Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

How red does the chemical weapons red line in Syria have to be?

How red does the chemical weapons red line in Syria have to be?

The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime was supposed to be a red line.

Two days ago, when Israel suggested chemical weapons had been used, it was dismissed as Israel trying to maneuver U.S. policy.

The U.S. now has evidence that such weapons were used, and that the Assad regime was the source.

But the evidence is not conclusive, just very strong.

White House: US believes Syrian regime used chemical weapons:

The White House said Thursday that the U.S. believes “with some degree of varying confidence” the Syrian government has used chemical weapons — specifically the nerve agent sarin — against its own people.

A letter from the White House to members of Congress said the assessment was based on “physiological samples” but more information is needed to corroborate it and nail down when and how they were used.

Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters at the Capitol that the U.S. believes chemical weapons were used twice, but the letter doesn’t specify that.

“Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin,” the letter said.

“We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime,” it added.

Chuck Hagel made a similar statement to reporters.

“Does this cross the red line?”  Hagel was equivocal, and deferred policy to Obama:

Syrian Blood Tests Positive for Sarin Gas, U.S. Spies Say:

The U.S. intelligence community has uncovered strong evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. Several blood samples, taken from multiple people, have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, an American intelligence source tells Danger Room. President Obama has long said that the use of such a weapon by the Assad regime would cross a “red line.” So now the question becomes: What will the White House do in response?

Given how Obama has attacked Bush over Iraq WMD’s, the hurdle will be pretty high for the administration to declere the red line crossed.

Does remind me of Branco’s cartoon:

Lines in the sand


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Maybe it’s paint, just like Stoner’s mom said about the blood at the marathon.

Hagel has that “where’d I leave my car?” look.

for the record, i have nothing to do with lines in Syria or elsewhere, and disavow first use of WMDs.

Robin Williams skit on Khaddafi reminds me of the “Line in the sand” with the “Line of Death”

I’d take that ‘red line’ more seriously if I new that getting involved in this mess would assure us that Assad would be replaced by someone other than a die-hard Islamist who we have no influence on. Sometimes it’s better to stick with the devil you know….Mubarak and Gaddafi come to mind.

Maybe the syrians don’t understand Ebonics…but then neither do I

Henry Hawkins | April 25, 2013 at 5:59 pm

To Obama, crossing the red line means “you’re our 100th customer!”

Obama could use a bully little war to distract the sheeple…

Russia may not be amused, though.

Not even Obama is this lame.
His inaction is intentional. The best case scenario for Obama and his 1.6 billion 9mm handgun rounds is an event like the Boston bombing on a national scale. Then we’ll see marital law — which will be forever.

[…] Excerpt from: How red does the chemical weapons red line in Syria have to be … […]

[…] “red line” rhetoric may have boxed the president into a Syrian war he wants to avoid. Photo: White House / […]