65 thoughts on “The “Red Line””

  1. He said what? Are we being Punked? When is Ashton going to jump out and tell us the last 5 years were all an elaborate prank?

  3. Rand, I am eager to hear your opinions and I am most grateful for your generous and open comment policy that I can also express my opinions on your excellent Web site.

    You express your opinions publically under your own name in operating this blog, and I, by personal choice, express opinions in comments on your blog, under my own name, as do a number of your regular commenters here.

    I don’t always agree with you 100%, but I think that my views are consonant with your views on many issues. I too have been critical of President Obama, both for the ideological position he has staked out and for errors in execution of his ideological position, whether a person is in complete agreement or not.

    But the man remains President of the United States, and by the grace of a Higher Power from whom all authority flows, at least according to my personal beliefs, Mr. Obama will remain President for another three years under our Constitutional system. It is your blog Rand, and your bandwidth and your dime and your soapbox, and if you want to call the President by a bad name according to the German spoken in my parent’s native Yugoslavia (in proper German, the word mean “jewel” as in the slang “bling”, and you can see that word in public view in a storefront for a jewelry store, but it has a more vulgar meaning in some dialects spoken in Slavic lands — think of the English-language expression “family jewels”).

    As for me, having been raised in a German-ethnic influenced household where respect for authority runs deep, I make every effort to address the President as the President, President Obama, Mr. Obama, or Barack Obama, that is, in a respectful manner in keeping with patriotic respect with the office even though I have differences with the Obama Administration. But that is just me, and maybe calling political leaders names is a tradition that goes back to the time of the Founders.

    Whereas I respect your free-market free-speech right to run your blog as you see fit, I am beginning to feel uncomfortable that such words are used to describe the President, especially since I am a minor public figure for what I do for a living and that I am commenting under my own name, because in my situation I don’t consider it proper to comment here under a “handle.”

    If my message is read and you feel like leaving my comment up or feel like deleting my comment on this sensitive matter, I am totally OK with that and will not take offense.

    1. Paul I do admire your stance here. However, I don’t think the President himself strives for constant civility in the execution of his duties. Case in point: I just saw a ‘casual’ photo of the President in the Oval Office, with his foot resting on his desk. The very desk Lincoln used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. In your opinion, is the President striking this pose on purpose or does he just not know any better?

      1. Wow! Is there no lengths the Radical Republicans won’t go to find something to use to attack President Obama?

        Why was it OK for President Bush to put his feet on the desk, and President Nixon, and President Carter, and so and so on… But not President Obama?

        And yes, there are images for them all those Presidents with their feet on the desk if you google it. So why attack President Obama for what other presidents have done? Oh, that is right, because he is President Obama…

        Next thing you will complain because he is wearing a red tie so it shows he is a communist or worst 🙂

        1. I am mortified to realize that my post did appear to be pretty darn similar to your posts that shoehorn in some rant against the Tea Party. I will strive to do better next time.

        2. I could care less he puts his feet on the furniture but did you see that pic? His knee was almost up to his chest, how could that be comfortable? lol

          1. And at the time Democrats probably went crazy over that pic claiming Bush was showing the soles of his feet which we all know is racist towards Muslims.

            So let’s not pretend that Democrats also don’t make over the top attacks over little things.

        4. “Radical Republicans:” any Republican who values liberty more than Moby Matula.

          (Momas Spatula wasn’t around to do his usual fine job translating Moby gibberish into English, so I stepped into the breach.)

          1. Bilwick,

            Funny, if they are for liberty, how once Radical Republicans get in control they spend their time taking liberties away from different groups, like voters, women, minorities, etc.

            BTW don’t forget to bring your “papers” when passing through radical run Republican states like Arizona 🙂

          2. Federal law requires aliens to have their papers with them.

            Remember part of the controversy was over states enforcing federal regulations that the Obama administration was not enforcing. A pattern of unilaterally choosing which laws to follow and which to ignore.

          3. So why do they ask citizens to carry them?

            Dictatorships need ways to control the population, and IDs are the first step. That is why the slide to dictatorships always start with requiring government ID. So much for Radical Republicans actually believing in liberty…

          5. No, proof of citizenship. In case you haven’t heard a drivers license is not enough to prove you are an American in the Republican state of Arizona 🙂

    2. One of the nice things about being an American is that we can (at least for now) call presidents what they are. I have no problem in doing so in this particular case, given his ongoing incivility toward all of us for the past five years.

    3. He’s the elected president of the United States, not (as he tries to act) an emperor, dictator or king. A president is merely the most successful politician at any given time. America has a long history of holding politicians in contempt and most of them have earned it. Likewise, after the way the Democrats treated George W. Bush during his presidency, it’s only a matter of turnabout being fair play.

      1. I remember Bush being burned in effigy during those remarkably hypocritical antiwar marches. Being called nasty names is just a milder form of that.

    5. “As for me, having been raised in a German-ethnic influenced household where respect for authority runs deep, I make every effort to address the President as the President, President Obama, Mr. Obama, or Barack Obama, that is, in a respectful manner in keeping with patriotic respect with the office even though I have differences with the Obama Administration. ”

      And, this being a less free but still marginally free nation you have that choice.

      I respect the office.

      I do not respect the man presently in the office.

      This is America. And here, lots of people, over our entire history, have selected to not practice that fawning obsequiesness typically reserved for Monarchs.

      We chose and choose to say it like it is.

      And that empty suit, racist, fargin’ icehole, bastige, Marxist, criminal in office is a disaster to this nation and the world. Thousands have died at his hands and/or through his narcissistic, amateurish, incompetence. Millions more (both in the nation and out) have had their lives destroyed by his direct fecklessness and stupidity.

      He is a self-absorbed mornic witless nincompoop who doesn’t deserve the office he has. The sooner he’s out of it the sooner we can, possibly, return to the successful path the nation was founded upon.

    6. I guess Rand could have called him “Chimpy McBushitler”, but that was usually reserved for the previous President.

      Personally, I have a great deal of respect in the US Constitution, so I see no reasons to confer titles of nobility to any schmuck.

  4. The President’s back-pedaling on the red line comment is about the worst foreign policy blunder imaginable. Words mean things, and he now wants about seven billion people who heard or read his original words to believe they were mistaken about what he meant? There are a lot of states out there that are seeing this as an opportunity to flex their muscles.

    1. This isn’t about red lines or blue lines or back pedaling or forward pedaling. I think this whole thing speaks more to general competence and experience (or lack of same) rather than ideology. I sense of panic behind Mr. Obama’s brave, tough talk.

      Scenario 1: President Obama announces his “red line” last year. Chemical weapons are used in Syria. The press asks about his red line. The President responds “I am in close consultations with our intelligence services and with our allies, and there is much I am not at liberty to disclose. But be assured, every “option” is on the table.” “Mr. President, does that mean military action?” “As I just said, every option is on the table.”

      Scenario 2: Presidant Obama announces his “red line” last year. Chemical weapons are used in Syria. The President executes a contingency plan to “secure” the Syrian chemical arsenal that has been a year in preparation, a plan involving commando raids and coordinated air strikes. The President then gives an Oval Office speech, “Our intelligence services have known about Assad’s chemical arsenal for some time now, and with the civil war, it is of grave concern that these weapons end up in the hands of terrorists. Now that these weapons have been used in the civil war, and it is of no concern to us which general or which faction or who ordered this barbaric act, it is time to “secure” this deadly arsenal by force of arms.” The American people rally around the President. The Iranians “get the message” about what will happen to them . . . next.

      What is happening right now is a nightmare scenario of failed military diplomacy and failed coordination with allies. And there is another 3 years to go. Maybe the Higher Power is chastening us for our sins.

    2. One must admit that the statement is weak because of context. If he had said this with a powerful coalition supporting him, then it’d be a statement that the “red line” was not just a US thing (the full quote can be paraphrased something like “It’s not my red line, but the world’s red line”). But in the present state of affairs, it’s just a build up to an excuse to bail. I wonder if the statement was thought up as a talking point somewhere between the “red line” speech and the diplomatic failures in coalition building.

  5. Enjoy:

    http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ford-foot-on-desk.jpg
    http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/bush-feet-on-desk-2.jpg

    ” according to the lexicographer Michael Wex, the author of How to Be a Mentsh (And Not a Shmuck), the Yiddish and German “schmucks” are completely unrelated. “Basically, the Yiddish word comes out of baby talk,” Wex said. “A little boy’s penis is a shtekl, a ‘little stick.’ Shtekl became shmeckle, in a kind of baby-rhyming thing, and shmeckle became shmuck. Shmeckle is prepubescent and not a dirty word, but shmuck, the non-diminutive, became obscene.”
    from the Wikipedia article on “schmuck”

    1. So there’s a couple of photos of Bush doing it. Even then I think it’s wrong. It’s an antique and should be respected. Hell there are chairs that old that people don’t even sit in despite that being it’s intended purpose. But I have to say the photog for the White House seems to have a penchant for clicking Obama whenever he has his feet up. I suppose because he thinks it makes him look “cool”. Not only that, but it seems to indicate that Obama is doing it, all. the. time. And it’s one thing to hang the soft heels of your feet over the edge now and again. But Obama routinely steps on the edge with the hard souls of his shoe. And in the latest one he’s leaning in stepping straight down on it trying to look strong; that skinny leg is anything but.

      1. Josh,

        Most of the White House furniture are antiques. So what should a president do? Put it all in storage and buy new office furniture to use every term? Or leave the White House as a museum and work from home?

    1. That seems familiar. I think I heard that exact rumor about an Afghan pipeline just as we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001. My gut tells me this is Bravo Sierra.

      1. Yeah, that was right around the time that the idiots were chanting “no blood for oil”. If the US really was a nation of bloodthirsty warmongers hungry for oil, the tanks would roll north from Montana about 10 hours, to a magical land where the natives speak English and are slightly to the right of Texas.

          1. You forget, I’ve lived in Alberta most of my life. I’m just pointing out, like I did ten years ago many times to no avail, that the “no blood for oil” folks were being disingenuous at best. The message was laughable on its face.

  7. I’m uncomfortable with the level of reverence for presidents. They aren’t our masters, they’re staff. They’re supposed to run the civil service and do what we want.

  8. Pure political incompetence.

    He could have just as easily used the same argument (international treaties) and been inclusive rather than avoiding responsibility and blaming others for the red line. Try this:

    “Yes, my credibility is on line, but let me be clear: I drew that red line with the same pen that the U.N. used when they outlawed the use of WMDs in blablah treaty, the same pen that Congress used when they ratified that treaty… we all held that pen and drew that line. And now the question is, for all of us, do we have the moral fortitude to enforce that line? Did we really mean it when the world said as one that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable? Or do we shrink away from the ideals we’ve professed and the duty it now calls us to? I am, and I think the American People are, ready to stand firm behind that line, which is why I re-drew it, brightly, to re-affirm our conviction to those that might dare cross it”

    More could be said of course. This could have been an ample opportunity to reach out and create a broader coalition

    You can’t simultaneously make a moral appeal for others to acknowledge and honor their commitments and avoid acknowledgement of your own commitment (especially if you’ve voiced yours more recently) and expect to be called any better than a hypocrite and a coward. This dope isn’t a leader, who gets in front of issues and encourages others to become animated and charge ahead, he’s at best a mob director, that encourages an already animated but unfocused people to “get that guy, he’s the problem!”.

    Personally, I say let the cannibals in Syria eat each other, as long as they don’t break any of our stuff/hurt our people we have no need to waste our blood and capital on them. The LoAC are stupid self-sacrificial nonsense in any case – we shouldn’t risk our citizen’s lives to enforce them.

    2. That reminds me of the quote at the end of the movie Boondock Saints:

      “The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far is as needed?”

      Granted, they were talking vigilantism in the movie, but it still gets at the heart of whether or not someone has the moral character to execute a measured response to the violation of a line that they drew in the sand. Without that character, most people just hear empty threats and lose respect for the authority of he/she who makes the threat.

      Of course, having the sense to know WHERE to draw that line in the sand, and making sure that one’s allies are on board with the line is somewhat important, too…

    3. Agree with wodun, well said Ryan.

      I’m happy to see the House doesn’t seem close to going along with this stupid campaign. 3 cheers for Parliament making the right call.

      I’m not shocked to see the usual suspects more incensed by Jiminator’s comments about boots on the table, yet have nothing to support their hero in regards to his march towards war with Syria. Their silence speaks volumes about the depth of Obama’s blunder.

      1. I broke my silence to say something lighthearted about “schmuck”. But that’s all. I have lots to say about Obama’s policy, just not to you. Enjoy the echo chamber this place has become.

        2. I have lots to say about Obama’s policy, just not to you.

          So no instructions yet from the mothership?

        3. Oh, then, allow me. *ahem* “We gotta help Al Qaeda take over Assad’s joke of a nation because democracy!”

  9. That that infantile narcissist in office continues to blame everyone but himself for the death-dealing messes he creates…and that he gets away with it due to our fawning, kneeling MSM…is frustrating beyond words.

    We need a grown up in office. A serious person.

    Not a 15 year old.

    That his moronic, unprincipled acolytes use the exact – EXACT – same arguments for war that Bush used…and that they castigated Bush for, and they get away with it is equally frustrating and disgusting.

    These people haven’t a single moral principle.

    These peopel care only about themselves and their careers.

    These people deserve to burn in hell for all eternity and I hope that begins while they are still alive.

    That all of them have the temerity to stand up and repeat word for word Bush’s justification and pretend that it’s somehow different is quite frankling an astounding arrogance and/or disassociation from reality.

    1. It is entirely innacurate and foolish to say Obama and his supporters have no moral principles. They’ve been beating the GOP with moral principles and arguments for decades. This potential Syria escapade is entirely consistent with the principles they’ve espoused – that self-sacrifice is morally good, espcially to serve those in need. So is Obamacare, so is Libya, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, gun control, all of it is based on and consistent with their principles. Their anti-individual utilitarian math is consistent. The GOP’s problem is that they agree “in theory” and often in practice as well (see Iraq, medicaid/medicare, etc.) but think maybe individualism is more practicable even if not as moral i some cases. And people vote their morals in almost all cases, so the GOP loses.

      So to say they have no principles is to not know thy enemy, and not know why they are trouncing the republicans.

      Also notice that during Bush’s part of the Iraq war, they didnt protest intervention per se, they argued against “war for oil” and “american imperialism”. They reframed the debate away from the moral principles they hold in common with Bush (that they argue for today) – that sacrifice for the needy is good.

  10. The choice for what we do regarding Syria is quite simple:

    Every Al Qaida fighter that Assad kills is one less that could hurt us.

    Every Assad goon the rebels kill makes for a weakened Syria that cannot cause as much trouble in the region. Israel is safer. The region is one goon less violent.

    Leave them alone to expend their energy and violence on each other. Better that they don’t have time to think about extending their violence to anyone we care about.

  12. Why is nobody floating the proposal to bomb both sides in the Syria conflict? Whoever ends up winning that conflict will hate us, whoever loses the conflict will hate us. We can tell the Russians, Iranians, Saudis, Israelis, etc. we support there side with military action, thank you very much. Obama comes out a winner because he showed how resolved he is is by bombing Assad, the Republicans show how strong they are by bombing the Al Queda rebels, the WSJ is happy, NYT is happy.

    Amerika F’ yah!

    1. I’m a fan of the Colt 1911A plan.

      That is: Hand out pistols to everyone involved by the caseload. And any-which-way. Buried in bags of flour, shot from artillery, airlifted, smuggled – whatever.

      The survivors will eventually be more polite and better shots.

      It at least has the virtue of not providing stingers, tanks, or planes to enemies. It also doesn’t expect atypical behavior.

      1. The Obama administration has at least been clear on one thing; it does not trust Americans to own “assault rifles” or other “military grade” weapons.

        It does, however, trust Islamic jihadists to do so, and trusts them so much it wants to send them some (plus real military weapons) and have those aforementioned American citizens foot the bill.

        1. Yeah, but they aren’t white imperialist oppressors? Heh.

          Good point. We need some billboards/cartoons showing the comparison.

  13. Is the president due civility?

    I think any president is due a certain level of civility. In this case, I think we ought to defer to the Democrats on the matter of how much, and grant Obama the same level of civility and regard that they accorded his predecessor.

    EXACTLY the same.

    Does anyone here on the left or right have any argument against doing so?

      1. Proportionality, in this case regarding a certain level of civility, is total war.

        I’m proposing that Obama deserves exactly the same level of respect and civility (or the lack thereof) the the Democrats accorded to Bush. No more, and no less (though it’d be darn hard to have less).

        🙂

    2. Yes.
      We don’t need to be all Marquess de Queensbury, but I think it would be useful to at least maintain more civility and and a higher level of regard than is normally accorded the random chicken posthumously appearing in a PETA poster.

      It would be such a dramatic improvement in tone, however, that I doubt it would be plausible without extensive retraining.

      The urge to “Shoot the messenger!” is quite amazing to watch in action. There are around 60 comments on the Red Line “It’s not -me-!” fiasco. There’s not one defense or explanation of the comment. This doesn’t even go into the brilliance of Samantha Powers and the “We’ll get -Iran- to help us!” idea.

      1. I don’t think anyone has defended the “It’s not me who drew the red line” mess, because some things are just beyond the pale and thus indefensible. When a president makes his read line statement on camera in front of millions of people, and then the white house press release a few months later reaffirms (their word) that the president drew a red line, including such choice bits as an official release by the press secretary “The President’s use of the term red line was deliberate and was based on U.S. policy,” Or, according the the white house’s own transcript of another white house spokesman saying “We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line…”

        Obama’s attempt to distance himself from literally himself is clownish and preposterous, so I doubt even most of his dedicated followers are much inclined to try to defend that. Some things are just plain indefensible.

        Samantha Power’s statement regarding expecting Iran would abandon Syria over the chemical weapons issue is intensely troubling to me, and even moreso is her implication that this was not her expectation alone, but that of the administration. Could they plausibly be that mind-numbingly stupid and utterly divorced from reality? This to me is a disturbing indication that, yes, they can.

        1. 1) American Republicans are the most hard-line (pathetic as it is.)
          2) Iran must hate Republicans, because we’re bending over backwards to be pathetic (in implementation, but the Iranians – must- see we’re on their side and all this process stuff is just flim-flam!)
          3) So they must love us because they’re rational actors of the ‘me-first!’ variety just like me!
          4) So yes, we expect them to make a show of not supporting us and continuing the ‘Death to Satan’ stuff, but they should go along with us on the big stuff. (Don’t they know we’ve got plenty of cash? Maybe they’d like a piece of Chrysler?)

          AKA: Projection.

Comments are closed.