President Barack Obama pushed back Sunday on the notion that his administration had bungled the response to the Syrian crisis.
In an interview that aired one day after the his administration hammered out a draft agreement with Russia over Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he was more worried about the substance of that agreement than the political optics.
“I’m less concerned about style points, I’m much more concerned about getting the policy right,” Obama said in an interview that aired on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning. “What I’ve said consistently throughout is that — the chemical weapons issue is a problem. I want that problem dealt with. Obama — who initially called for punitive military action against against Syria before a workable diplomatic plan emerged last week — said that a bad policy could have a smooth rollout and vice versa.
(PHOTOS: What lawmakers said then (Iraq) and now (Syria))
“Folks here in Washington like to grade on style,” Obama said. “Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy.”
“We know that, ‘cause that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq War until it ended up blowing in our face,” Obama said.
Obama also warned Iran — whose alleged nuclear program has been an ongoing issue for the international community — that they should not draw any lessons from the Syrian regime’s ability to avoid a military strike.
(PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)
“My suspicion is that the Iranians recognize they they shouldn’t draw a lesson that we haven’t struck to think we won’t strike Iran. On the other hand, what is — what— they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically,” Obama said.
“Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is a far larger issue for us than the chemical weapons issue,” Obama said. The threat against Iran — against Israel — that a nuclear Iran poses, is much closer to our core interests. That a nuclear arms race in the region— is something that would be profoundly destabilizing.”
Republicans — even those supportive of the strikes — have accused the Obama administration of an unsteady diplomatic and military response to the rapidly unfolding situation in the Middle East. On Sunday, the GOP criticism of the tentative deal called the deal a coup for the Russians — and their outspoken president, Vladimir Putin.
“I’m skeptical,” said House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “This is a Russian plan for Russian interests. And we should be very, very concerned.”
(PHOTOS: International response to Syria)
Rogers (R-Mich.) said that the Russians capitalized on Obama’s “indeciveness” with regards to his policies in Syria.
“You have Putin playing chess and Obama playing, frankly, a very lucky game of tic-tack-toe,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “Putin stepped in to maximize Russian influence in the Middle East.”
He added: “We are now relying on the Russians. We’re now following from behind — not leading from behind. This is not a good long-term position.”
Obama also fired back at a New York Times op-ed written by Putin that accused the United States of failure to act through the international community and cast doubt on the idea that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons.
Obama: "Less concerned about style points"
No comments:
Post a Comment