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.