Kerry Announces No More Red Lines on Syria


Smart power. This is what it looks like.

Kerry was then questioned by a reporter about the possible responses if the evidence eventually proves that chemical weapons were indeed used again:

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it is proven that chlorine was used as a chemical in war, which is prohibited, what will the Syrian Government face? What steps can be taken?

SECRETARY KERRY: …With respect to the CW and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability.

Let’s translate that from Diplomatese into English. There will be no consequences whatsoever except for a meaningless resolution somewhere.

Putin and Iran won. Obama lost.

After having set a red line, Kerry is withdrawing the red line while still insisting that there will be consequences … including consequences “beyond our control”.

He doesn’t mention the use of force, which is smart since he has no intention of using it, and instead babbles about the UN and the ICC which are threats to make any dictator laugh himself to death.

To summarize

1. Obama set a red line for Syria

2. His bluff was called

3. There is now no more red line

This is the pathetic foreign policy of Obama Inc. This is what they’ve done to American power and credibility.

  • Ban Liberals

    Because Obama and Kerry are RED IN THE FACE?

    • john

      and got a red nose(bloodied) out of it!Who listens to Kery or Obama,they are just well known pathological liars.For that matternobody listens to the Us government,they are all crooks.

  • edlancey

    Obama original use of the “red line” was so pretentious and self-serving that it reeked of the faculty coffee lounge – his presposterous “that would change my calculus” always makes me think of his brilliant and all too under-appreciated tour de force concerning the application of the Theory of Relativity to the US constitution.

  • Habbgun

    This just seems to show our internal democracy is pretty weak. These people have no ideas, no goals other than political crisis management and anyone who has any cards at all can push them off the table entirely. Yet here they win.This should be a dog whistle for any smart politician that if you push them they’ll have to back off because they stand for no one and nothing but most likely the same people will win the next national election.

    • The March Hare

      but most likely the same people will w̶i̶n̶ cheat at the next national election.

  • Anukem Jihadi

    They’re not done yet. Especially with the things that have “nothing to do with us” which is still their idea of a real threat because that’s how they “get it done” domestically . They’re doing a lot.

  • sydchaden

    The only contest that Obama seems to have won was the take down of Bin Laden. But, while Bin Laden lost, personally, Al Queda certainly didn’t, exercising its power today in a dozen countries more than it did when Obama took office.
    Obama’s record vs Putin would be laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic. Obama says to Putin, I have the superior military force, but I’m unilaterally downsizing it as fast as I can, and besides, I assure you that I won’t use military force. Putin says, “Good”, and goes about expanding and upgrading his own military forces, and expanding “The Russian Federation”, as if the USA didn’t exist.
    Obama’s record vs “Radical Islam” isn’t much better. Obama has been an advocate for the Muslim Brotherhood. He had claimed to be an advocate for Freedom and Democracy, when the Egyptians took to the streets to oust Mubarak. He supported the ouster of Mubarak, but he endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood. And, when the Egyptians once again took to the streets to protest for Freedom and Democracy, this time against the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian protesters for Freedom and Democracy. And, Obama has appointed Muslim Brotherhood members to his White House Advisory Council, a telling fact that seems to be ignored by all, but Egypt.
    Nevertheless, Obama still enjoys support from his liberal base, and many independents.
    Why? Probably, the principal reason is that it has been deemed to be “racist” to oppose him. And, no one wants to be a racist. Also, Obama may be the WORST President that the USA has ever had, but he is also the FIRST black president that the USA has ever had. So far, “FIRST” trumps “WORST”. Finally, the Obama administration has progressively done away with practices that society formerly considered standards for moral, ethical and respectable conduct. In the past, the population of transgressors always exceeded the number of judges, but, the judges ruled. Today, the population of transgressors still exceeds the number of judges, but many of the judges have joined the transgressors, who now make the rules.
    The ACA is called “ObamaCare”, but it might just as well be called “RobertsCare”, because, if it wasn’t for Roberts, we would not have the ACA.

    • Judahlevi

      “First” only trumps “Worst” if you see people as skin colors and not as individuals. Liberals always see Obama as a skin color. Conservatives see him as an individual. This is why conservatives have no problem criticizing Obama because we don’t think as racists think.

      The barnyard collectivization of grouping people by the color of their skins or by their gender needs to stop. For a human being, their skin does not define them, their mind does.

    • The March Hare

      “Nevertheless, Obama still enjoys support from his liberal base, and many independents.”
      His liberal base just trusts him. They got their man in there and that’s all they care about. Most of them don’t examine what he does or what the consequences are. Most of them wouldn’t know the difference anyway.

    • knowshistory

      the “takedown” of bin ladin. think of the agony of the decision. the bamster: do I do the right thing and tip off my brothers, the pakis, about american plans to kill my hero bin ladin, thereby committing the only action that could possibly get me impeached, preventing me from betraying America continuously, or do I sacrifice my hero bin ladin and preserve my status as muslim in chief, allowing me to betray America again an again. what to do………….what to do. uncle bin, of course, had to take one for the Obama team, and America gets the continuing benefit of Obama’s traitorship. it really wasn’t that difficult a decision.

  • Hard Little Machine

    So they’ve simply given up.

    • The March Hare

      They gave up before they started.

  • truebearing

    Obama is an abject failure with his red lines but he’s dam n good at creating red ink.

  • fpm

    The actual red line is set by Putin, the US demoncrap has only blue line.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Let’s translate that from Diplomatese into English. There will be no consequences whatsoever except for a meaningless resolution somewhere.”

    Voodoo foreign policy in the high tech age. You’ll be cursed…on twitter.

  • guest

    yellow lines are much better

  • Veracious_one

    I remember when Qaddafi of Libya declared his infamous ‘Line of Death’…..Regan bombed his house…..Obama and Kerry would have never done this….

  • Porterfield Blatz

    In the future the lines will be pink.

  • Texas Patriot

    The real winners in this fiasco are the American people who were not forced to sacrifice one ounce of American blood or one American dime on a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate national security interests of the United States. Everything else is background noise which unfortunately now seems to have become a permanent part of the landscape of the 21st Century. What is plain for all to see is that there is no peace on earth at this point in time. Instead, there is a raging bonfire of perpetual conflict from multiple points of view which shows no sign of going away anytime soon. Finding a way to survive and prosper in this maelstrom of perpetual controversy will be the ongoing challenge of Authentic All-American Conservatives. Someone has to do it. Why not demonstrate the reality the genius of the American political and economic system for all of the world to see? Maybe someday they will discover that we’ve actually figured out a better way of doing things and want to be more like us.

    • knowshistory

      true, the Obama way (stupid foreign policy, stupid ultimatums, then cowardly retreat) worked out better than the bush way (stupid foreign policy, stupid ultimatum, then war, lost due to the enemy being willing to effectively wage war while we are not, then cowardly retreat), but really, why do we have to have stupid foreign policy to begin with? when muslims are killing muslims, WHERE IS THE DOWNSIDE? the reasoned response to muslims killing muslims in Syria would be to stand back, and helpfully replace any slain muslims by sending all of our muslims to Syria. now that would be a win-win situation. Syria has no lack of evil, genocidal, whining, complaining muslims, and we get rid of ours!! that is what a good leader would do. but we had bushbama.

      • Texas Patriot

        It’s not only Bush and Obama. Our misguided foreign policy goes back at least as far as Lyndon Johnson who believed that he was personally responsible for keeping the peace in the entire world.

        LBJ: Every night before I turn out the lights to sleep I ask myself this question: Have I done everything that I can do to unite this country? Have I done everything I can to help unite the world, to try to bring peace and hope to all the peoples of the world? Have I done enough?

        Hopefully the days of America’s role as the the messianic bringer of “peace and hope to all the peoples of the world” will end before it’s too late. We’re $17 trillion in debt and borrowing $1.6 billion a day just to pay our bills as they come due. It’s time for Americans to start looking out for each other, to rebuild our own economy, and to build up our own people. No other nation in history has done so much for so many others with so little regard for the needs and best interests of its own people, and that needs to change.

        • knowshistory

          have you forgotten JFK’s inaugural speech? the bear any burden speech? LBJ was a latecomer to the saviour of the world idea. the idea that LBJ pioneered was the policy that the American soldier was to be sacrificed for the safety of the enemy. due to the bear any burden nonsense combined with the protect the enemy combatant at all costs foolishness, we have made ourselves the laughingstock of the world. but it didn’t start there. the rules of engagement in the Korean war were eerily predictive of the treasonous murder of US servicemen in viet nam by the archcriminal LBJ. Truman, however, in his shockingly incompetent handling of the Korean war, was not breaking new ground. we can thank FDR, who ordered the American and british armies to stand down and let the soviets take east Germany for inventing the idea of intentionally refusing to win a war. it took later innovators to perfect the technique of intentionally losing wars.

          • Texas Patriot

            I think it is fair to say that Kennedy’s inaugural speech has been misinterpreted by every American president to follow him, beginning most notably with Lyndon Johnson:

            Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

            This much we pledge–and more. To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do–for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

            To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom–and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

            To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required–not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

            To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge–to convert our good words into good deeds–in a new alliance for progress–to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

            To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support–to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective–to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak–and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

            Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

            We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

            Unfortunately, things look quite different today than they did when that speech was made in 1961. In the short span of the fifty-three years it has taken us to get from there to where we are today, America has changed dramatically.

            1. Instead of having the world’s best educational system in terms of teaching science and math, we now have the worst of any industrialized nation.

            2. Instead of the healthiest nation on earth, we now have the most sedentary and obese population of any industrialized nation, and our national health care expenditures have risen from 5.2% of GDP to more than 17%. By 2020, they are expected to be closer to 20% of GDP. No nation in history has survived when that much of its annual wealth is devoted to health care.

            3. Instead of attracting and creating new industries with high-paying jobs for Americans, we have lost millions and millions of jobs and entire industries to foreign competition. Perhaps our foreign policy has succeeded to well. As a direct result of making the world “safe for democracy” we have created new competitors for American industry that are now considered superior to anything we have today, and most of the high technology used in our most sophisticated consumer products is being manufactured overseas.

            The truth is that American foreign policy has run off the rails, and a good bit of that probably has to do with the unbridled optimism of the Kennedy years. At that point in time, we seemed invulnerable and unbeatable in economic, technological, and military strength. All of that has changed today. We have gotten weaker, and our competitors in the global marketplace have gotten much stronger. Under these circumstances, unless we find a way to radically turn things around, it is almost inevitable that we will follow in the footsteps of Great Britain and become relegated to the status of a failed state in less than twenty years.

            The most astute observer of this phenomenon in the world today is Dr. Robert Atkinson, and here is a video introducing his book, Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage which was published shortly before the national election in 2012.


            Take the time to watch it and, if possible, to read the book. It’s one thing to know history, it’s another thing to appreciate the clear and present danger we face today and to understand the clear choices available to us today and the inevitable consequences for the future depending on the choices we actually make.

          • knowshistory

            which choir are you preaching to?

          • Texas Patriot

            Is there more than one?

  • Ken Zevo

    This pretty much sums it all up.

    (If you don’t know what a Möbius strip is, you won’t get the joke. Go here: )

  • ffighter13

    Mr Greenfield,thanks for the superb work.You keep us informed on issues that matter.I always make time in these hectic days to follow your thoughts;you rarely disappoint.

    • Daniel Greenfield


  • MalachHaMavet

    Imaginary RED LINE , no one cares a crap about it