Fox News
Panetta: “There will be consequences” if Assad uses chemical weapons
The Pentagon warned Thursday that “there will be consequences” if Bashar Assad unleashes chemical weapons against the Syrian people, amid evidence that the regime is mixing and moving the components for a deadly nerve gas.
“The whole world is watching,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. “There will be consequences if the Assad regime makes a terrible mistake by using these chemical weapons on their own people.”
Panetta addressed the Syrian crisis during a press conference at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Without getting into specific detail, Panetta said the intelligence “raises serious concerns” that the regime is contemplating using chemical weapons.
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
Like increasing taxes and implementing Obamcare in Syria.
Oil Can on December 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Sorry Leon, doing something was cut out of the budget.
rhombus on December 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM
But killing 40,000 people, its ok.
Zaggs on December 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM
Beware of the UN’s non-binding resolutions.
DAT60A3 on December 7, 2012 at 8:09 AM
Killing people is not a problem for liberals … how it looks politically is the problem. If gassing people would make the left look good they’d give their stamp of approval.
darwin on December 7, 2012 at 8:10 AM
A sternly worded letter.
petefrt on December 7, 2012 at 8:13 AM
This is so convenient. Obama states that his “red line” for military intervention is use of chemical weapons. And lo and behold, unnamed government souces say – gasp! – there is evidence that chemical weapons are being readied. That’s so convenient. Huh.
And look at all the so-called conservatives embracing the foreign policy of progressives (TDR, WIlson, FDR, etc.), the foreign policy of interventionism, and following in lockstep behind the War Machine.
Syria is none of our business.
Dante on December 7, 2012 at 8:19 AM
But … how will the Muslim Brotherhood get hold of Syria if we don’t help them?
darwin on December 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM
The same serious consequences that befell the terrorist in the Libyan consulate attach?
Here is a coupon for afternoon tea at your sidewalk cafe of choice in Benghazi. Enjoy
Tilly on December 7, 2012 at 8:23 AM
My exact thoughts.
Bitter Clinger on December 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM
You know, do these chemical weapons even exist? Isn’t this just some excuse to come in and take Syria’s oil? NO BLOOD FOR OIL! Absence of proof is proof of absence! This war is illegal, and 0bama is lying! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! Syria is peaceful, and has no WMDs.
░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░
░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▀▀▄░░░░
░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░░█░░░
░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░█░░
░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░░░█░
█░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒░█
█░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▀▄▒█
░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░█░░█░
░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀██░█░░
░░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░█░░░
░░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████░█░░
░░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░░█░░
░░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░█░░
Sekhmet on December 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM
Your sarcasm aside, do you disagree that the Iraq War was about oil?
Dante on December 7, 2012 at 8:40 AM
No more bombing campaigns in support of AQ and the MB.
Prediction:
- The US will drop $10bn of ordnance on the current regime.
-
AQRebels will assume power.- Barky and Hillzilla will have a press conference bragging about spreading
AQ‘Democracy’ to yet another Arab Country.- AQ will start staging for the takeover of Lebanon and Jordan.
Smart Power folks. Doing the jobs the nascent Caliphate can’t do quickly enough.
CorporatePiggy on December 7, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Seriously? We have plenty of oil here although the socialists are trying their damnedest to stop us from using it. It wasn’t about oil.
darwin on December 7, 2012 at 8:46 AM
The war in Iraq was about keeping Saddam from stirring up trouble while we were fighting an anticipatedly long war in Afghanistan. The last thing our troops in Af-Pak needed was the Iraqi tax base joining with the Iranian to fund trouble in Afghanistan.
Sekhmet on December 7, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Furthermore, if Saddam died or were deposed in a coup by another Ba’athist, we would have totally lost sanctions on Iraq that kept them from stirring up trouble. Nobody would care that there was essentially no change in Iraq, Saddam would be gone, and all the oil was there for sale.
Sekhmet on December 7, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Not the socialists. Just the left that wants a weak US. We are kept in check by keeping us beholding to other nations for our energy needs. This is what the left wants. It’s always about control with the left.
Frank Enstine on December 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Seriously? We have plenty of oil here although the socialists are trying their damnedest to stop us from using it. It wasn’t about oil.
darwin on December 7, 2012 at 8:46 AM
I’ll take that as a yes, you do disagree. It seems you mistakenly believe the war just started in 2003, rather than 1990/91.
The war was all about oil, and nothing else.
Dante on December 7, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Sounds like Resolution 1441.
thebrokenrattle on December 7, 2012 at 8:57 AM
One of the biggest causes of the 2000 Intifada was an infusion of Syrian cash to the PLO, once sanctions on Syria were essentially ignored after the death of Hafez al-Assad. Nobody cared that Bashar al-Assad was Hafez’s SON, it was sufficient that Hafez was gone, sanctions were lightened without any requirement for Syria to change its ways. We feared the same thing happening in Iraq, and probably knew all about Chirac, Schroeder, et al being on the take from Oil For Food.
Sekhmet on December 7, 2012 at 9:02 AM
So. You’d advocate to stand by and watch as Assad used Sarin on his own population ?
Yeah, yeah, I know. Syria is a soverign nation and can do as it pleases.
Jabberwock on December 7, 2012 at 9:03 AM
None of our business. Let the Europeans deal with it.
MoreLiberty on December 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM
I don’t advocate standing by and watching; I advocate that the United States cease its immoral policy of interventionism and do nothing. If other nations wish to intervene, that’s their business.
Dante on December 7, 2012 at 9:06 AM
I advocate someone else deal with this crap for once, someone that isn’t the USA.
MoreLiberty on December 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Like a proverbial ‘strong letter to the Times‘, I expect.
Knott Buyinit on December 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM
More threats of harsh language, I gather. Probably will do the same about Morsi now acting EXACTLY like the guy before him that we helped chase out- except Morsi bei a Muslim Brotherhood type makes it acceptable to the administration.
michaelo on December 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM
Say…how did Syria get chemical weapons in the first place? Wasn’t someone (the UN *cough* *cough*) supposed to be watching the world to make sure nations didn’t develop programs of mass destruction?
Or maybe they were smuggled from somewhere else?
Mitoch55 on December 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Ayeah, I’m not an isolationist coward like Dante, I’m just sick and tired of us ALWAYS having to be the ones that Do Something. If absolutely nothing else we’re broke…
MelonCollie on December 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Um, that’s like the same thing.
thebrokenrattle on December 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM
That is curious.
cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM
No, you’re just a coward who says the ME should be nuked into a parking lot.
And you don’t know the first thing about non-interventionism versus isolationism.
Dante on December 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM
IIRC, Syria is one of but a few countries that HAS NOT signed on to the UN document that controls the manufacture and/or use of chemical weapons.
And, yes. There is much speculation that Iraq’s goodies ended up there.
Jabberwock on December 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM
This may just be the case. Clinton has met with the Russians. They are none to pleased with Syria’s behaivior recently. As they has more knowledge of Syria, they may be better equiped to “prevent” Assad from cutting loose.
Frankly, I am fine with that.
Jabberwock on December 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM
I did 10 years in the Marine Corps, to include 3 tours in Iraq. These debacles have nothing to do with preserving and protecting the US Constitution or our homes. Not one…NOT ONE single marine or soldier is worth the lives of Syrians or Egyptians – or other countries. Let the Europeans deal with it, the the Chinese deal with it – I don’t care – but we are broke, and we still have Americans getting killed in that debacle called Afghanistan. I don’t know if Dante is a “coward” but there is a huge difference between non-intervention and isolationism.
MoreLiberty on December 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Then where is it?
Why would we go to war in Iraq when we have trillions of barrels here?
darwin on December 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM
I agree. We take the hard earned money of American taxpayers and waste on nonsense. We never seem to be able to leave these countries we go to war with. We are still in Japan, still in Germany, still in Kuwait, still in italy,… And when they heck are we going to allow South Korea to guard its own borders? We have about 60K soldiers on their border with North Korea, why don’t we allow the S. Koreans to protect themselves and put those 60K on our southern border.
MoreLiberty on December 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Then where is what? Saddam invaded Kuwait over claims that they were slant drilling into Iraq’s oil fields (among other oil-related affairs, such as charges of over-production). We went to war over it. We weren’t invaded, we weren’t attacked, but we went to war over it.
How is that not about oil?
Dante on December 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM