I’m Confused. Where is the “Severe Consequence” Against Assad for Using Chemical Weapons?

My head is spinning. First there was Barack Obama’s “red line,” which eventually became the world’s red line, or Congress’, but the bottom line on the red line, I think, was that there had to be “consequences,” for using chemical weapons, even if they are “unbelievably small.”

So after several documented uses of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, suddenly his alleged use on August 21 demanded urgent action, but not one that anyone would notice.

Now, the day after Bashar Assad did an interview on American television, on CBS specifically, denying the use or possession of chemical weapons, and issuing a threat against the U.S. and our allies to “expect everything,” he is allowed to continue to stay in power and use the conventional weapons that have killed a hundred thousand Syrians, while agreeing to put those bad chemical weapons under the custody and control of his good friend Vladimir Putin. I’m sure we can trust Vlad and Bashar to turn over all of those CW’s, right?

That whole “Bashar must go” thing is so 2011.

So where exactly are those “consequences,” Dear Reader? Maybe we’ll learn tonight during his TelePrompTer reading.

Not really. There are no consequences, and he’s not going to tell us the truth. As we discussed on this edition of The Teri O’Brien Show, it’s about one thing and one thing only; that is, retaking the House in 2014.

It is ridiculous for John “Lurch” Kerry and other liberals to crow about Obama’s great victory, claiming that it was only the “credible threat of force” that persuaded Assad to give up the chemical weapons he claimed he didn’t have. Everyone on Earth knew that Obama’s Authorization for the Use of Force was DOA, and without it, Obama had no authority to strike, at least arguably. So where is that “credibly threat?” I guess it’s in the same place as those “consequences.”

The Teri O'Brien Show

book