Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

August 31, 2013 - 11:16 pm

President Obama rang up French President Francois Hollande, who is leaning toward taking action against the Syrian regime, on Saturday. According to the White House:

The President and President Hollande spoke today as part of their continuing consultations on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons on August 21.  The two leaders agreed that the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime – and others who would consider using chemical weapons – that these crimes are unacceptable and those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world.  The President informed President Hollande that after careful deliberation he has determined it is in the national security interest of the United States to take limited military action against the Syrian government to confront this atrocity, and informed him that he would  call on the Congress to authorize the use of military force in Syria.  President Obama thanked President Hollande for France’s principled commitment to upholding the international norm against the use of chemical weapons and enforcing the consequences that give this norm meaning.  France is a valued ally and friend of the United States and we will continue to consult closely on Syria in the coming days.

Hollande appears to be the only European leader who has expressed willingness to strike at Bashar al-Assad:

Mr Hollande, in an interview with Le Monde, said that he was determined to act, despite the British vote.

“Each country retains the sovereign right to participate or not in an operation,” he said.

“That applies to Britain as well as France. I will have today an in-depth exchange with Barack Obama.”

Mr Hollande said that the attack could come by Wednesday. The French parliament will meet on Wednesday for an emergency Syria session.

“If the Security Council fails to act, a coalition will form. It should be as broad as possible. It will be based on the Arab League, which has condemned the crime and alerted the international community. It will have the support of Europeans.

“But there are few countries which have the capacity to inflict sanctions through appropriate means. France is one of them. And she is ready for that. She will decide our position through close liaison with her allies.”

He further explained his reasoning for supporting the planned strikes, saying that the chemical weapons attacks of August 21 “cannot and should not go unpunished.”

“Otherwise we run the risk of an escalation of events, which will trivialise the use of these weapons and threaten other countries,” he said.

“I am not in favour of an international intervention which plans to ‘liberate’ Syria or topple the dictator, but I believe that a body blow should be dealt to a regime which inflicts irreparable damage on its people.”

Hollande does not require the permission of parliament to move forward with intervention, so Wednesday’s debate is a courtesy of sorts. French officials have told reporters that its military is ready to strike once the order comes down.

France led the initial assistance of the rebels in Libya, despite Obama frequently taking credit for the liberation. France also backed up the Malian army several months ago to push encroaching Islamists out of key towns. After a month of brutal Sharia occupation, Timbuktu residents were liberated by Hollande’s troops and waved French flags in celebration.

Also read: Krauthammer: ‘Amateur Hour’

Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Word. This whole thing is utterly ridiculous. Because innocent civilians were killed (hey, how come there were no innocent civilians to be protected in Dresden or Nagasaki?), there is a duty to project ourselves into a civil war in which both sides are legitimately our enemies. Furthermore, the mission is to destroy weapons caches without loss of innocent civilians - knowing full well that hiding weapons caches in areas thickly populated with civilians is the typical Arab strategy. I want no part in destroying this particular village in order to save it...
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sort of a partial, limited hangout. To be fair, shouldn't Assad get a vote? By the way, whatever happened to Jimmeh Carter? Not a peep. Does his fine tuned sense of moral outrage only function during Republican administrations?
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (27)
All Comments   (27)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my friends aunt just got a great Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT by working part-time from a macbook. look these up >>>>http://www.wep6.com
Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the UN were actually worth the powder to blow it to hell, the idea of them punishing a regime that used poison gas against a civilian population, or using it at all, would be in their bailiwick. As is, the UN serves no useful purpose anymore, other than providing employment for the younger sons of various third world grandees, and it becomes the job of responsible nations to enforce the basic principles the UN was supposedly invented to defend.

And the United States of America is following France?!?
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes. We're just behind France. I hope the Italians don't beat us to second place.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
I like the comment about every nation has a sovereign right to participate or not in an operation. Unless you are the United States enforcing a UN resolution duly approved by Congress in Iraq. Funny that.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The President informed President Hollande that after careful deliberation he has determined it is in the national security interest of the United States to take limited military action against the Syrian government..."

Indeed. The more limited the better.

In fact, it would be in the absolute interests of the United States to take military action limited to nothing whatsoever.

(PS: this jackass doesn't know what "careful deliberation" means. If he did he wouldn't have shot his stupid pie-hole off about "red lines"...)
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
I never thought I'd see the day that the French would be martially aggressive, and the United States weak and cowering.

The opportunity here is enormous. If you take out Assad, then you weaken Iran. Syria has been supporting Islamic terrorist groups for years. Eliminating Assad would be a huge Western victory. Too bad that Obama burned all his bridges, and now when he needs support nobody will stick his neck out for him.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Eliminating Assad would be a huge Western victory? Uhhhh, have you taken a gander at who's waiting in the wings for that moment? Bunch of al-Qaeda jihadis eating people's hearts and triumphantly posting the videos on the Internet.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
As I've said elsewhere:

It's hard to win the hearts and minds of people who work overtime to cut your head off and eat your heart.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, it would require some "fancy footwork"...
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama has already said we would not invade to take out Assad so if we attack, would we be bombing the people Assad has already attacked? For what purpose? To help him or show him we really, really mean business this time?
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
O thinks his job is to be a yes or no person. No thought process involved at all. A simple yea or nay will do.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
He is still looking for the multiple choice form on this one.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
This tragedy/farce has gone on long enough. Forget Hollande, it's time to consult George Soros. I'm sure he has specific plans pertaining to this situation that he could text to Obama wherever he might be, even on the golf course.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
George Soros already has direct access to O. He owns O. Soros is part of the he/she cartel behind the curtain. O can't think (even to save his life) without direction.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
But he can stink allright
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama would be shorter still, even by French standards, if this scenario were to play out...

What if the tables were turned and it was Syria launching Cruise Missiles on NY and DC as a 'limited strike' to punish us for the way the IRS treated Tea Party Groups or for how we treat our Native Americans or how we abort our pre-born U.S. citizens?

www.tinyurl.com/nuy7bdj

Perhaps they could just hit Wall Street, The Pentagon and the Elvis Museum in Tupelo--exercising restraint against another sovereign nation.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

2 Trackbacks to “Shorter Obama to France: Do This War for Me?”