Facebook Twitter Google+ Shout YouTube SoundCloud RSS

RT Op-Edge: Why Obama’s ‘red line’ in Syria has turned pink

RT Op-Edge
Patrick Henningsen

Back in August 2012, things were a lot different in Washington DC and in the White House…

The Obama administration was brandishing a confident swagger back then, heading into the elections against a hobbling GOP opponent, and Benghazi had yet to unfold in all of its ugliness.

Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013. (AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)

Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013. (AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)

As Hillary Clinton was jetting around on the US State Department budget promoting her ‘Friends of Syria’ Middle East and European tours, and as the CIA were busy like bees working in the gray shadows of Benghazi, Washington and London were laying the groundwork for their new WMD case is Syria.

As last summer drew to a close, President Barack Obama confidently announced he was drawing a ‘Red Line’ in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, meaning that any evidence of their use on either side of that conflict would lead to consequences, the obvious inference being automatic US military intervention.

Fast forward to the present, and Washington appears to have been caught in the vortex of its own spin machine, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently forced to ‘clarify’ the President’s infamous ‘Red Line’ decree with what can only be described as desperate political cover. Here Carney attempted to explain away the previous ultimatum and re-explain the President’s position:

“What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus… What he never did – and it is simplistic to do so is to say that ‘if X happens, Y will happen’. He has never said what reaction he would take.”

It’s hard to run a global empire and still pander to sensitive liberal concerns at home. The White House seems to be at pains coming to terms with what the Neoconservative Bush government already knew a decade ago – that there really is no good, safe way to do a military intervention. In the end, the façade of political spin cannot provide ethical cover for invading and toppling another sovereign state. You can’t finesse your way into it, you have to just go for it in full view – lie if you have to, fabricate evidence if need be, and be damned with the political fallout…

Read more at RT



We are a North American and European-based, grass-roots, independent blog offering geopolitical news and media analysis, working with an array of volunteer contributors who write and help to analyse news and opinion from around the world.


We're covering news you won't necessarily find in the mainstream, and things which regularly confuse career politicians, FOX and CNN watchers... #SundayWire
Insider Firm ‘FlashPoint’ tied to Orlando Shooting, Now Investigating DDoS Hack on America https://t.co/cxoXGPalzZ… https://t.co/6nE5NfKK27 - 8 hours ago

  • Charlie Primero

    “The Aleppo case that was quickly knocked down by a number of alternative
    media outlets including 21st Century Wire, who outlined a detailed and
    compelling case to illustrate how manufactured chlorine munitions were
    not used in Aleppo by the Syria government forces…”

    THIS is what it’s about. 21st Century Wire helped save the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent people who would have been slaughtered in the course of an Anglo American invasion of Syria had the governments’ lies not been exposed.

    You guys have done a morally good thing. I salute you.

  • bunchesoffluff

    it doesnt matter the means, it matters the ends when it comes to killing and abuseing people. impeach obama.

    1. talk to the gov, military, police, and fighters of the area and encourage them to talk to eachother as well, to try to agree on a set of non hypocritical laws/rules for them to follow, and to try to find a peacful solution, ask each party involved what it wants.

    -no: murder(offesnive killing of innocents), physcial abuse/neglect, kidnaping, pointing guns at innocent people.
    -individuals must be arrested, read maranda rights, tried, go thru due process, charged/convicted, and have physcial evidence(words arnt evidence) thats shows a 99.99%+chance of commital of a crime that is legally punishable by death(potentially murder, torture, severe physcial abuse or sexual assult, and rape-may be punishable by death, any less severe crimes shouldnt be)(as long as arrest and trail are an option) before legal death penalty can be applied (some areas might ban the death penalty or restrict it to only for murderers so be aware if that is the case in your area)
    -anyone who offesnvily kills someone w/o physcial evidence(words arnt evidence) that the person they killed commited murder or severe physcial abuse, must be charged w murder.
    -death penalty should preferably be done under 24-7live public video survailence if thats an affordable option.
    -murder and severe physcial abuse/neglect is punisable by life in prison.
    -all prisons sohuld be under 24-7live public video survailence if its an affordable option.
    -individuals must be read maranda rights, tried, go thru due process, speedy public trail by jury, have physcial evidence(words arnt evidence) thats shows a 99%+chance of commital of a crime, and convicted, (as long as its an option) before you can detain them for a long duration of time.

    -assume everyone innocent until prooven guilty.

    2. evacuate willing uncoroced poor people from the war/desert zones into safer zones and send in food water shelter to poor people in war/desert zones.

    3. continue 1 and 2, and consider defensive means being very careful that offensnce doesnt result from your attempts.