Obama’s staggering hubris

The sheer arrogance on display from President Barack Obama, in a pathetic attempt at self justification over his stance concerning Syria, is absolutely staggering.

Since last year, Obama has been (in typical American fashion) working to an American agenda on Syria.  His pisspoor attempts to grandstand on heavyweight foreign affairs matters, to compensate for what could be generously described as disastrous performance on the world stage, led to him talking tough to al-Assad and setting a ‘red line’ on chemical weapons.

The Telegraph is reporting Obama’s comment that the world needed to show the Syrian regime that they could not use chemical weapons with impunity.  The paper goes on to explain that Obama defended his assertion that ‘a red line’ would be crossed by the use of such weapons, arguing that he was simply emphasising accepted international laws.  But then Obama elevated himself from President of the United States to self declared spokesman for the entire world when he said:

First of all, I didn’t set a red line.  The world set a red line.

So when I said that my calculus would be altered by chemical weapons, which the overall consensus of humanity says is wrong – that’s not something I just made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air.

My credibility isn’t on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line.

I try to avoid the use of profanity on this blog, but what a load of utter bollocks.  One drawback of being the American President is that a lot of what you utter gets reported.  This can prove rather inconvenient for the President when he takes off on one of his flights of fantastic delusion and denies his own words – which as you can see from his comments last year on this infamous ‘red line’, made on 19/20 August 2012, he has done.  The Washington Post is the journal of record here…

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’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.

The use of the Royal ‘we’ to describe the American position, followed by evidence that the red line is his calculus, his equation.  The world didn’t set a red line, Obama did.  He made no reference to speaking for the world, because he doesn’t.

The red line is Obama’s alone.  Therefore it is his credibility that is on the line – and that is why he is now pretending he was speaking for the world, rather than the bubble inside the Washington Beltway.   Obama is telling a naked lie and exhibiting hubris of staggering proportions.  It is the sign of a meglomaniac and someone who is irrational.  Obama was the choice of the American people, but from an external perspective what an appalling choice they made.

The President of the United States has demonstrated he has no credibility.

And it’s no better for the Russians either.  President Putin seems to have developed a serious case of amnesia about countries who launch a military attack on another country without UN approval, as these comments, translated on BBC 10 o’clock news tonight, make clear:

In line with international law only the UN Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state.

Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state is inadmissable and can only be interpreted as aggression.

Just to refresh Vladimir’s memory…

7 Responses to “Obama’s staggering hubris”

  1. 1 Nailer 04/09/2013 at 10:30 pm

    Just. Bloody. Brilliant.

  2. 3 Andy Baxter 04/09/2013 at 11:33 pm

    Obama is on the last legs of a dead end Presidency, no prospect of re-lection, his flagship domestic policies have mostly tanked, the economy has only just been kept breathing by the shale gas exploitation, but is still fragile, he still pursues the false religion of AGW, National debt is gargantuan and growing, The State is encroaching on civil liberties ever more aggressively, the $ continues to devalue as issuance increases, his foreign policy is a joke and he has been exposed as failing to live up to the ‘second coming’ he was prophesised to deliver!

    So WTF does he care about escalating a conflict on the shores of an inland sea nearly 7,000 miles away from the continental USA?

    He will be remembered for delivering nothing of value to the USA or the world and I suspect wants to leave a mark on the world like Blair attempted to do; and will be reviled all the more for it domestically and internationally.

    If he escalates Syria and supports the rebels in the proxy Sunni Shia religious and political war for ideological domination of yet another Islamic state he will only increase global insecurity not lessen it. Assad for all his faults is the lesser of the two evils we in the West have had to live with since the emergence of militant Islam.

    Some more sinister agenda is at play methinks perhaps linked to Iran and Saudi Arabia and throw in the Israelis at a lower local level and the Russian bear at a strategic level into the pot and you have an explosive mix that has the potential to escalate beyond our worst nightmares;

    while Cameron is a weak ineffectual leader domestically and internationally and the EU (and all its members bar one opportunistic Gallic lightweight watch from the side-lines) and Obama shows the same level of indecision, Putin is anything but as you have so succinctly pointed out!

    Where Russian interests are at stake or threatened Putin won’t hesitate if the odds are in his favour or he senses weakness, and he has a formidable arsenal at his disposal. And the Russian psyche doesn’t suffer from the same sort of angst over difficult decisions involving inevitable loss of life that our Western leaders display!

    Its a total ClusterF*** and not helped by having a joke of can only be loosely termed ‘leadership’ both here and in the US that is more interested in how it looks than on how it should act in the interests of its own and cannot understand cause and effect and the law of unintended consequences!

  3. 4 john in cheshire 05/09/2013 at 9:48 am

    The man is an imbecile. The only good thing is that the longer he is in office the more people will be glad to see the back of him.

  4. 5 Pogle's Woodsman 05/09/2013 at 10:24 am


    Wiki. Yes I know, but run with it for now.

    The R2P doctrine thresholds in action are the guidelines for intervention.

    Have a look at clauses ‘2’ & ‘6’.

    2. ‘2.Right intention – Is the main intention of the military action to prevent human suffering or are there other motives?’

    6. ‘6.Reasonable prospect – Is it likely that military action will succeed in protecting human life, and are the consequences of this action sure not to be worse than no action at all?’

    With respect to clause ‘2’, Obama (I think via Kerry – could be wrong) has already highlighted that one of the specific strategies of the impending assault will be to degrade the Syrian Governmental capabilities. Under the strictures of this, to do so is against the spirit of this clause ‘2’. It proceeds beyond ‘prevent’ and nudges into ‘pre-empt’ and certainly gets him into ‘other motives’. So. (i) Fail.

    With respect to clause ‘6’ the nature from the UK, France and the USA has been to refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of escalation, worsening and\or widening of the conflict. This I find particularly worrying. Blair and Bush proceeded into Iraq in 2003 because they ‘knew’ Hussein had WMD, and they also ‘knew’ a land assault front comprising US Land forces would invade Iraq from Turkey. They also ‘knew’ the UN would provide post-fighting stabilisation and peacekeeping forces. Wrong on all counts even though they were questioned clearly and relentlessly on those points.

    In PMQ’s of 4 September, Sir Peter Tapsell made a crystal-clear intervention asking the Prime Minister to comment on matters concerning possible escalation. Cameron again batted the question away. The USA has not prepared or planned for regional escalation (unless they want to unequivocally answer the questions). If they are not prepared for escalation, have not realistically planned for escalation, then the requirements for clause ‘6’ have not been met. So. (ii) Fail.

    Finally, the question that everyone asks but there is never an answer to –

    ‘R2P’ is an obligation of Parent governments to their own populations. However, the world community as is (according to last weeks’ HoC debate roughly 165 nations have signed up to it) have committed themselves to the follow-up logical demands which it obviates. Yet several MPs last week interpreted such as meaning ‘O2I’ – ‘Obligation to Intervene’. That being the case, their respective electorates might reasonably ask where the other 162 nations are – why have they also not committed forces to this impending attack on Syria? I know just about every reader will already have asked themselves versions of that question – but don’t supress it as ludicrous and obvious. Whilst you already know the answer to that – why is it neither Mr. Obama, Mr. Cameron nor Mr. Hollande is capable of eliciting a clear answer?

    Should not their respective electorates be let in on the joke – they’re paying for the party, after all….?…

  5. 6 qed 05/09/2013 at 3:53 pm


    Syria’s chemical weapons were stored in 5 cities but have been widely dispersed and anything the politicians claim to be intelligence should be treated with scepticism. Other than Sarin the CW’s include VX (a version of sarin), phosgene, mustard gas, hydrogen cyanide and precursor chemicals (supplied by foreign companies) used to make chemical weapons.

    The estimated 1000 tons of CW’s can be delivered by ballistic missiles such as Scud B’s and C’s with ranges of up to 300 miles. Aircraft and artillery shells can also deliver the CW’s.

    To Syria their chemical weapons are a deterrent, just like the nuclear deterrent. They have not signed the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, but then though Israel has signed it they never ratified it.

    There is uncertain intelligence that since 2012 CW’s have been used in Syria 14 times, the attack on Ghouta being simply the most recent, continuing the tradition of Assad’s father who used cyanide in an attack on the Muslim Brotherhood which killed some 20,000 people.

    An attack from the air by Obama would put much of the CW’s and a small amount of nuclear material at risk of being seized by terrorists. For Al Nusra/ Al Qaeda it presents a good opportunity to acquire weapons it would try to use against the USA and western and muslim countries and and their interests around the world.

    Were the clumsy American air strikes to hit CW’s or a small nuclear facility, they would become culpable in the deaths that result although they would blame Assad.

    It is believed that Assad’s younger brother was involved in the recent atrocity which is claimed to have been carried out by the 4th armoured division. It is not known for certain how the CW’s are commanded and controlled within the Syrian Shi-ite/Alawite regime.

    Mrs Thatcher said the justifiable Falklands war was the most exciting part of her political career. That bellicose excitement is what drives many politicians. They believe that killing people and destroying things will make the Syrian regime, which is under desperate pressure, behave rationally.

    An attack on Syria is of course also an attack on Hezbollah and Iranian interests. Hezbollah, if not Iran directly, would certainly retaliate.

    Obama is not someone whose judgement can be trusted and Kerry just wants to look presidential ready for 2016.

    The true way to peace is byzantine and tortuous and perhaps unachievable, but talking has to start some time and it should be before Obama drags the world into another military quagmire.

  6. 7 Adam West 06/09/2013 at 2:01 am

    The red line was not only Obama’s but Hilary Clinton’s: from December last year William Hague confirms ‘evidence’ of Syrian chemical weapons

    “Clinton said Assad would cross “a red line” if he used chemical weapons. She said Washington was concerned that “an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are now operating within Syria”.”

    A BBC article from the same time points out that Syria isn’t signed up to the chemical weapons convention. Might this explain how chemical weapons in Syria can merit at least 10 official statements from the UK government since March 2013 but no action has been taken to prevent them being used?







    14/06/2013 again




    I hope that all those links don’t flag this comment up as spam!

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: