The Trump Presidency

[Hawk]

If passing the buck is so futile, why are you singling Obama out?

I'm not intentionally, I was originally responding to a comment which appeared to indemnify him.

[Hawk]

Obama could have stopped what happened in Syria today.

He deserves (unequivocal) blame for his inaction - not Bush - and certainly not a guy who's been on the throne for less than 100 days.

[Hawk]

Graphic Video: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...195457304.html

[57Brave]

Obama could have stopped what happened in Syria today.

He deserves (unequivocal) blame for his inaction - not Bush - and certainly not a guy who's been on the throne for less than 100 days.

The lead story in the NYT just a few days ago (3/31):

"President Trump has abandoned the goal of pressing President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to leave power, marking a sharp departure from the Middle East policy that guided the Obama administration for more than five years, the White House said on Friday...

Mr. Spicer’s comments — and similar comments on Thursday by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Nikki R. Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations — have merely made explicit an assumption that has guided the Trump administration’s policy toward the region in recent months."

Why is anyone surprised that Assad has taken this new US tolerance as a green-light to resume the illegal use of biological WMDs Obama compelled him to stop?

Obama made a (much criticized) deal with the Russians to restrain Assad from exactly this kind of gas attack. Is it at all surprising that Russia is more indulgent of it's Syrian ally now that they have such a like-minded friend in the White House?

To people paying any attention at all, this attack was essentially on the ballot last November. Sadly, an electoral college empowered minority voted for it. We shouldn't be surprised that we got what we voted for.

[57Brave]

Jesus Hawk, if Trump tells you to jump offa bridge you would !!!.
You like Rand Paul , lil Marco and John McCain -- talk a good game but just won't ever get up the gumption to stand up to Trump
You fall for every shiny thing he puts out

Not really surprised though

[57Brave]

The title of the thread is The Trump Presidency
well, be President
this letter from today sums up my thoughts


When Trump administration officials affirmed on Friday that removing Assad was no longer a priority, and that the main objective was fighting ISIS, they implicitly gave the go ahead to Assad and his government to use chemical weapons against their own Syrian people.

And when Sean Spicer, the WH spokesman, told reporters today that “these heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the last administration’s weakness and irresolution," that's not true. The use of chemical weapons today - I repeat today - occurred on Trump's watch. Trump is now the president and it's his job to make sure Assad pays the price for his deliberate and reprehensible action.

Assad has crossed the "red line" - again. When he did it during the Obama administration, Obama and the US were prepared to intervene militarily and strike Assad and destroy his air capabilities. However, the Russians brokered a deal that allegedly removed all of Assad's chemical weapons from Syria. Apparently, they cheated and left chemicals behind in Assad's hands - or gave it back to him.

It's now time for Trump to act as Commander-in-Chief and confront Assad and the Russians for their duplicitous and heinous actions. Start gathering our options and have them presented to you in the Oval Office this afternoon.
Then make a decision.

[Hawk]

"Why is anyone surprised that Assad has taken this new US tolerance as a green-light to resume the illegal use of biological WMDs Obama compelled him to stop?"

This is a ... deranged ... interpretation of what's going on Syria.

[57Brave]

and this:

President Obama sought Congressional authorization for military action against Syria, but the Republicans in Congress refused to act on his request. Despite the Republicans obstruction, President Obama was successful in forcing the Syrians to give up its existing chemical arsenal.

[Julio3000]

Obama could have stopped what happened in Syria today.

He deserves (unequivocal) blame for his inaction - not Bush - and certainly not a guy who's been on the throne for less than 100 days.

That's exactly the kind of certainty that I was referring to. Maybe he could have. At what cost? Do you care to speculate? I'm not saying you're unequivocally wrong, just that it's a HELL of an assumption, and one most often ventured by people who were full-on Iraq hawks...which does include you, yeah?

For what it's worth, I'm way more of an internationalist/interventionist than most of my lefty brethren, and I'm pretty close to your POV about Syria. That said, criticism of Obama without including the Dubya context is spitting in the wind.

[Hawk]

this letter from today sums up my thoughts

From Vox (and I don't even want to know where the absurdity in post #4084 came from).

I'm gonna paraphrase Garmel here: Beef up on your sources.

That echo chamber must be excruciatingly loud.

[The Chosen One]

Welp. North Korea about to push Trump over the edge or vice versa

[Hawk]

President Obama was successful in forcing the Syrians to give up its existing chemical arsenal

. . .

Um.

[Julio3000]

I have to ask, Hawk...what ought we have done to stop it?

That's not a snarky question. I want your best shot at this.

[Hawk]

I have to ask, Hawk...what ought we have done to stop it?

That's not a snarky question. I want your best shot at this.

We should have deposed Assad.

We still should.

I don't care if it's via a targeted kill, aid to rebels, or a land invasion.

[The Chosen One]

We should have deposed Assad.

Syria would be 10x worse off.

Assad is easily the lesser of the 10 evils there.

[Julio3000]

We should have deposed Assad.

We still should.

I don't care if it's via a targeted kill, aid to rebels, or a land invasion.

Ok. Then what?

[Hawk]

That's exactly the kind of certainty that I was referring to. Maybe he could have. At what cost? Do you care to speculate? I'm not saying you're unequivocally wrong, just that it's a HELL of an assumption, and one most often ventured by people who were full-on Iraq hawks...which does include you, yeah?

Yes, I supported the Iraq War and still believe it was the right fight with the wrong battle plan.

For what it's worth, I'm way more of an internationalist/interventionist than most of my lefty brethren, and I'm pretty close to your POV about Syria. That said, criticism of Obama without including the Dubya context is spitting in the wind.

I don't see it that way. I think you can make a connection broadly between the Syrian Civil War and the Bush Doctrine, but beyond that it's pretty tenuous and subject to a lot of nit-picking.

[Julio3000]

Yes, I supported the Iraq War and still believe it was the right fight with the wrong battle plan.



I don't see it that way. I think you can make a connection broadly between the Syrian Civil War and the Bush Doctrine, but beyond that it's pretty tenuous and subject to a lot of nit-picking.

How about the ISIS component? Not a consequence of Bush-era policy?

[Hawk]

Ok. Then what?

Elections. Get the UN in the door.

Mode of government: TBD. Many have suggested the idea of something akin to a representative Tribal Council. I think you have to see how it all shakes out.

[Julio3000]

We should have deposed Assad.

We still should.

I don't care if it's via a targeted kill, aid to rebels, or a land invasion.

This is why I have a problem with that bald certainty that, as you say, "Obama could have prevented this."

Your answer to "how?" is assasinate or depose Assad. Why on earth would you assume that the resulting circumstances would by any better than the status quo? That's just pure magical thinking.