Syria Puts Obama's Multilateralist Philosophy To The Test

He spent the last three days in Sweden and Russia, lobbying U.S. allies on the sidelines and on the public stage, with little movement.

The conflict has presented perhaps the biggest challenge yet to Obama's multilateralist inclinations.

'A Hard Sell'

At a press conference Wednesday in Stockholm, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt showed why president Obama's coalition-building effort is an uphill climb. Reinfeldt stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the American president and said, essentially, they won't be shoulder-to-shoulder on Syria.

"Just to remind you, you're now in Sweden, a small country with a deep belief in the United Nations," he said.

But Russia and China are making sure the United Nations Security Council stays gridlocked. On Friday in St. Petersburg, Russia, Obama said fine.

"If we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required, and that will not come through Security Council action," he said.

But wait, there's more: Everyone assumed that Britain was on board, until Parliament pulled the rug out from under British Prime Minster David Cameron.

Then on Friday afternoon, the White House released a joint statement from about a dozen countries that called for a "strong international response" to Syria's use of chemical weapons, but the statement did not endorse a military strike.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/07/219768126/syria-puts-obamas-multilateralist-philosophy-to-the-test

This is from NPR !

People are smarter than the left thinks. Please read the comments to hear what folks like you and I are saying.

fshnski wrote:This is from NPR !

People are smarter than the left thinks. Please read the comments to hear what folks like you and I are saying.

I read the comments, but what you saw was probably a different set. I've heard that NPR receives a lot of Conservative listeners.
_____________________

A spokesman in Iran said that if Obama bombs Syria, Obama's children will become targets of Terrorism: odd, since they both have Muslim given-names.

News Hawk wrote:

fshnski wrote:This is from NPR !

I read the comments, but what you saw was probably a different set. I've heard that NPR receives a lot of Conservative listeners.

I read it early on. It doesn't surprise me that the left came out later to put their spin on it. Typical reactionary action.

I will listen to nothing if I have to listen to NPR.  No thanks, been there done that, had enough of them.  I have often wondered though, why no matter where you are all the NPR stations come in so much louder and clearer than any other station?  Does anyone know why?  Is it government money? Or because they are government funded are they allowed more wattage or something?

News Hawk wrote: I've heard that NPR receives a lot of Conservative listeners.

NPR was bought out by conservative interests a few yrs ago....Initially, the idea for a national public radio was to use public money to broadcast media that was of interest to the public.

Now, more and more of the money comes from private sources, including money from corporations and wealthy conservative interests. They want something in exchange for their money, and NPR has shown itself willing to accommadate the media suggestions of their big donors.

What a joke, NP! Where did you get that from?

It's the "facts", you should look them up some time....

Well, when I hear it, which is not of my choosing, it sounds pretty liberal.