Syrian chemical attack survivor completely humiliates Hillary and CNN for their hypocrisy in Syria

What does the decision to not bomb Syria have to do with Hillary Clinton? That wasn't her decision. She has always been for bombing Arab countries when given a chance. Didn't she even say that a military strike should be undertaken in response between the time the chemical attack happened and Trump made his decision?

As for Obama, his request for military action against Syria was denied by the Republican congress. It is interesting to go back and read what they said then, in 2013, and what they say now. I see many excuses about how the situation has changed whereas back then a military strike was not justified.

In any event, I remain skeptical about whether this chemical attack was perpetrated by Assad or was engineered by other forces (like Al Qaeda) attempting to drive a wedge between the US and Russia and/or take out Assad. For something like this to happen just days after the Trump administration stated (in a reversal of Obama's foreign policy) that regime change in Syria is no longer an objective really makes little sense to me. How stunningly tone-deaf could Assad and his military advisors be? They should know that the US military and a US president with low approval ratings is always looking for a reason to lob bombs into a Muslim country.

 

That's a suspect claim. John Kerry on more than one occasion claimed that Obama told him that the use of military force would never happen. In fact, Kerry said at the end of Obama's administration, that he (Kerry) and only seven other people at the State Department wanted to go to war in Syria.

There's Mr. Wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time for you.

 

March 30:

I guess Assad misread the Trump Administration's intentions. Assad figured he could go back to doing whatever he wanted, like gassing his own people.

More on-the-job training for Donald.

Who knew Syria was so complicated?

 

I'm referring to back in 2013, after the last publicized incident of a chemical attack against the Syrian population. There was quite a bit of reluctance, from both Democrats and Republicans, in the US intervening militarily in yet another ME country. Obama was ready to go ahead with a strike by all accounts, if given Congressional approval, but he didn't have enough Republican support in Congress for the strike. Do I have that history wrong?

I do not fault Obama with being unwilling to direct military strikes without the approval of Congress, even if strictly speaking some lawyers may argue he is not required to do so. Firing cruise missiles into another country is an act of war, and ultimately that decision should rest with Congress.

 

Assad has a license to kill Syrians using conventional weapons, but using chemical could potentially endangered Israel,I can see Obama reacting the same way under similar circumstances

 

He lacked the conviction to do something about it and was looking to be able to blame the Republicans who authorized the action if anything went wrong. When he decided to act in Libya, he didn't worry about congressional approval to act, he just did it.....that kind of means his rationale here was flawed. You can't act without approval any time you want and then use the excuse of not having congressional approval when you choose not to act.

But it's not surprising that's the spin to shield Obama from blame for his screw up. Obviously it has to be someone else's fault when Obama does something wrong.

 

Good times.

 

I think it is suspect because Clinton did not need congressional approval, and Trump did not need congressional approval. If my memory serves me correct, in 2013, Putin stepped in and offered Obama a deal on Syria's chemical weapons. I'm not familiar with any congressional actions against Obama's military plans (if he had any).

As far as I can tell, Kerry was the one who wanted to use force, not Obama.

 

The Libya intervention in 2011 was NATO led. The US was acting along with several partners. In 2013, there wasn't the same support. The British parliament, in particular, voted against any military involvement in Syria. So, not the same thing.

What's the spin? Obama campaigned on not unilaterally engaging in military conflicts like Syria. If he was going to do so, there would need to be wide support for it. He didn't have it.

And I'm not faulting Republicans for not supporting the strike either. I think that was the right decision. I was against the strike at the time, as many other people here were, and I haven't changed my position.

The Syrian Civil War is horrific, and I'm all for helping the people there through considerable aid or diplomacy. But we shouldn't be constantly involved in every armed conflict in the region. In the long run, it only perpetuates more violence and puts us deeper in the middle of it.

 

.

 

I didn't watch the video but ...

Is this a Syrian military recruit thanking Trump for giving the Russian and the Syrian military by extension a clearout warning before the tomahawks arrived?

Just curious.

 

Syrian jets take off from air base hit by US

Assad appears to have lost no sleep. 59 tomahawk missiles are not what they used to be. Thanks, Donald Trump!

 

Let us expose the gross disgusting two-faced nature of people like Bigotexx and the Republicans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eter-chemical-weapons/?utm_term=.87044fad1cf1

These people have no credibility. This is all about politics for them. They care nothing about chemical weapons so long as they can win more power. They are devoid of morality and they are what Bigtexx is all about.

Wake-up people - just see through all of it.

 

Hillary was President? Damn, I need to keep up with current events!

 

It's more likely that you don't understand what a tomahawk missile is intended to do and what it is is not intended to do. When you launch a missile strike on an airport, you aren't going to make it to where no airplanes can ever take off or land again, you are going to try and blow up as many planes and buildings as you can. The airstrike wasn't meant to cripple the Syrian regime, merely send it a warning to stop the BS.

I suppose you would have been happier if his response to the chemical weapons use was the same as Obama's where he did nothing whatsoever.

 

LOL okay, so he doesn't need congressional approval if he's using US military assets to aid a NATO led assault, but he would need congressional approval to do less with the exact same assets if NATO wasn't involved? Love the logic.

The spin is that the reason for why Obama didn't back up his "red line" stance when it was crossed was due to congress not letting him when everyone knows that he could have done so on his own. He was just worried about backlash so he wanted someone else to sign on to it to spread blame around......and now that he didn't get that his people are still using them to take blame for Obama's failure on the issue that led to future chemical attacks by the Assad regime. If he had the balls to stand up to Putin and Assad and even do the targeted military strike that Trump did, perhaps we don't have the additional chemical weapons attacks.

 

Ouch, that really did backfire on them. There was 2 or 3 times she tried to redirect the conversation to get him to say something negative about Trump and instead he brought up the fact that Obama's inaction allowed them to become refugees in the first place and the hypocrisy of those who pretend to care about refugees who stood by and allowed Assad to make them refugees in the first place. Absolutely savage interview.

 

Obama's inaction... Let's just be clear here. Every swinging dick right winger including you would have yelled at the top of your lungs about dictator in chief if he started taking action without congressional approval.

I want a conservative here to show me how my assumption is wrong.


I hate this ****ing planet. Everyone needs to stop being fans of their political ideology.