Moron-in-Chief?

2012:

President Obama said Monday [8/20/12] that any attempt by Syria to move or use its chemical weapons would change his administration’s “calculus” in the region, evoking the possibility of more direct U.S. intervention in the conflict.

Speaking at an impromptu news conference at the White House, Obama noted that he has not authorized military operations against Syria. But he said that any effort by President Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons would have significant consequences.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,” Obama said.

And, of course, very recently:

The White House said for the first time that there was evidence Syria had used chemical weapons in its civil war, but administration officials called for a broader United Nations investigation and edged away from declaring Damascus had crossed a "red line" that might trigger U.S. intervention.

And this:

The White House bumped up its confidence Thursday that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, but it stopped short of issuing a definitive conclusion on what President Obama has said would be a “game-changer” for US policy on Syria.

When one issues a declaration that "we won't tolerate X", it's a damn good idea to have a plan ready as to what to do if X is done. I am getting the impression that wasn't done, that the Administration may have thought that just saying "don't use chemical weapons" would be enough.

Sometimes, the world is a bit like a schoolyard, in that if you want to be taken seriously, when you issue threats, you need to back them up. Otherwise, at a later juncture, when you're serious that if another nation does something, there will be war, nobody will take you seriously.

Of course, Netanyahu is always willing to see American blood shed to solve his problems, but that's another topic.