WHEN IS A RED LINE NOT RED; MAYBE PINK

president Obama has said that the use of chemical weapons by Assad was a red line. now if you actually listen to every word he said he is actually evasive. he uses the phrase red line. yet he doesn't actually say what he would do if it was crossed. he implies action without actually committing to such. now most of us have come to believe that the term red line means something. it means if someone crosses it, you will act. and acting is not writing a mean letter. it means act now the Israeli's have very publicly and from a senior source, a general, said that Assad has used chemical weapons. i am sure this pissed off the white house. for a bunch of reasons. they thought they had delivered a message to Assad and he had heard and agreed. well that didn't work out. then they were pissed at the Israeli's for outing that Assad had done so. our initial reaction was to place doubt on the Israeli assessment. that doesn't seem to be working out too well either. lets see, foaming at the mouth? maybe they have rabies? or too much ecstasy? this leading from behind is not such a good idea. many people think it worked in Libya, but only kinda sorta. we got lucky. but leading from behind means you have less influence. and maybe that led to the death of our ambassador? the next red line is Iran. now if a country's red line should be a function of when it is in mortal danger, the red line for the US is different from Israel. Iran cant strike the US with a nuclear bomb. they will soon be able to strike Israel. if you have ever been to Israel you realize how small it is and close it is. so Israel has a decision to make. depend on the US to defend it at the last minute; or act. would you trust the US. if your life depended on it? i wouldn't