Wouldn’t that mean that after he was convinced Assad’s regime gassed the people in August, his intent to strike was made on the basis of what he has determined to be right in August.
If so then Donald Rump’s point is extremely well taken. The righties have pressed the narrative that Obama was backed into a corner because of the red line comment s year before. Then they try to add that Putin bailed a bungling president out.
So no, the decision was made on its own and with the upper hand over Putin both morally and stature. The stature is his ability and option to set cruise missiles a flyin’ because he is in charge of a bad ass military machine.
No. Not even close. You made that interpretation up in order to say I was wrong based on a link to a newspaper report. Now reply to the rest of my response.
From the article: Senate delays Syria vote as Obama loses momentum… President Obama’s push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria ran aground Monday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay a procedural vote as opposition builds among senators in both parties.
Never heard of “mission creep”?
Perhaps you weren’t around during the Vietnam war to understand how a “police action” can escalate to a war with 500,000 US troops.
Clinton used the missile strikes as punishment thing and it achieved nothing. Why would it be any different now?
Your “bad ass military machine” would only be effective if used, and Obama has ruled that out already.
The tally on Sept. 10, when the president asked Congress to postpone voting debunks your completely flawed interpretation of a two day earlier USA Today report where you claimed there was “no support” for a Syria strike in the US Senate.
This vote count has six Republican Senators supporting a strike out of forty six. It shows five Democrats of fifty four total Dems voting against. It shows fifteen Dems voting in favor. It shows sixteen Republicans voting against it. That leaves fifty seven undecided. So out of thirty four undecided Democrats and twenty three undecided Republicans to get to sixty the Bill would need thirty nine yes votes to pass.
That is absolutely no where’s near a declaration that there is ‘no support’ to strike Syria in the Senate.
You don’t get to count ‘undecided’ as NO.
You’d need sixty no votes to get close to saying there was ‘no support’ in the US Senate.
I am right and you are decidedly wrong.
I’ve given you other factors why Romney would have likely easily got a yes vote to strike Syria in the Senate.
Pro-Israel lobby backs US strikes on Syria - Features - Al Jazeera …
Sep 4, 2013 … Pro-Israel lobby backs US strikes on Syria … and the Israel lobby’s two most influential groups announced their support Tuesday for a … As part of the 39th Air Base Wing, the 5,000 US airmen who reside here could be drawn …
The Organized Jewish Community: Wall-to-wall Support for a Strike … The Organized Jewish Community: Wall-to-wall Support for a Strike on Syria – The Occidental Observer…
Sep 6, 2013 … The broad-based Jewish support for a military strike on Syria is … supported air strikes “in response to reports that the Syrian … The amount of money the Israel Lobby is able to muster for an effort like this is staggering.
Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike … http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-04/adelson-new-obama-ally-as-jewish-groups-back-syri…
Sep 4, 2013 … Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President … The support Obama is getting from pro-Israel groups in the U.S. is … 1 showed 48 percent opposed, while 29 percent favored air strikes in Syria.
Is Israel pushing for a strike on Syria? - CSMonitor.com http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0909/Is-Israel-pushing-for-a-strike-on-Syr…
Sep 9, 2013 … Israelis support a US strike on Syria, but their larger concern is … wrote former Israeli Air Force general Amos Yadlin and Avner Golov in a paper … pro-Israel lobby has pressed congressmen to support the proposed strike, …
You do know that politically the Pro-Israel Lobbies in the US are very much aligned with the Republican Party as it exists today on military and foreign policy matters. Could you explain why a President Romney for instance would not receive the backing for a strike that Obama is getting?
That makes the issue quite easy to vote yes for Democrats since the US Jewish Community votes heavily in favor of Democrats in every election.
Four years later a Republican President bombed heavily and invaded with tens of thousands of troops on the ground to secure the WMD that US president claimed was being hidden there. There was no WMD to be found.
We can’t know if Saddam Hussein would have been emboldened after blocking inspectors from full access to the sites they wanted to inspect which was the issue and Clinton did nothing in response. But S.H. did not pursue any CW programs of nuclear programs after the Operation Desert Fox. So you are wrong to conclude it achieved nothing.
Obama has not ruled out the use of force if the diplomatic options fail. He and Kerry have vigorously stated so. How can you make such a claim in the face of what Obama and his officials have said and done the past week?
“Cautious” doesn’t mean “never using military force”. It means (or at least in the way I used it it means) “thoroughly considering the options and implications and only using the amount of force necessary to achieve the objective”. Drone strikes, although certainly not morally neutral or without consequence, represent a relatively small military commitment as opposed to bombing runs or “boots on the ground”. And flapping one’s gums about invading Iran or whatever the hawks are talking about these days would definitely be considered “incautious”.
In short, I’m saying that he has not tended to make idle threats nor overcommit in the past. A miscalculation as to how the other side will react to a statement is not the same as making an “offhand remark”.
Er… Your source, the occidental observer declares itself to be a promoter of “white interests” and “white culture” and the article relies heavily on VDARE founded by the racist Peter Brimelow which is so extreme in its racial views that when John Derbyshire was fired for racism by that bastion of knee-jerk liberalism The National Review he immediately went over to them to expound on the dangers of “them.”
Of course they’re going to blame “the Jews” and others for problems of the white people in America.
If they could geta away with blaming the Jews for irritable bowel syndrome, they would.
What’s surprising is that such a self-styled progressive as yourself would use them as a source.
I don’t want to start a hijack, but it Vietnam wasn’t an invasion then the Soviets didnt invade Afghanistan or Hungary in the 50s. When you send an army in to prop up your puppet government you put into place that’s an invasion.
Just admit you’re wrong and move on. Obama doesn’t have the support he needed for a vote and Reid acted on it to avoid the embarrassment Cameron went through.
And don’t try to throw the absolutism card down as an argument. Support means greater than 50%. Right now he doesn’t have it from either house, the public at large, or internationally.