Krauthammer Rips Obama’s ‘Absolutely Pathetic’ Attempt To Reassure Gulf States

Daily Caller   . . . "In his comments at Camp David, Obama said that the U.S. stands “ready to work” with the gulf nations to “determine what actions may be appropriate” if the nations come under the “threat of such aggression” from the Iranians.
"Krauthammer told “Special Report” guest host Chris Wallace that Obama’s remarks were “absolutely pathetic,” adding that he’s “never seen a statement with more caveats in it.”

" Under the circumstances, it’s little wonder that Bahrain’s King Hamad preferred to go to a horse show [in] London rather than confer with Obama. Just as Israel has learned that the United States is more interested in a new Iran-centric policy than it backing its traditional allies, so, too, must the Arabs come to grips with a new reality in which their Iranian foe is no longer restrained by the United States.
 . . .

http://comicallyincorrect.com/

 Jonathan Tobin on  Obama’s Not-So-Ironclad Guarantee  ..."The wording of the president’s “guarantee” is a marvel of lawyerly ambiguity that any connoisseur of diplomatic doubletalk must appreciate:

In the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners to determine urgently what action may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force, for the defense of our GCC partners.

"Let’s unpack this carefully so we’re clear about what the United States isn’t promising its Arab allies. As even Obama’s cheerleaders at the New York Times noted, this “carefully worded pledge that was far less robust than the mutual defense treaty the Gulf nations had sought.” In the event of aggression, the U.S. isn’t going to spring into action to defend them. Instead it will “work” with them to “determine” what they might do. That falls quite a bit short of a hard promise of collective action, let alone the drawing of a line in the sand across which the Iranians may not cross. In other words, if something bad happens, Obama will talk with the threatened parties but he won’t say what he will do in advance or if he will do anything at all. If that is an “ironclad guarantee,” I’d hate to see what a less binding promise might sound like.
. . . 
 The upshot of all this then is:

 Under the circumstances, it’s little wonder that Bahrain’s King Hamad preferred to go to a horse show London rather than confer with Obama. Just as Israel has learned that the United States is more interested in a new Iran-centric policy than it backing its traditional allies, so, too, must the Arabs come to grips with a new reality in which their Iranian foe is no longer restrained by the United States.

This president just is not interested and is content to pass on these diplomatic land mines to the next administration . Obama will then gloat over how he left the world "at peace" only to have the new administration's "failed policies"ruin what he had done. He has spent almost seven years doing this with George Bush so we know the character of Obama. TD

 Obama promises Gulf allies he will talk and talk and talk in their defense 

 

. . . "Veteran Obama listeners have learned to watch for the Democrat's bold statements that also contain masked qualifiers. People recall his repeated assurances that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon. But now Obama emphasizes: "on my watch." Which has 615 days left." . . .

Iran fires on cargo ship while Obama assures Gulf allies he has their backs 
 "I would say that Iran has impeccable timing."  Read more: