Obama opposed attacking Iraq, despite its use of chemical weapons.
Obama's credibility? Perish the thought. Sure, he's the one calling for unilaterally bombing Syria, policies that he opposed earlier. But that has nothing to do with his credibility.
As a national and international moral authority, he has decided that it's the credibility of the world and Congress that are really at stake.
"My credibility is not on the line," Obama said. "International credibility is on the line."
He added: "The question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons?"
Now I don't recall the world announcing that there would be a red line for Syria. For that matter, Obama opposed attacking Iraq, despite its use of chemical weapons.
So the international freelance moral authority hasn't abided by his own international norm.
Turkey was recently accused of using chemical weapons against Kurds in Iraq. Obama's red line not only didn't move, but he's backing a war by the same people responsible for that alleged attack.
He defended his earlier statement that the use of chemical weapons by Syria was a "red line" that Assad must not cross.
"That's not something I just made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air." Obama said, referring to international standards prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in combat. "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."
No it didn't. Obama did and he might as well own it.