All they have to do is blame Obama and their base gets that blank eyed stare and dribble starts running out of the corner of their mouths.

Trump has a very personal and petty hatred of President Obama, so he probably thinks it's a good way to get him to do what he wants.

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2018, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

In 2014, Graham and McCain led a very small minority of Senators who wanted Obama to use the Syrian gas attack as the reason to commit the American military to a campaign that would have deposed Assad. McCain in particular was angered by any statements by Obama or Kerry that tried to define the response they were proposing as a targeted hit that did not have regime change as a goal.

Their reaction actually made getting approval for what Obama was intending, before the option of getting the chemical weapons out, more difficult -- as they opposed it as too weak, while many opposed it as potentially getting us into another quagmire. (For the latter, they could point to Libya, where the administration spoke of wanting to control the airspace to prevent a mass slaughter in the Benghazi area using planes. We did this, but then progressed to protecting the rebels even as the uprising continued towards Tripoli where the government was centered.)

In addition to the option of using diplomacy to get rid of 1200 Tons of chemical weapons, there were other forces that acted against Obama responding militarily. The UK voted not to join us. The UN was unwilling at that point to sanction a response - not surprising as Russia would have vetoed it. In hearings, the Obama administration took pains to state that Obama could respond without Congress. However, Obama, if he opted for the targeted strike that had been proposed, it would have been without the support of Congress, without the support of the UN, and without the support of any major ally.

However, let's consider there were no diplomatic alternative and Obama was pushed to make the type of attack he was speaking of. First, there would have been 1200 tons more chemical weapons in that unstable country. Second, the strike would have done as little to change the balance of power in the Syrian civil war as Trump's vaunted strike on an empty airfield that was reopened within days.

When hawks, like Graham, blame Obama, they are NOT contrasting the limited targeted strike Obama SAID he would do if the line were crossed and which he brought to Congress, but THEIR wish that the US actively join the conflict and remove Assad. Even at that point, Obama and the military would have had to very carefully design a response to insure because Assad had Russia as an ally. This became more dangerous when in 2015 Russia upped ITS engagement, at the request of Assad.

There were many times where Kerry spoke of Syria being the most complex situation he had seen in his more than 3 decades working on US foreign policy. There were several conflicts happening simultaneously. Assad vs the Sunni rebels, backed by various Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, the Turks vs the Kurds - when both were considered not just allies by the US, but necessary, important allies. On another level, Russia and Iran were involved - each with different agendas. Iran was helping Iraq - independently from the US led coalition - fight ISIS which threatened Iran as well as Iraq. This was when I first heard various people speak of "deconfliction", which I guess means not coordinating attacks, but making sure that we did not inadvertently attack them when they were attacking ISIS. In Syria, we also deconflicted with the Syrian government and Russia. In one of the last attempts to get a diplomatic solution, the idea of actually coordinating the fight with ISIS with Russia was used as a "carrot", but that attempt like others failed.

Back to today, the fact is that Trump's 49 tomahawk attack seems to have had less deterrent on Syria using chemical weapons than Obama's diplomatic achievement, which did result in years with no sarin gas attacks. Not to mention, there is the unknowable effects - most chilling is whether any of those stored chemicals were in areas that ISIS took. At any rate, it is idiotic to blame what Obama did in 2013, while continuing to praise the largely ineffectual Trump attack in 2016.

There was also the issue of Russia having an existing base there. Sec. Kerry was exactly right in what he said - I remember trying to educate myself on the interrelationships between nations (including Lebanon, Israel and Iraq), hundreds of militia units, as well as many of the economic and social considerations within Syria - and it made my head spin.

But, the larger looming issue is that (IMO) Congress should approve any additional "quagmires" we go into, and I'm convinced that's exactly what it would have been. Far too many parties and interests involved there (almost from the beginning), so President Obama did the right and wise thing.

Trump and his entire gang do not have an ounce of wisdom between them......

I do think that there are many reasons that Congress should approve any major actions taken. The strongest reason is that a President NEEDS to have the country and the legislature behind him.

I think that the entire idea that had Obama ordered a military action against Syria, that the country would have resolved all its problems and stopped the civil war are ludicrous. In fact, Trump did do something very close to what Obama tried to get Congressional approval for -- and found insufficient support - because few Republicans backed him and many Democrats were against it. As can be seen, it did not put so high a cost for Assad to use these weapons that he then stopped using them.

I suspect too much was made of the "red line" and the idea that having set one, you have to react if that line is overstepped. I agree that it does not help your credibility, but the idea that the US failed to get a "good solution" because we were seen as not having responded ignores that we held very very few top cards in the situation there. I always felt uncomfortable with editorials that argued that praised Kerry, but argued that he was hampered by Obama being 100% clear that no significant military action would be taken against Syria - giving him few levers to use to move the parties to negotiate. For one, it assumes that a solution always exists and the US can always lead the way to it.

a racist, sexist, bigot, and you can't run away from that

you come off with this holier than thou moment of saying that your sexual predator president has a fucking defining moment, really----------------------how many congressional hearings have you brought forth asshole on the corruption permeating / germinating from your bunch.................not fucking one.

And then you have the audacity to say something about a dictator in Syria going back to his plan A, and killing people, while over in this country we have a gestapo organization called ICE, being reinforced with your wanna be authoritarian piece of shit, that is a fucking malignant narcissistic psychopathic liar, that goes golfing every fucking weekend....................and the outright corruption of creating a banana republic, and you have the audacity to say that there is s defining moment--------------------while the future election of this election is going to be protected how asshole.

Have you offered a solution, nope you go after the DOJ and the FBI along with those pieces of shit Gordon, Nunes, Gaetz, Ryan, McCarthy, McConnell and others and your pal Grassley, for starters-----------------------------------------while people want a paper ballot, so what have you done to ensure an election? Since you haven't done a fucking thing, except try to deflect the act of treason ...................so go FUCK yourself and the horse you rode in on





November 2018 cannot get here fast enough

eh?

I don't know if it's something we should take action on or not, but it's clear what he wants. Dangling a perceived moment of weakness from President Obama in front of the most petty and vindictive moron on the planet is a cheap attempt to manipulating Trump into more direct war.

Consider, Obama did not have the support of the UK, the UN or Congress. Add in, that through whatever luck, he had the option to have Kerry negotiate a deal to get chemical weapons out to be destroyed by the US. The US destroyed 1200 tons of Syrian chemical weapons.

If the red line was use of chemical weapons and to have a deterrent from using them again -- getting rid of 1200 tons likely did more than the type of targeted attack being entertained. Consider that that attack might have looked like Trump's 49 tomahawk missiles. Did that attack lead to Syria not using chemical weapons again? No, it failed -- and it failed at a point where Syria is winning - versus when they had a real fear of losing the civil war.

A two for one statement typical of someone like him.

anything Putin doesn't want, an effective US State Department, US ability to negotiate in good faith, clear and transparent goals...............

you'd think a "southern gentleman" like yourself would know to use a napkin to wipe all that brown stuff off your lips and tongue.
Also not to talk with your mouth full.

Got news for you grammy..bush destroyed any credibility americu ever
had as a cooperative ally ...

So far this year - in the United States - 3,851 people have died as a result of gun violence. That's 78 Syrian attacks. Maybe Don should bomb the NRA headquarters.