WaPo
State Dept: US will act if Syria uses chemical weapons
The United States will not tolerate any use of chemical weapons in Syria and will act quickly if that threat appears imminent, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, as heavy fighting continued around the Syrian capital.
Syria’s Foreign Ministry said the government planned no such escalation of the 20-month civil war. …
“This is a red line for the United States,” Clinton said. “I’m not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice to say we are certainly planning to take action.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
And here I thought a pound of gold weighs the same as a pound of lead.
Ben Hur on December 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Yes, because dying from chemical weapons is soooo much worse than dying from bullets and bombs. We havent done anything so far, why start now. Let someone else take the lead.
reddevil on December 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Somewhere in the State Dept., a secratary types a letter with extreme earnestness.
ThePrez on December 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Ambassador Stevens must be very reassured of America’s resolve.
profitsbeard on December 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Have Hillarity go to Syria with a plastic “Reset Button”.
Worked with the Russians….right?
Mimzey on December 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM
I’m sure those that could huff VX prior to you doing anything about it are comforted.
wolly4321 on December 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM
FIFY
MikeA on December 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Oh you dirty dirty neocons, you!
thebrokenrattle on December 3, 2012 at 7:14 PM
The Department of State is going to act if Syria uses chemical weapons. Oh really? Will that action come in the form of an apology- or will the president bow to Assad first then offer an apology?
Browncoatone on December 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Like Bubba acted against Saddam after Halabja?
Christien on December 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM
And by ‘act’ we mean Susan Rice will go to the UN and maybe pound on the lectern a few times while she gives a speech!!
Stand back!!!
BigWyo on December 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM
Really? In what production, “Gone with the Wind”?????
Marxism is for dummies on December 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM
LOL — first reaction.
— second reaction.
I’m thinking it will be another “lead from behind” moment. With a “kill list” and everything.
ProfShadow on December 3, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Reagan didn’t do much when Iraq first started using chemical weapons in the 80s and Bush was still supporting Saddam when the attack on Halabja took place March 89.
lexhamfox on December 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM
I already know that, of course. This thread is about Hillary Clinton and the abject disaster of an American Secretary of State she is. Btw, Halabja was March 16, 1988, not 1989. Try to keep up, if you want.
Christien on December 3, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Well, if Assad’s CW industries can’t produce more, then he has a declining stockpile once he starts using them.
And as past use has indicated, you have to use a lot of CW to get the WMD effects… a couple of artillery shells just doesn’t do it.
So if the goal is to get rid of the things, then Assad using them is one way to do it. Maybe a sneak raid on some of the production and dual/use facilities and the phosphate mining infrastructure would be in order… but you can pay others to do that. Once you get a clear idea of who might win, then you can decide what to do with the remaining stockpiles via air to ground redistribution techniques with explosives. That is if the real aim is to just get rid of the things. Sending US soldiers to fight under CW conditions… good luck on selling that one to Congress or the American people. Barack Obama’s War in the Middle East… and here, after all the time the Left has talked about what folly that sort of thing is, too.
ajacksonian on December 3, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Oh, no! Not the STRONGLY WORDED LETTER!!
CurtZHP on December 3, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Bye, Bye, Birdie comes to mind…canaries in the coal mine.
ProfShadow on December 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM
With some words underlined. They are getting serious.
slickwillie2001 on December 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM
So much for the anti-war Democrats.
DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 9:01 PM
P.S. No war for oil!
DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Geithner should tell us how much we cut spending by preemptively not warring with Syria.
Christien on December 3, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Think of the dough we could save by not building that Trans-Atlantic bridge.
Trillions that could be spent fundamentally transforming America.
BobMbx on December 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM