Trump launches missiles at Syria

[ruby59]

Ruby, Obama went to Congress and they said NO.. what more can be done.. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Many republicans did NOT support him.. please read my pointers. there's another good article today in the times about how republicans would not back him. The American people did not want us the US involved in a middle east war.. he did what was counseled to him.. So what .. now we have quick draw mccheeto.. so now the russians have moved closer to our ships.. man up baby.. this is going to be a real scary time. republicans like republican wars - sadly.

Actually he is getting more kudos from the democrats. Clinton even agrees with him.

It is Trump's base that is giving him the hard time.

As far as the Russians ships moving closer to our ships, similar to what they did a couple months ago off the coast of Connecticut. It is what they have done many times in the past as well. It means nothing.

What could he have done besides admit an entire country of people into the US. Is that even feasible?

 

[ruby59]

So tell me DF, why DIDN'T Obama use force? have you read about.. have you seen that good old doddering McConnell wouldn't support him... what IF he had done what Trump did.. would you have been posting... would you have supported him? doubt it.

Obama's biggest mistake was believing the Syrians. All he did was pat himself on the back. He should have also verified that these chemicals were in fact destroyed.

 

[Tekate]

Actually he is getting more kudos from the democrats. Clinton even agrees with him.

It is Trump's base that is giving him the hard time.

As far as the Russians ships moving closer to our ships, similar to what they did a couple months ago off the coast of Connecticut. It is what they have done many times in the past as well. It means nothing.

What could he have done besides admit an entire country of people into the US. Is that even feasible?

Clinton would have done fields, not just one.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...mbing-syrian-airfields-hours-before/22030847/

I'm glad you are not unnerved by the Russian rhetoric and moving their ships but I am concerned, very concerned.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...stions-russias-response-to-us-strike-in-syria

taken from above:

The Russian delegate to the United Nations blasted the U.S. for conducting strikes against an air base in Syria Thursday evening, and warned that any further U.S. military intervention against the regime Moscow supports will only lead to further bloodshed.

"We strongly condemn illegitimate actions by the U.S. Consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious," Vladimir Safronkov, Russia's deputy U.N ambassador, said during a Security Council session on Friday.



Safronkov cited U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya as examples of American military operations that created regional chaos, and said the strikes President Donald Trump approved against the al-Shayrat air base near Homs, which the U.S. believes harbored chemical weapons, only hindered a political peace process in Syria. Trump said the strikes were in response to a chemical weapons attack the U.S. believes the Syrian regime carried out Tuesday against civilians near Idlib, killing dozens including children.

"Once again, I warn: Don't even try to get into fights in the Arab world. Nothing will work, and nothing will be achieved. That's why you're getting annoyed," Safronkov said. "All Arab countries recall your colonial hypocrisy."

As a consequence, Safronkov said Russia has dissolved the agreement it established with the U.S. to coordinate their respective air forces over Syria,.


The sharp backlash from Russia, Syria's main backer, appears to have had little effect on the Trump White House, however, which in launching Thursday's strikes broke with six years of policy under the Obama administration that did not result in military intervention in the Syrian civil war.


We are closer to a world war than just about ever in my life (except the Bay of pigs).

 

[Tekate]

Obama's biggest mistake was believing the Syrians. All he did was pat himself on the back. He should have also verified that these chemicals were in fact destroyed.

He did:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian...to-u-s-ship-for-destruction-at-sea-1404309946

http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20131029/100042.shtml

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/...l-weapons-destroyed-its-complicated.html?_r=0

Who EVER said Obama believed the Syrians? Do you think we should do a boots on ground? What exactly has Syria done to America??? why is Syria a threat to America?

I like retaliation against Bashad but I DO NOT like people who react!!! I want someone who thinks first, weighs the options, goes to Congress (in secret I don't care).. I know he was allowed to do this once, but if were intelligent he should have at least hit another airfield.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327709-clinton-us-should-take-out-assads-airfields

 

[ruby59]

I am sure his generals know a lot more than you and I and took the appropriate action.

As far as thinking first, you and I were not witness to all the options he was given and the planning that went on beforehand.

If Trump had done more, his detractors would have been b*tching on that as well.

He took out the airport and planes from where this Sarin gas was launched.

 

[t-c]

Welp, it seems the NY Times Interpreter article I posted was correct: the missile strikes didn't do much to change Assad's bahavior. The Washington Post and CNN are reporting that Syria has again started bombing runs targeting the city that was gassed, and 24-hours after the Tomahawk missile barrage from the US, fighters jets were taking off from Shayrat airbase.

Now that we have directly attacked Syria (before we have only targeted ISIS), it seems we can only escalate as the initial bombing seems to not have affected Assad. Backing off would be a HUGE sign of weakness that would not only embolden Syria and Russia, but also ISIS and other terrorist groups. Yikes! Has the US begun another boots-on-the-ground war in the Middle East?

 

[Dancing Fire]

So tell me DF, why DIDN'T Obama use force? have you read about.. have you seen that good old doddering McConnell wouldn't support him... what IF he had done what Trump did.. would you have been posting... would you have supported him? doubt it.

Yes I would have supported him. Had he not drawn a line in the sand then that would have been a different story. All talk and no action shows Obama's weakness as a leader.

btw; Even your Dem. party leaders Schumer and Pelosi praises Trump's action.

 

[t-c]

Trump Is About To Find Out Why Obama Avoided Military Intervention In Syria
by Jessica Schulberg, The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON ― On Thursday night, President Donald Trump authorized the military to launch several dozen cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea at a Syrian airfield. The strike was meant to punish Syria’s President Bashar Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons to attack his own citizens.

It was a dramatic reversal, not only from Trump’s own pledges to limit U.S. involvement in Syria but from his predecessor, who for years resisted growing calls to intervene militarily against the Assad regime. President Barack Obama’s decision to refrain from engagement in 2013 was criticized as feckless at the time and is cited now as one of the reasons that Trump was forced to act. But a revisiting of the arguments and calculations that led Obama to make his decision ― from the fear that it would not be a deterrent to the concerns over how the U.S. would respond to future attacks on civilians ― provides an important blueprint for the major hurdles that Trump will now have to confront.

Even if the Assad regime stops using chemical weapons, it will continue to pummel civilians with barrel bombs, predicted Ilan Goldenberg, a former State Department official during the Obama administration. “You’ll see many more pictures of ‘beautiful [Syrian] babies’ [dying] on TV ― specifically to humiliate the United States and show the fecklessness of military action,” he said.

“What will the United States do? Will it get drawn in the way it did in Libya where we started with a civilian protection operation and ended up with a regime change operation?” Goldenberg continued. “This is the biggest danger and I think this was Obama’s biggest concern.”

The Obama administration resisted getting pulled into the Syrian civil war, which began during the Arab Spring protests in 2011. But in August 2013, a sarin gas attack allegedly carried out by the Assad regime killed 1,400 Syrians. It was a humanitarian catastrophe and a clear challenge to Obama’s self-imposed “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, which he laid out the previous year. At first, Obama appeared poised to respond quickly with limited airstrikes ― a variation of what Trump did on Thursday. Three days after the 2013 chemical weapons attack, the U.S. sent armed warships into the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the military drew up attack plans.

But Obama never ordered the military to strike. In the days following the 2013 gas attack, the administration attempted to drum up international and domestic support for a retaliatory response. Obama had hoped for a coordinated response with an ally, but the British Parliament voted down the United Kingdom’s participation. Their vote raised the specter of whether Obama, as well, would allow his government’s legislative branch to have a say. After a 45-minute walk around the South Lawn of the White House with his chief-of-staff, he announced that he would ask for congressional approval ― even as he maintained that he had the authority to order the strike without consulting lawmakers.

By that point, however, it was becoming clearer that the American public, still reeling from drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an ill-fated intervention in Libya, opposed the move. Lawmakers said they were inundated with calls from constituents urging them to vote against military action. After weeks of deliberation, it was unclear if Obama could get enough votes from Congress. By the time all the views within the administration had filtered up to Obama, he had heard passionate cases both for and against intervention, said Perry Cammack, a staffer for then-Secretary of State John Kerry, at the time. And then, in what appeared to be an-off-the-cuff rhetorical remark, Kerry told reporters the only way for Assad to avoid military action was to turn over his chemical weapons stockpile to the international community within a week. “But he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done,” Kerry said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov jumped at the narrow opportunity. Five days later ― Washington and Moscow announced a deal in which Syria would do what Kerry had almost jokingly proposed. Obama called off the military strike.

In the years since, even some of Obama’s most strident supporters questioned whether this was the right call. Backing down, they said, damaged U.S. credibility and strengthened Assad’s sense of impunity. But even as the civilian death toll in Syria mounted, Obama maintained that he’d acted prudently. A limited strike would have no practical effect on the Assad regime ― and surviving an attack from the U.S. risked emboldening rather than deterring the dictator, his camp argued. Obama also worried about starting down the slippery slope to deeper involvement in another quagmire in the Middle East.

Whereas Obama has been faulted for overthinking matters to the point of crippling inaction, critics of the current president say his weakness is his apparent lack of interest in planning. “I have no confidence these guys have any plan whatsoever,” Goldenberg said.

Moreover, all of the concerns that made the Obama administration second-guess military action in Syria are still relevant today. If anything, the situation there is messier now than in 2013. The Islamic State militant group controls parts of Syria and Iraq. The U.S. air war against the group depends, in large part on Syria staying out of the way. Meanwhile, Russia has entered the Syrian civil war as a staunch defender of the Assad regime, providing air support to the embattled dictator. The crowded airspace is managed by a fragile deconfliction pact between the U.S. and Russia.

Trump seemed to recognize these complications too ― both during the 2013 debate when he strongly advised the U.S. not to engage in Syria and the presidential campaign when he warned that involvement would precipitate World War III. But in a span of a news cycle, his tune changed this week. During his daily intelligence briefing on the day of the attack, he asked for military options, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters. Two days later, he had settled on an option and ordered the military to move forward. His administration notified foreign allies and congressional leadership after the missiles were launched, minutes before they hit their targets.

The haste with which Trump acted stands in contrast to the weeks of deliberation culminating in a decision not to strike in 2013. Cammack, the former Kerry staffer, described it as “a reflection of the temperaments of the two presidents.”

But it also allowed Trump to avoid a pitfall that ensnared his predecessor. By moving swiftly, the president earned plaudits from lawmakers and pundits ― some of whom swooned over the images that the military had released of the damage to the Syrian airfield. Even those who have accused Trump of being unhinged in the past praised the strikes as a decisive and proportionate response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That might be because the U.S. was already regularly dropping bombs in Syria against ISIS, making the public somewhat desensitized to further military action there.

But it also could be because by skipping the deliberative process that the Obama administration so meticulously engaged in, the Trump administration didn’t give the public time to sour on the idea.

And yet, the speed with which Trump flipped positions and ordered military action based on his newfound distaste for the Assad regime risks doing exactly what Obama feared in 2013: sparking a series of unforeseen consequences. It is unclear whether the strikes will have any meaningful impact on the Assad regime. Hours after the U.S. attack, Reuters reported that Syrian warplanes took off from the base hit by American cruise missiles. On Friday and Saturday, Khan Sheikhoun, the opposition-held site of the chemical weapons attack earlier in the week, was hit by more airstrikes.

“I’m worried about whether they did enough of their homework given how quickly decisions were made,” said Eric Pelofsky, a former National Security Council official in the Obama administration. “ What happens if the Assad regime targets our aircraft as they are continuing to prosecute the war on ISIS inside Syrian airspace? Are we prepared to take down their air defenses ― and for the consequences of doing that?” continued Pelofsky, who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Even some who criticized Obama’s inaction worried that Trump’s impulsive decision-making process could backfire. “Horrible as the Khan Sheikhoun attack was, the Assad government has used chemical weapons dozens and dozens of times, and has committed numerous other war crimes,” Kori Schake, a former Bush administration official, wrote Friday. “The indiscipline that has characterized the Trump’s actions may lead him to emotional reactions without corresponding strategy.”

 

[Tekate]

Yes I would have supported him. Had he not drawn a line in the sand then that would have been a different story. All talk and no action shows Obama's weakness as a leader.

btw; Even your Dem. party leaders Schumer and Pelosi praises Trump's action.

DF, if you read you will see that he drew the line, he said, and when it occurred again, he went to Congress and THEY TURNED HIM DOWN... he did not have the backing of republicans.. I sincerely hope you read about this, he wasn't afraid, he wanted to ensure he had the backing of Congress, the guy was damned if he did or didn't.

Obama was NOT a weak leader, but he was a thoughtful one.. he liked consensus opinion and he had NO BACKING OF THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS..

 

[Dancing Fire]

Obama was NOT a weak leader, but he was a thoughtful one.. he liked consensus opinion and he had NO BACKING OF THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS..

Yes he was.... Putin was playing him "like a puppet" b/c he was all talk and no action.Unlike Kennedy (a Dem) who was a great leader during the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[Tekate]

Yes he was.... Putin was playing him "like a puppet" b/c he was all talk and no action.Unlike Kennedy (a Dem) who was a great leader during the Cuban missile crisis.

NO he wasn't. Just cause ya said it doesn't meant it's true DF. It is not. not.

read this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eter-chemical-weapons/?utm_term=.c29ea61e25fe

if you can't read the Post here is the article:

Ryan and McConnell flip-flop on use of force in Syria to deter chemical weapons

“This was a strike that was well-planned, well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons.”
— Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), April 7, 2017

“I’ve concluded that being credible on Syria requires presenting a credible response, and having a credible strategy. And for all the reasons I’ve indicated, this proposal just doesn’t pass muster.”
— McConnell, Sept. 10, 2013

“These tactical strikes make it clear that the merican inaction as it carries out atrocities against the Syrian people.”
— House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), April 6, 2017

“The best punishment for Assad’s war crimes is for the moderate elements of the opposition to prevail. But the President’s ill-conceived, half-hearted proposal will do little to help. It will make America look weak, when we need to be strong.”
— Ryan, Sept. 11, 2013

The Republican leaders of the House and the Senate this past week were quick to praise President Trump’s strike on Syria after an apparent chemical weapons attack. But in 2013, when President Barack Obama was weighing a strike, they were opposed.

Trump was opposed to a military strike, as well, but he was a private citizen then, without access to information that congressional leaders presumably would have about the plans contemplated by Obama.

Let’s put this to the flip-flop test.

The Facts
First of all, we have to stipulate that the situations are not necessarily comparable. When Obama contemplated his strikes in 2013, Syria still had a large arsenal of chemical weapons, and the United States was not engaged militarily in Syria.

Today, Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons have been greatly reduced (though clearly not eliminated), with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons overseeing the removal of 1,300 tons of chemical weapons from Syria after Obama struck a deal with Russia that led him to cancel his planned attack. Moreover, the United States strikes military targets in Syria (against territory held by the Islamic State group, also known as ISIL and ISIS) almost daily. Russia entered the civil war, effectively on the side of the Assad government, in 2015.

Trump’s attack was discreet, designed to punish Syria for using chemical weapons by attacking the airport from which an attack was believed to have been launched. His attack took place over one night and involved only cruise missiles. Obama’s planned attack was deeper and broader, designed to last three to four days, using U.S. aircraft.

So the first step in Obama’s plan was take out air defense systems. The U.S. jets would have targeted aircraft used to deliver chemical weapons, as well as chemical weapons units. But at the same time, the plan called for avoiding chemical-weapons storage facilities because of concern about plumes.

The Obama plan “was closer to Operation Desert Fox in 1998,” said Derek Chollet, who at the time was assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and who briefed members of Congress about the Obama plan. (Desert Fox was a four-day campaign launched by President Bill Clinton against Iraqi targets said to house or deliver weapons of mass destruction.) “It was not a pinprick. It would have unfolded over three to four days and was designed to substantially degrade the ability to deliver chemical weapons and also to serve as a deterrence.”

In briefing Congress, Chollet said lawmakers were not given the entire plan, but “it was clear that this was more than a one-off attack.” He added that lawmakers asked many legitimate questions, especially because planners estimated that two-thirds of Syria’s chemical weapons would not be destroyed. So questions were raised about whether the plan would lead to blowback: more chemical-weapons use by Syria, thus requiring another cycle of U.S. attacks. “They did not want to share accountability for what was going to happen in Syria,” he said.

When we contacted Ryan and McConnell’s staffs to understand their change in position, they both pointed to a statement at the time by then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry: that the attack would be an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

As McConnell recalled in remarks to reporters on April 6: “I don’t know whether he had in mind knocking out a tent and a couple of camels or what.”

AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said, “The Obama administration was promoting what they themselves called an ‘unbelievably small’ action that the speaker and many others believed would not be an effective response to the crisis in Syria. As he said at the time, this minimalist approach would not achieve its objective.”

Kerry’s comment infuriated the White House at the time, and Obama went on national television to assure Americans “the U.S. does not do pinpricks.”

Yet, three years later, Kerry’s flub appears to have defined the Obama plan, so much so that lawmakers now wrongly believe that Trump’s one-night jab with cruise missiles is more robust than what Obama had in mind. As McConnell put it, Trump’s attack was “planned, well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons. So, had I seen that — that kind of approach by President Obama, I’m sure I would’ve signed up.”

McConnell, in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor in 2013 opposing a military strike, posed a number of tough questions about Obama’s foreign-policy leadership, including noting the fact that Syria already had used chemical weapons on previous occasions and that Obama had failed to act.

“The president’s delayed response was to call for a show of force, for targeted, limited strikes against the regime. We have been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons,” he said, appearing to know then that it was more than a one-night attack. But he said it was obvious — even to Obama — that Syria’s use of chemical weapons was not a threat to the vital interests of the United States.

“The president’s proposal seems fundamentally flawed, since if it’s too narrow, it may not deter Assad’s further use of chemical weapons,” McConnell said. “But if it’s too broad, it risks jeopardizing the security of these same stockpiles, potentially putting them into the hands of extremists.”

McConnell added: “Indeed, if through this limited strike the president’s credibility is not restored, because Assad uses chemical weapons again, what then? Add new targets aimed at toppling the regime which end up jeopardizing control of these same chemical weapons stashes — allowing them to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or others intent on using them against the United States or our allies. Where would the cycle of escalation end?” (You can read the full speech here.)

Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman, noted that McConnell said on the Senate floor that a follow-up strategy is necessary after Trump’s attack. “In the days ahead, I am committed to working with the administration to continue developing a counter-ISIL strategy that hastens the defeat of ISIL and establishes objectives for dealing with the Assad regime in a manner that preserves the institutions of government in an effort to prevent a failed state,” McConnell said.

Strong, informed of the actual Obama plan, replied: “We’re not going to be able to comment on what President Obama’s classified war plans allegedly included. The fact remains that the chief advocate for President Obama’s proposed strikes considered them unbelievably small and broadcast that to the world. In and of itself, that undermined the deterrent effect of whatever the rest of their plan may or may not have been.”

The Pinocchio Test
Comparisons between two foreign policy challenges can be facile.

Syria in 2013 was a country with large stocks of chemical weapons, so even a three-day attack would have left much of its arsenal in place. Syria in 2017 has vastly fewer chemical weapons, but the civil war has tilted toward the Assad regime, especially after increased involvement of Russia and Iran. Syria also engaged in a chemical weapons attack after having pledged that its weapons had been removed. Trump thus faced a different set of calculations than Obama in contemplating a response.

But these changed circumstances do not excuse the fact that McConnell and Ryan opposed a multiday attack to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile — with McConnell even questioning whether U.S. interests were at stake — while quickly applauding Trump’s attack as robust action demonstrating U.S. leadership. In a bit of revisionist history, officials are now suggesting that they opposed Obama’s plan because it was weaker than Trump’s attack, relying on the Kerry quote to make their case. But the reality is that Trump’s action was more limited than what Obama had contemplated at the time. At the very least, that should be acknowledged before applauding the new commander in chief.

An Upside-Down Pinocchio

Obama wanted to use force and more force that Cheeto but he went to Congress first, bipartisanship and all you know.. He knew the America people were opposed to any force in Syria (if you want I will get a pointer for that also).. The REPUBLCAN Congress opposed everything Mr Obama wished to do and they were obstructionist - hey and still are.. so much for healthcare.

 

[Tekate]

Yes he was.... Putin was playing him "like a puppet" b/c he was all talk and no action.Unlike Kennedy (a Dem) who was a great leader during the Cuban missile crisis.

Here's some more reading..

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/trumps-line-syria/

Trump’s Line on Syria

• By Lori Robertson
• Posted on April 6, 2017

President Donald Trump said the Obama administration “had a great opportunity to solve” the crisis in Syria when Obama set a “red line” for military intervention. But when Obama didn’t launch such intervention, “I think that set us back a long ways,” Trump said. However, Trump ignores his repeated calls at the time to “not attack Syria.”

Trump is free to criticize President Barack Obama’s handling of Syria and the “red-line” episode. As we said in 2013, Obama blurred the facts on the issue in trying to downplay his remarks. But Trump’s comment also blurs the history of his own statements on the issue.

The White House released a brief statement by Trump on April 4, the day a chemical bombing in a rebel-held area of northern Syria killed dozens of people. Humanitarian groups said the death toll was as high as 100, the New York Times reported. Trump blamed the Syrian government for the attack, but also the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

Trump, April 4 statement: These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.

In an April 5 press conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah, Trump again criticized Obama, saying: “I think the Obama administration had a great opportunity to solve this crisis a long time ago when he said the red line in the sand. And when he didn’t cross that line after making the threat, I think that set us back a long ways, not only in Syria but in many other parts of the world because it was a blank threat.”

Trump said the recent chemical attack had “a big impact on me” and that his “attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” but he stopped short of saying he had changed his mind about military intervention in Syria. “I’m not saying I’m doing anything one way or the other,” he said.

At the time of the red-line episode, Trump didn’t describe it as “a great opportunity to solve this crisis.” He instead advocated not intervening in Syria.

Let’s look back at Obama’s 2012 statement, subsequent actions and Trump’s public statements at the time.

In an Aug. 20, 2012, press conference, Obama was asked whether he “envision[ed] using U.S. military” in Syria “if simply for nothing else, the safekeeping of the chemical weapons.” Obama said, “I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. … We have been very clear to the [Bashar] 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. … We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.”

Months later, some Republicans pressed Obama to enforce that red line in some way — though not with a commitment of troops — when the U.S. believed Assad had used chemical weapons.

And in August 2013, a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs killed more than 1,400 people, an act the U.S. determined with “high confidence” was conducted by the Assad government. Days later, on Sept. 4, 2013, as the president was seeking support for military action, Obama claimed that his “red-line” statement wasn’t his red line, but instead one set by the international community and Congress, which had passed legislation in 2003 forbidding Syria from using chemical weapons.

Trump’s stance at the time? He was firmly in the “stay out of Syria” camp. As the New York Times noted, he tweeted more than a dozen times about Syria in 2013, urging Obama not to take action. Through Trump’s prolific use of Twitter, he advised Obama to “forget Syria,” to “NOT attack Syria” and to “stay out of Syria.” And he urged Obama to “not attack” regardless of what Trump called Obama’s “very dumb RED LINE statement.” Some examples:

The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013



AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013



President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013



We should stop talking, stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again-USA!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2013



On Aug. 29, 2013, Trump’s tweet on the topic said that “Obama needs Congressional approval” for action in Syria, which is exactly what Obama sought two days later.

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013



On Aug. 31, 2013, Obama, who had been considering ordering a military strike unilaterally, decided to seek Congress’ approval. But there was plenty of division on such an authorization among lawmakers, and public opinion polls showed low support for military action. By mid-September, Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, had reached a diplomatic solution: an agreement between the United States and Russia to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons to international inspectors — a problematic agreement as it turns out.

In a Sept. 13, 2013, interview on CNN, Trump criticized Obama for indecision: “Well, it all began when we he used the term red line, he’s going to draw a line in the sand essentially and don’t cross,” Trump said. “That they crossed but he didn’t do anything and then it became very late, and he decides to go back to Congress, and Congress is having fits over it, and it looks like he wasn’t going to even come close to getting to vote and he started looking very, very ineffective.”

“It’s the most incredible thing I’ve ever witnessed as opposed to just either doing it or nothing,” Trump said, adding that he didn’t think military intervention should be done.

Trump maintained his position of no intervention during the presidential campaign, even disagreeing with Mike Pence, his running mate, on the topic during the second presidential debate.

Moderator Martha Raddatz, Oct. 9, 2016, presidential debate: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president … what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.

Trump: OK. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree. …

I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS.

Politicians are certainly free to change their minds, and Trump indicated in his April 5 press conference that his attitude toward Assad had changed. And, as we said, Trump is free to criticize the Obama administration’s actions. But the president’s claim that Obama missed “a great opportunity to solve this crisis” when Obama set a red line glosses over Trump’s past statements against intervention.

Share The Facts

 

[ruby59]

Just curious but why are your articles the true facts and DF's cannot be true.

I have also done some reading on Obama and his generals thought he was very weak as did the leaders of other countries.

 

[Tekate]

Yes he was.... Putin was playing him "like a puppet" b/c he was all talk and no action.Unlike Kennedy (a Dem) who was a great leader during the Cuban missile crisis.

So one reads this junk:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/04/07/no-mr.-lefty-congress-not-keep-obama-attacking-syria/

No Mr. Lefty, Congress Did Not Keep Obama From Attacking SyriaPosted at 12:30 pm on April 7, 2017 by streiff


There are lies that just will not die and the chance a lie will not die increases exponentially if it is a leftist talking point. My gosh, we’re still hearing that Planned Parenthood gives mammograms and that no WMD were found in Iraq. Now that Trump has launched a strike on Syria in retaliation for its use of chemical agents on a civilian target, the Obama fellatistas are out en masse claiming that Obama, too, could have done that if only a dastardly and racist Congress had not forbidden him to do so. This is an example of the claim

What we just did in Syria is the exact same thing President Obama wanted to do. The difference? A Republican Congress said "no" to him then. pic.twitter.com/cfLGBCbDxX

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 7, 2017

This is so untrue that to call it a lie would be to do a disservice to all the hardworking lies out there putting in a solid 40-hour week.

A more coherent but no less untrue version comes from David Corn who knows a thing or two about being a liar:

It will come as no surprise at this point that the Trump White House’s position was hypocritical. First, Obama’s red line at the time was a threat of US military action against Syria should it continue to use chemical weapons. When Obama asked the GOP-led Congress to authorize the potential use of force against Syria, the Republicans, not wanting to take a firm stance, declined to hold a vote. Still, Obama’s move prompted Assad to agree to a Russian-brokered deal to give up his chemical weapons. To a degree, Obama’s threat worked.

Let’s look at the timeline:
August 20, 2012. “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. That would change my equation.”

August 21, 2013. Major chemical attack on Ghouta, Syria. Approximately 3,600 people killed or injured.

August 22, 2013. Crickets.

August 31, 2013. Obama says he will ask Congress to authorize him to do nothing in Syria. He says inaction “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemicals weapons” and that it put U.S. regional allies that share a border with Syria in danger.” Pay attention to this:

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

September 3, 2013. Senate Foreign Affairs Committee holds a hearing. Committee passes resolution by 10-7. Please note that the Senate was Democrat controlled.

Democrats:

Bob Menendez, New Jersey Chairman – yes
Tom Udall, New Mexico – no
Chris Murphy, Connecticut – no
Ed Markey, Massachusetts – present
Barbara Boxer, California – yes
Ben Cardin, Maryland – yes
Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire – yes
Chris Coons, Delaware – yes
Dick Durbin, Illinois – yes
Tim Kaine, Virginia – yes

Republicans:

Bob Corker, Tennessee Ranking Member – yes
John McCain, Arizona – yes
Rand Paul, Kentucky – no
Jim Risch, Idaho – no
Marco Rubio, Florida – no
John Barrasso, Wyoming – no
Ron Johnson, Wisconsin – no
Jeff Flake, Arizona – yes

September 4, 2013. “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.”

September 6, 2013. Harry Reid files the resolution. Whip counts indicate senators were lukewarm-to-negative about the resolution.

House schedules testimony from John Kerry. Initial whip counts show the resolution is not a huge favorite with anyone. Even among Democrats who had decided on how to vote the resolution would fail by a 2:1 margin.

September 10, 2013. Syria agrees to give up its chemical weapons. Obama does a victory dance. No further action is taken on the resolution.

Let’s review the bidding: Obama waited ten days to decide to punt the decision to the Congress. When he did punt, he said he didn’t need to ask them but he was going to be a nice fella and do it anyway to make the little people feel involved. It was almost as if Obama consciously tried to poison the well with the House. Afterward, how did he react?

Early in the Syrian civil war, Obama publicly drew a red line concerning Assad’s behavior, but later decided to forgo military strikes, even after being presented with near-definitive proof that Assad had crossed the red line in grotesque fashion. Obama was widely criticized at home and abroad—particularly by the leaders of many U.S.-allied nations—for behavior interpreted as feckless and weak, but he later told me, in one of the interviews I conducted with him for a 2016 article on his worldview, that he was “very proud of this moment.”

“The perception was that my credibility was at stake, that America’s credibility was at stake,” Obama explained. “And so for me to press the pause button at that moment, I knew, would cost me politically. And the fact that I was able to pull back from the immediate pressures and think through in my own mind what was in America’s interest, not only with respect to Syria but also with respect to our democracy, was as tough a decision as I’ve made—and I believe ultimately it was the right decision to make.”

The “immediate pressures” he successfully “pull[ed] back from” was the pressure to attack Syria. He never intended to strike Syria and cynically used the US Congress to give him cover for his decision.

So no, Mr. Lefty. Congress never stopped Obama from attacking Syria. Obama had decided he was not going to attack and used Congress as a human shield.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe this is the type of place you read?

Can you tell what is FACT and what is the 'author's' biased OPINION? I think it is pretty easy.
I'd love for you to tell what is fact and fiction in the above.





http://www.redstate.com/tag/congress

 

[Tekate]

Just curious but why are your articles the true facts and DF's cannot be true.

I have also done some reading on Obama and his generals thought he was very weak as did the leaders of other countries.

What are DF's facts?

Were his generals republicans or democratic leaning? I'm sure there are generals that think Trump was weak and he should be continuing to bomb Syria.. means nothing in the discussion.

 

[Tekate]

Just curious but why are your articles the true facts and DF's cannot be true.

I have also done some reading on Obama and his generals thought he was very weak as did the leaders of other countries.

General critical of Obama:

• Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey laid into Obama on Friday, saying bombing runs against ISIS positions are political posturing
• 'These are political gestures using military power,' he said, lamenting the

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...res-McCain-urges-airstrike-campaign-Iraq.html

General critical of Trump:


Four-Star General Slams Trump’s Reckless Rush To War As A Political Stunt
By Sean Colarossi on Thu, Apr 6th, 2017 at 8:35 pm

McCaffrey said it would be a "mistake" to conduct "limited political signaling" in response to Bashar al-Assad's chemical attack on his own people.

So, in 2014 McCaffrey was critical of Obama for not doing enough.
So . in 2017 McCaffrey is critical of Trump of using "limited political signaling"
(other words, Trump is weak!)..
another snip:

I don’t think there is an argument. I think it would be a mistake to conduct limited political signaling using naval airpower or F-16s flying out of some place in the region … Military power invited unknown consequences when you carry it out. The question might be why don’t we consider significant humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees and border regions of Turkey and Jordan and Iraq in lieu of ineffectual military strikes.

 

[ruby59]

What are DF's facts?

Were his generals republicans or democratic leaning? I'm sure there are generals that think Trump was weak and he should be continuing to bomb Syria.. means nothing in the discussion.

JMO, but most generals worth their salt, would put their training and extensive knowledge first in making these decisions.

 

[Tekate]

JMO, but most generals worth their salt, would put their training and extensive knowledge first in making these decisions.

making decisions about what? This guy who dissed Obama is now dissing Trump. Obama did his best to do the right thing.. thinking about what he should do. I would expect any general worth their mettle to want to avoid conflict, especially without there being a declared war. There will always be complaints about how a president performs in office.

 

[ruby59]

making decisions about what? This guy who dissed Obama is now dissing Trump. Obama did his best to do the right thing.. thinking about what he should do. I would expect any general worth their mettle to want to avoid conflict, especially without there being a declared war. There will always be complaints about how a president performs in office.

I have not seen as much vitriol in everything a President does as I have seen with Trump, and that includes Obama.

Obama dropped the ball when he did not verify that all those chemical weapons had actually been destroyed. He is patted himself on the back that he avoided war, while Syria and Russia were laughing at him.

It is a scary place out there. Look at what has happened with the recent ISIS attacks and attacks in general. But not here, not since Trump took office. And for that I am grateful to him.

Obama was an indecisive, weak leader, and those that wanted to harm us used it to their advantage and did so.

 

[siamese3]

I have not seen as much vitriol in everything a President does as I have seen with Trump, and that includes Obama.

Obama dropped the ball when he did not verify that all those chemical weapons had actually been destroyed. He is patted himself on the back that he avoided war, while Syria and Russia were laughing at him.

It is a scary place out there. Look at what has happened with the recent ISIS attacks and attacks in general. But not here, not since Trump took office. And for that I am grateful to him.

Obama was an indecisive, weak leader, and those that wanted to harm us used it to their advantage and did so.

I have been following this thread with interest and Ruby, I am wondering if you could clarify something for me so I don't misinterpret what you are saying. What I think you are saying is that we weren't safe with Obama but we are with Trump, right? Which is so at odds with my personal experience. I wake up every morning afraid to turn on the radio or television for fear of what I will find out today. I am afraid I cannot believe anything that this administration says. I am frightened for the planet. I worry that I am not safe living in America. I worry about all the special programs which help those in need that are slated to be defunded. I worry about the checks and balances in our government no longer working, and the list goes on and on. I take comfort I the fact that McMaster is there because he is an educated and very respected person who I hope will be influential.

 

[Tekate]

I have not seen as much vitriol in everything a President does as I have seen with Trump, and that includes Obama.

Obama dropped the ball when he did not verify that all those chemical weapons had actually been destroyed. He is patted himself on the back that he avoided war, while Syria and Russia were laughing at him.

It is a scary place out there. Look at what has happened with the recent ISIS attacks and attacks in general. But not here, not since Trump took office. And for that I am grateful to him.

Obama was an indecisive, weak leader, and those that wanted to harm us used it to their advantage and did so.

If you read everything I have pointed to you will see that Obama DID verify that everything was destroyed. To the best of his and our country's belief. If Syria held back ? Maybe. But maybe they manuafactured more.. This is now 2017, the last attack was in 2012 I think.. 2013.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/...emical-weapons-destroyed-its-complicated.html

Feel free to be grateful.. but I don't feel safe, I feel I am closer to war then I have been since the Bay of Pigs (and even then it was my parents who were frantic)..

Obama saved lives by having the chemical weapons destroyed.. I assume you would feel 'much safer' had Obama done the 4 prong attack that he asked Congress for permission and was denied..

Obama was not weak and indecisive leader, you can say that till the cows come home, till the end of time, but it's not true.. not at all, it's BS that the republican war machine and rhetoric wants you to believe. Obama was decisive, so danged decisive that he did the correct thing and looked for bipartisan support.. he did not get it. What would you have said in 2013? That Obama should have gone against the republican party? then obviously you aren't conservative.. Have you ever read about the rules of engagement? You should.

 

[arkieb1]

I think all our governments are responsible for sitting back and doing nothing, there hasn't been enough done for these people on either political side. They estimate around 8 million people have been displaced and over half a million killed. Can you image if that happened in a Western country like yours or mine what an outcry there would be. Innocent men, women and children have been dying every day, hospitals have been bombed every day, the use of chemical weapons on innocent children was just one more horrific act that none of these people should have to endure.

And this notion that we can't take any of them because they might some day turn into terrorist is B/S, they are more like to turn into terrorists or leader of the next group that wants to radically oppose the West because we all sat back and did nothing for years these people have not mattered enough.

 

[ruby59]

I think all our governments are responsible for sitting back and doing nothing, there hasn't been enough done for these people on either political side. They estimate around 8 million people have been displaced and over half a million killed. Can you image if that happened in a Western country like yours or mine what an outcry there would be. Innocent men, women and children have been dying every day, hospitals have been bombed every day, the use of chemical weapons on innocent children was just one more horrific act that none of these people should have to endure.

And this notion that we can't take any of them because they might some day turn into terrorist is B/S, they are more like to turn into terrorists or leader of the next group that wants to radically oppose the West because we all sat back and did nothing for years these people have not mattered enough.

Which ones would you take? Which ones would be left behind?

 

[ruby59]

I have been following this thread with interest and Ruby, I am wondering if you could clarify something for me so I don't misinterpret what you are saying. What I think you are saying is that we weren't safe with Obama but we are with Trump, right? Which is so at odds with my personal experience. I wake up every morning afraid to turn on the radio or television for fear of what I will find out today. I am afraid I cannot believe anything that this administration says. I am frightened for the planet. I worry that I am not safe living in America. I worry about all the special programs which help those in need that are slated to be defunded. I worry about the checks and balances in our government no longer working, and the list goes on and on. I take comfort I the fact that McMaster is there because he is an educated and very respected person who I hope will be influential.

Try turning on the TV after the Boston Marathon attack and know your family is somewhere in the crowd. Were they hurt or killed? And I am sure other families were experiencing similar fears in California and Florida.

 

[arkieb1]

Ruby - I think that even without paperwork there are ways to screen these people, and both of our countries could do more to take more of them. I know here even though some of the people on P/S said it violates your constitution if they go overseas and can be even linked to training with groups like ISIS or fighting in a conflict not on behalf of our country regardless of if you are born here or overseas you will not be allowed back in again. Harsh yes, but when it is fully substantiated that people are doing the wrong thing ie training to become terrorists or fighting on either side without permission, they simply don't let them back in here. Doesn't matter if you were born in Syria or are white and come from a rural part of my country, those are the rules. Interestingly enough a lot of people that were doing this were born here, in Australia, and crying foul because they are legally citizens when they are detained and refused re-entry. I'm sure it would be the same for your country, a lot of people that become these nut ball "radicals" aren't all asylum seekers, more likely young people that don't fit in anywhere.

 

[ruby59]

Is Australia prepared to absorb an entire country of people?

Is any country?

Because those that are left behind are going to be subject to Assad's wrath.

 

[Tekate]

Try turning on the TV after the Boston Marathon attack and know your family is somewhere in the crowd. Were they hurt or killed? And I am sure other families were experiencing similar fears in California and Florida.

YUP, like the Oklahoma bombing.. homegrown terrorists kill.
Like Waco. that was horrible.

We grow them here too.

 

[siamese3]

Try turning on the TV after the Boston Marathon attack and know your family is somewhere in the crowd. Were they hurt or killed? And I am sure other families were experiencing similar fears in California and Florida.

I didn't have to turn on the tv after the Boston Marathon. I had friends and relatives that were there.
Do I think it was Obama's fault, no. How about this type of hate crime, where
"Srinivas Kuchibhotla died when suspect, named by police as 52-year-old Adam Purinton, walked into "Bar and Grill in the Kansas City suburb of Olathe and opened fire on Wednesday evening. Kuchibhotla's friend, Alok Madasani, and Ian Grillot, a bar-goer who tried to intervene in the attack, were also shot, but survived."

I worry about every nut job in this country being able to easily own a gun.

Edited to say: I am glad you personally feel safer. It really sucks to not feel safe. I just get really riled about about mentally unstable people committing crimes and then being used as scapegoats. There will always be people running around in this world that are dangerous, it's human nature. No one can ever make us totally safe. Reality. Peace and love.

 

[ksinger]

YUP, like the Oklahoma bombing.. homegrown terrorists kill.
Like Waco. that was horrible.

We grow them here too.

Yep. I learned a long time ago, to fear white guys with a grievance, MUCH more than brown guys.

And Arkie, remember our guys don't need to go overseas to get training or to get radicalized, so for us, worrying about young men leaving to get trained, and then coming back in, is a tiny bit of the problem blown way out of proportion, usually by people who don't want the connection between our own military training and culture, and domestic terrorism and violence, looked at too closely. In the US, the military provides the base training to many.

And the anti-government groups are identified and tracked, but they are legally armed (to the teeth) because we have that deep reverence for guns - a deep gun culture - that we refuse to change.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I didn't have to turn on the tv after the Boston Marathon. I had friends and relatives that were there.
Do I think it was Obama's fault, no. How about this type of hate crime, where
"Srinivas Kuchibhotla died when suspect, named by police as 52-year-old Adam Purinton, walked into "Bar and Grill in the Kansas City suburb of Olathe and opened fire on Wednesday evening. Kuchibhotla's friend, Alok Madasani, and Ian Grillot, a bar-goer who tried to intervene in the attack, were also shot, but survived."

I worry about every nut job in this country being able to easily own a gun.

Yup. Two of my close friends (they were actually over for dinner last night) and my college roommate were in the crowd that day in Boston. My uncle was flying out of Boston as a pilot on 9/11. I still have the ability to look at where we are in THIS country and why our people seem so hell bent on shooting up schools and public places, not keep pointing my finger at Obama because I still in my heart of hearts think he was a secret Muslim who wanted the US to fall prey to terrorism.