White House National Security Advisor Tony Blinken told Jake Tapper he didn't "understand the criticism" regarding the credibility behind President Obama's threat of "consequences" should Ukrainian officials fail to restore calm Friday on CNN.
Tapper told Blinken he was a surprised Obama used the term "step over the line" given the president's record of renegging on the Syrian "red line."
Blinken offered a strange explanation, telling Tapper he does not understand the criticism. "When it comes to Syria, we made it very clear we were prepared to act to deal with the chemical weapons. And what resulted was an agreement with Russia and with us that Syria adhered to, to give up chemical weapons," he said.
In typical fashion for this White House, Blinken subtly tried to redefine what the Syrian red line meant without actually saying so. Obama's 2012 red line was widely interpreted, without objection by the White House, to mean a response of military force should chemical weapons be used in Syria.
Instead, Blinken now contends the red line was actually meant to imply a threat of force as opposed to an actual repercussion - a subtle, but monumental distinction.
The White House national security advisor went on to tacitly connect Obama's red line and the eventual chemical weapons deal, touting the agreement as a "success." Blinken did not mention the significant slow rolling on the part of the Assad regime, or concerns emanating from the Obama administration that their Syrian policy is failing.
Full exchange:
JAKE TAPPER: I have to say, I was a little surprised when President Obama used the term people stepping over the line just because the red line with Syria has been such a controversy because the United States threatened military action if chemical weapons were used against the Syrian people and then stepped back from that. I know there's this chemical weapons deal. Theoretically, are you not at all concerned that when the president talks about lines being crossed, because of what happened in Syria and the threat of use of force not being carried out, are you not concerned at all in the White House that that may ring hollow when the president makes a threat?
ANTONY BLINKEN: I’ve got to admit, I don't really understand the criticism. When it comes to Syria, we made it very clear we were prepared to act to deal with the chemical weapons. And what resulted was an agreement with Russia and with us that Syria adhered to to give chemical weapons. And had we acted militarily, we would not have been able to remove all of the chemical weapons. The targets largely would not have been the chemical weapons. because we were prepared to use force, Syria has now destroyed all of its capacity to produce chemical weapons and the weapons themselves are moving out of the country. So that, to me, is a tremendous success he success and it was done without having to fire a shot.
Further obscuring Blinken's claim that the Syrian deal is reaping positive results, The Daily Beast's Josh Rogin writes there may have been a new chemical attack last month:
A group of survivors of Syrian government atrocities, including chemical weapons attacks verified by U.N. inspectors, visited Washington this month to press the White House, State Department, and Congressional officials to take a more active role in preventing atrocities in Syria—and to further investigate this alleged attack on Jan. 13.
The U.S. government, however, isn’t inclined to do so—despite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s promise in September to give up his chemical stockpile, and despite mounting calls in Washington to do more about the ongoing carnage in Syria.
"I don’t think it’s a credible claim," one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. "There were a bunch of rebel groups involved in that conflict at the time. And they can’t get their story straight."
Eyewitnesses say otherwise. Oussama al-Chourbaji, a pharmacist from Daraya who represents the medical office of the Daraya local council, said he witnessed the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 13 attack and the treatment of victims.
"We don’t know exactly what chemical was used, but I can tell you all of those who were affected or killed had the exact same symptoms as the August 21, 2013 attack (in East Ghouta) in which Sarin gas was used," he said, referring to the massive chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs that killed nearly 1400 people, by some estimates, and brought the United States to the brink of intervening in the Syrian civil war.
[…]
"There were three bombs, the first one and then after some time, two more came down. Five died right away after breathing in the gasses that came out of the bombs," he said.
Full interview: