In August 2012, President Obama made a nationally observed speech regarding the U.S. tolerance for,
or lack thereof, chemical weapons use in Syria. CNN, Fox News, and other news mediums broadcasted
that the President had set a red line for Syria if chemical weapons begin to
move or be utilized in Syria. Both mediums explained that to Congress, U.S.
Officials, and Americans this meant the U.S. military would intervene once
authorized by the Senate.
Earlier this week, the President was interviewed again about his intentions on
enforcing that red line. His response left some Americans to question his
stance and his credibility. But did the President
actually set a red line? If so, is he turning a blind eye to the Syrian
conflict and there use of chemical warfare by retracting what was “speculated” by
the public after his 2012 speech?
Obama,
August 20, 2012:
I have, at this point, not ordered military
engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and
biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern
Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It
concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons
are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but
also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing
a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would
change my calculus. That would change my equation.
… We have communicated in no uncertain terms with
every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would
be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons
front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations
significantly.
Obama,
September 4:
First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world
set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98
percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are
abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are
engaged in war.
Congress set a red line when it ratified that
treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of
legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act — that some of the horrendous
things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.
And so when I said in a press conference that my
calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of the
chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong,
that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin
air. There’s a reason for it.
***
Although the President did not specifically say We or I Have Set a Red Line..., his 2012 speech indicated that U.S. military action would ensue if there was threat of chemical weapons use in Syria. The President's carefully dictated words lead to assumptions made by officials and the American people. Moreover, those words and lack of action have caused citizens and international enemies to devalue his credibility and the United States' authority as a superpower.
In previous posts, I wrote about the media portraying biases in
reporting practices, misrepresenting information, and inappropriately
persuading the public with one-sided facts in accordance to their own agendas.
However, the situation here is a prime example of what occurs when the informational source, in turn, distract
the media and the public through word play and demeanor. It seems that we, the
public, must continuously question every facet of reporting, including
statements that come straight from the
horse’s mouth.
