There's no cool way to do it.<quoted text>
Obambis red line, according to our friends at ABC News, was concocted by the media, of course, of which they are not part of. LOL
President Obamas Red Line: What He Actually Said About Syria and Chemical Weapons
>The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obamas original red line, as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the red line as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.
But what Obama said was a little less clear.
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, the president said a year ago last week.That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that red line would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.
To many, Wednesdays attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as a whole bunch of chemical weapons deployed.<
The answer to your question is I doonnah no! Maybe it was Netanyahu's warning to Iran. WOOF TICKETS FOR SALE. COME AND GET THEM WHILE THEY'RE HOT.