences?  You pushed back for a time because they were — you said, they were turning over chemical weapons.  Turns out Assad is not turning over —

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Ed, I think you’re conflating the two things.  The red line —

HENRY:   No, the red line on the chemical weapons.  Then you said he was turning them over, but he’s not.

MR. CARNEY:  The President — well, first of all, there is no question that the Assad regime has blown some deadlines on the transport and delivery of its chemical weapons supplies.  The regime is still committed to ridding itself of those supplies, and Russia is on the hook for making sure that, as the regime’s significant ally, that those chemical weapons and the supplies are delivered and the regime is fully rid of chemical weapons as part of that agreement.

Now, the fact is the President said that was a red line.  He threatened the use of force in response to that.  And because the threat was real, we saw the Assad regime go from refusing to acknowledge it even had chemical weapons stockpiles to acknowledging that it had them and to reaching an agreement that they would give up those weapons.  And we are going to — and the international community is going to hold both Syria and Russia responsible for the fulfillment of that agreement.

HENRY:  Why would anyone believe you’re going to hold them responsible when this has been going on for years?  And in answer to Jon’s question when you said “the review is ongoing,” if the review is always ongoing, doesn’t that suggest that you’re more likely to spin your wheels because you’re just reviewing and reviewing, but there’s not an endpoint to this?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you’re conflating a bunch of things, Ed. When we’re talking about policy as a general matter — not just with regards to chemical weapons, but as a general matter in Syria — we are constantly reviewing options that would allow us to provide more and more effective humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, that would allow us to provide more and more effective support for the opposition, and that would allow us to advance the essential cause of diplomatic negotiations that could lead to a peaceful political settlement to the conflict and a transitional government.  And those are the range of options that the President is constantly asking for and evaluating, because we all recognize that progress has not been coming quickly on Syria and we need — together with our partners — to press for a solution here on behalf of the Syrian people.

Here’s the video.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

15 Responses to Obama’s Syria Policy Fails. Again.

  1. Mr. Obama does not have a Syria policy. He has no foreign policy beyond sucking his thumb and hoping he does not have to act to ever defend the United States or speak out in defense of an ally or traditional American values.

    He failed to speak out in favor of democracy when the Iranians were in the streets. And he continues to accept the Iranian efforts to develop the nuclear capacity to threaten this country. Death to America is the stated goal, repeated over and over.

  2. The only thing Carney said that made me feel better is CONFLATING.
    I learned a new word today.
    Bull@#^# is another word he should start all his answers with.
    “I am only going to give you a bunch of Bull*&%*.
    I can remember many times growing up family members stating what certain poloticians were saying was nothing but Bull. They did say the end part in front of me. However there were things to be concerned with but not the LONG list of things we discuss now.

    • To bring together meld, or fuse (Free Dictionary)
      To combine two or more seperate things, especially pieces of a text, to form a whole. (Cambridge Dictionary)

  3. “Mulling”…verb du jour. Lol. Headine yesterday – US/Mexico ‘Mulling” N.A, Trusted Traveler Program,
    Obama should be ‘mulling’ over his resignation speech.

    The Syria deal was nothing more than a lifesaver thrown to Obama by Putin after Obama got himself boxed into a corner with his ‘red lines’ baloney. Kerry got that question from a reporter about ‘what would it take….” just hours before Congress was going to vote on Syria.
    Obama doesn’t give a rat’s azz about Syria- or anything else but his Foder’s Travel Guide.
    He seriously needs to resign – we can’t take this amount of incompetence for the next 3 years. It couldn’t be worse if we hired a HS Senior to run the country.

    • Exactly. The Mullahs are publicly bragging that the “agreement” means nothing. They will continue developing their nuclear bombs. The “agreement”, when you look at it, ONLY covers the nuclear research regarding nuclear reactors, not the continued research and development of the bomb.

  4. We’ve had a lot of time to mull over the issue of Syria and it’s cache of chemical weapons after MrObama acted stupidly by issuing a “red line” he dared Assad to cross.
    It’s fair to say that we owe Russia’s Putin a thank you for stepping in and showing how a real world leader can diffuse an escalating incident from becoming violent.

    It’s also reasonable, and fair, to assume that Assad has no intention of giving up his weapons because MrObama wants him to do that, or even trying for a truce with his political enemies.
    Good for MrHenry for forcing the issue, but we all know that nothing is being “mulled” or considered, or that anyone is even talking about the Syrian civil war in DC.

    • Now I would like all the reporters to pull together. If one reporter is given a lame answer, or when Carney talks in circles (most of the time), the next reporter needs to pick up with the same important question.
      Picture this: Sitting in class asking a teacher a question, and she answered with everything, except the answer. That teacher would have been fired.

  5. What;s the point with Jay or Obama’s non-existent policy re. Syria? Unless Republicans in Congress demand of Obama to take a stand and follow through, there’s no point. We have a man in the White House who is just putting his time until his presidency is over. Perhaps a major catastrophe occurring here may warrant his attention.

  6. After reading the comments here, we can simply say that Mr. Barack Obama is a weak man, who doesn’t have____to face bullies or fight. I can imagine what he was like when in school when somebody challenged him to a fight and his flight from confrontation.