Russia and Syria

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I do find an irony that the GOP establishment is supporting this one but weren't singing the same song in 2013. Not that I think this was the wrong decision...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama , Kerry and Susan Rice repeatedly assured us that 100% of the chemical weapons in Syria had been disposed of . As a matter fact they bragged about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama , Kerry and Susan Rice repeatedly assured us that 100% of the chemical weapons in Syria had been disposed of . As a matter fact they bragged about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Turns out they,and the rest of the coalition was wrong. Or Assad brought some back in to Syria.

See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Turns out they,and the rest of the coalition was wrong. Or Assad brought some back in to Syria.

See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he just had to send over 150 billion to sweeten the deal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Nothing to upset the Iranians of course

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Turns out they,and the rest of the coalition was wrong. Or Assad brought some back in to Syria.

See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except once again they knew they were lying when they stayed over and over again that the chemicals were gone .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems your creating a narrative thats not there .. some may think that .. not I

You often contradict yourself without realizing that you do. As is the case here--saying that I'm creating a narrative that is not there while at the same time saying "some may think that". If some do think that, then the narrative is there. Whether you think that or not does not discount the narrative. The narrative doesn't have to include you. I wasn't referring just to you. Although, whether you think so or not, you feed into it. As you did here by minimizing the comparison to Trump taking action on his promise regarding lines crossed to Obama's lack of response to a crossing of his red line. Obama could have carried out his threat, regardless of Congress, just as Trump did. It was HIS red line, not Congress's red line. Not enforcing HIS threat emboldens the enemy. Don't make threats, red lines, if you can't, or won't enforce them. That is not good foreign policy.

I am just pointing out that Most conservatives wanted him (Obama) to seek congressional approval..prior to mil action in syria as did Trump as seen in his many tweets .. but conservatives as a whole do not no seek such requirement today

As Scottw's article points out, there is no "conservatives as a whole" on this issue, as on many others, regarding Trump.

As for me (I've already stated a few times that I'm more of a classical liberal with a "conservative" bent), there are arguments both ways whether Trump should have gotten Congressional approval to send missiles to Syria. Or, for that matter whether Obama would have needed to do so. I am mixed in opinion on it. The "message" sent by firing the Tomahawks sounds about right. But the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum.

I made the little "narrative" as you called it just to point out some apparent contradictions in politicized reactions to things Trump does, or doesn't do.

In this case, Trump specifically said he had a change of mind and heart when he saw the videos of dying and dead babies. Whether you believe that or not, he did say it. Maybe you don't think he should be allowed to change his mind. Maybe you don't trust someone who does rather than rigidly sticking to former positions. He also did specifically say a few times that he is flexible.

So you chime in about how he called for congressional approval before but didn't seek it in this instance. He may well have checked with his legal advisers who may have said that conditions and precedent didn't require the approval to do what he wanted in the cautious way (warning ahead) he did it. And maybe Obama really didn't want to bomb Assad and meekly acceded to Congress as a way to cop out of having to enforce his red line.

Don't know. But all of what has happened, action and inaction, point out a stark difference in making threats and enforcing them. And the politicized reactions to the difference. That's all the little "narrative" was about.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As Scottw's article points out, there is no "conservatives as a whole" on this issue, as on many others, regarding Trump.

As for me (I've already stated a few times that I'm more of a classical liberal with a "conservative" bent), there are arguments both ways whether Trump should have gotten Congressional approval to send missiles to Syria. Or, for that matter whether Obama would have needed to do so. I am mixed in opinion on it. The "message" sent by firing the Tomahawks sounds about right. But the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum.

I made the little "narrative" as you called it just to point out some apparent contradictions in politicized reactions to things Trump does, or doesn't do.

In this case, Trump specifically said he had a change of mind and heart when he saw the videos of dying and dead babies. Whether you believe that or not, he did say it. Maybe you don't think he should be allowed to change his mind. Maybe you don't trust someone who does rather than rigidly sticking to former positions. He also did specifically say a few times that he is flexible.

So you chime in about how he called for congressional approval before but didn't seek it in this instance. He may well have checked with his legal advisers who may have said that conditions and precedent didn't require the approval to do what he wanted in the cautious way (warning ahead) he did it. And maybe Obama really didn't want to bomb Assad and meekly acceded to Congress as a way to cop out of having to enforce his red line.

Don't know. But all of what has happened, action and inaction, point out a stark difference in making threats and enforcing them. And the politicized reactions to the difference. That's all the little "narrative" was about.

"the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum"

Exactly. There's areal chance he could be replaced with someone a million times worse. It's a very, very challenging situation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by buckman

Except once again they knew they were lying when they stayed over and over again that the chemicals were gone .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the Obama administration knew that Assad still had chem weapons. The deal they made with Assad and the Russians would see to it that Assad would get rid of all of his DECLARED weapons. Of course, they must surely have known that he would not declare all of his stock. But that deception, making a deal which allowed Assad to keep WMDs, while at the same time the Obama administration could claim that it was able to broker a deal, without force, to make Assad get rid of his chemical weapons--that the administration was able to do it with diplomacy. In fact, one of them, I can't remember who, maybe Kerry, said that it was possible that Assad didn't declare everything and that he might have retained a stock of stuff, including sarin gas.

The sneaky word DECLARED was not noticed or not paid attention to by the American public nor by the media. No doubt the deception by the Obama administration was intentional. All we paid attention to was ALL the weapons, not to the more accurate all of the DECLARED weapons.

The deal with Iran and the supposed cessation of its nuclear program was a similar kind of deception. But with that, it was more widely understood that the deal was temporary, at best. And that Obama, as he did not with his Syrian "red line," would not enforce the Iranian deal. And Iran shortly after started breaking the agreement, and no retribution against it was made.