Anyone remember how this time last year Obama and Kerry Pushed for Bombing Syria?

[J_J_]

The Obama administration is currently in the midst of its final push to convince skeptical lawmakers to give it the green-light to strike Syria, and it's unclear how the new developments will impact the debate in Washington, let alone abroad where the White House still hopes to find a few more allies. Of course, with congressional approval for a U.S.-led strike uncertain to say the least, it's quite possible that Kerry may have accidentally stumbled onto a potential face-saving solution for the administration.

For what it's worth, Kerry's initial comments came when asked if there was anything Assad could do to avert an American-led attack. "Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay," Kerry said. "But he isn’t about to."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/09/syria_chemical_weapons_did_john_kerry_just_accidentally_find_a_workable.html

What Kerry never expected is that Russia would step up, Syria would agree, and the UN would all help to stop the planned US bombing.


It has only been a little over a year, and now 'oh my gawd ISIS, we must bomb Syria'

Do we have selective collective amnesia or something?

Seriously, who cannot see through this bullshit?

[HuckleB]

1. I remember that it was mentioned as an option.

That was probably a smart thing to do, in terms of strategy.

[leftstreet]

2. UK Parliament said no, US Congress didn't want to vote

So it got tabled for a year

[merrily]

5. Last year, Congress challenged Obama on his authority to

proceed without a vote of Congress, so he backed off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5529000

[leftstreet]

18. That's not why Obama backed off

Obama didn't think he'd need Congress, until after the UK vote made the US Administration look ridiculous. Then he found out Congre$$ members didn't WANT to vote. Bad for their reelection campaigns, no doubt. First class bumbling by Obama and Kerry

29 Aug 2013
After the briefing, Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, urged a cautious approach. "I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.

"Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime's large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote

10 Sept 2013
WASHINGTON — 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.

Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force -- a strong indication that the administration's efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.

The Senate was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a procedural motion to begin formal debate on the resolution, but Reid announced late Monday the vote would be delayed in order to buy the president more time to make his case to senators and the public.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/

[merrily]

22. I still think Obama backed down after the letters from the House and Boehner.

[leftstreet]

23. Well that version certainly looks better n/t

[Gman]

3. I don't see how that is the same issue.

Last year it was over gassing civilians. The issues are separate and distinct. not the same.

[leftstreet]

6. For the UK, it was about bombing Syria

The US wanted to launch airstrikes in Syria

UK Parliament said no thanks

Parliament's being recalled Friday and Cameron claims he'll get a 'yes' for strikes on ISIS in Iraq, but nothing in Syria

So it's basically the same issue

[Gman]

9. There is no gassing to stop

So I differ with you. The air strikes in and of themselves are not the issue. It's what is occurring on the ground that is different from last year.

[leftstreet]

12. Gassing, beheadings, yellowcake, shoebombers

What difference does it make?

[Maedhros]

14. Do not forget that the gassing was a false-flag operation instigated by Turkey

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

As intercepts and other data related to the 21 August attacks were gathered, the intelligence community saw evidence to support its suspicions. ‘We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors’ – who arrived in Damascus on 18 August to investigate the earlier use of gas – ‘were there. The deal was to do something spectacular. Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it.’ Much of the support for that assessment came from the Turks themselves, via intercepted conversations in the immediate aftermath of the attack. ‘Principal evidence came from the Turkish post-attack joy and back-slapping in numerous intercepts. Operations are always so super-secret in the planning but that all flies out the window when it comes to crowing afterwards. There is no greater vulnerability than in the perpetrators claiming credit for success.’ Erdoğan’s problems in Syria would soon be over: ‘Off goes the gas and Obama will say red line and America is going to attack Syria, or at least that was the idea. But it did not work out that way.’

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/04/06/who-was-behind-the-syrian-sarin-false-flag-attack/

What did the President know – and when did he know it? Hersh says "The post-attack intelligence on Turkey did not make its way to the White House" – except when Obama was confronted by the joint chiefs with the British report. "‘Nobody wants to talk about all this,’ the former intelligence official told [Hersh]":

"‘There is great reluctance to contradict the president, although no all-source intelligence community analysis supported his leap to convict. There has not been one single piece of additional evidence of Syrian involvement in the sarin attack produced by the White House since the bombing raid was called off. My government can’t say anything because we have acted so irresponsibly. And since we blamed Assad, we can’t go back and blame Erdoğan.’”

The President didn’t care about the facts in the first place, and his knowledge of the truth didn’t lead him to change course. If not for the public outcry against US intervention he would’ve gone ahead with it as long as he thought he could get away with it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

45. Good find..I had missed that bit of info.

[waddirum]

64. This information is mind-blowing

Thanks for posting that. I trust Hersh.

[woo me with science]

76. Important post.

Thank you.

[CJCRANE]

26. But we wanted to bomb the *other* side last time.

We wanted to bomb Assad's infrastructure, thus helping the (good and bad) rebels.

The bad rebels were not called ISIS back then but even then a lot of people balked at being "Al Qaeda's Air Force".

John McCain and UK Foreign Minister William Hague were criticized by some for wanting to arm Al Qaeda.

Cut to a year later and now the bad rebels are called "ISIS"...

[sabrina 1]

20. Which the UN investigated and found to be false. The UK Parliament also rejected

an invasion of Syria and supplying more weapons to the extremists as they began to realize, finally, that the extremists were likely to be the problem.

And now ISIS/ISIL, worse than Hitler. And let the bombing begin.

I predict, since everyone is predicting stuff, that by this time next year, the PNAC can cross Syria off their list of countries targeted for 'regime change'.

How many are left? We got Iraq, Libya, Afganistan, 'turned them into parking lots' as Michael Ledeen described our ME policies, now Syria seems to be on its way to join our other 'democracies' in the ME.

I really, really hope I am wrong and will be more than happy to say so, IF I am.

[leftstreet]

27. Don't forget Cuba

Bush added that one, but it always seemed odd

6 May 2002
The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain chemical or biological weapons.

In a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

He also warned that the US would take action.

"America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror," he said, referring to the 11 September attacks in Washington and New York that killed up to 3,000 people.

"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1971852.stm

[sabrina 1]

32. I missed that! Lol, from Bolton of all people! Shouldn't he have included the US

"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) must stop

We are overrun by madmen. If there was a madman, Bolton is the poster child.

[dixiegrrrrl]

47. "America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror"

by terrorizing the countries and people* labeled as terrorists.

*People and countries subject to change at any time.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. Agreed

Last year it was about taking out Assad's ability to gas people. They would have been strikes targeting Assad's regime.

This is ISIS and I'm sure Assad, behind the scenes, actually welcomes these recent strikes.

They are indeed two different issues, but dishonesty rules the day at DU.

[waddirum]

65. sorry, but dishonesty rules the day among those trying to get us into another war

nt

[grahamhgreen]

58. Cuz they changed the excuse??? Communism, WMD, Yazidi, Khorasan.... Whatever.

[pampango]

66. Indeed. Last year public opinion (and congress) was opposed to bombing. It didn't happen.

This year the issue is different. Syria is even claiming to be an ally in the fight against ISIS and is not complaining about attacks on ISIS on its territory. That was not the case last year.

[yurbud]

4. And suddenly there is a new reason to a bomb Syria

[merrily]

7. Last year, Congress faced down Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5529000


This year, he takes the position that he can proceed without a vote of Congress (though, if Congress wants to pass one anyway, he'd welcome it, said Kerry) because IS is an offshoot of Al Qaeeda. Therefore, his position is that the 2001 AUMF (against those responsible for the attack on the WTC) authorizes him to proceed. Alternatively, people in his administration have claimed inherent power in the office of CIC.

[woo me with science]

8. Yep. Two countries left on the PNAC list: Syria and Iran.

They tried a year ago. Of course Syria has been the goal all along.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025520459



Thank you for this post. I hope everyone is spreading all this background far beyond DU, too. Neighbors, family, friends, other websites. Too many blank stares yet when you even mention corporate motives for war.

[sabrina 1]

21. I just pointed that out above. How quickly people forget, the goals of the PNAC.

They've had to wait longer than they anticipated on Syria but you have to hand it to them, they NEVER GIVE UP.

And unlike US, they never forget their goals.

[tularetom]

10. Totally different situation

Last year Assad was the big scary Muslim who "gassed his own people". And we had to get him before he got us.

This year we've located some people who are way scarier than Assad. So we have to get them before they get us. Assad? He's no problem.

We just wanted to bomb somebody. Assad wasn't frightening enough so we "discovered" IS.

And by we I'm referring to Barack "W." Obama.

[rhett o rick]

54. Sounds like a board game. nm

[pa28]

11. As a matter of fact I do. Our collective amnesia is nothing compared to our moral flexibility.

At the time we had an obligation to strike Assad because he may or may not have used chemical weapons. Arguments that we would be acting as ISIL's air force were brushed off.

Now we have a security imperative to strike ISIL because they are SCARIEST threat to our existence ever. Today we are acting as Assad's air force seemingly without memory of last year's moral grandstanding.

If we are coming from a place of such little understanding with no apparent plan other than "years" of war perhaps the best thing to do would be stay out of it entirely. Instead we seem to believe as long as the bombs are falling our foreign policy is successful. Doesn't really matter who is on the receiving end.

[sabrina 1]

24. When the 'end justifies the means' nothing really has to make sense. Just keep on throwing

stuff at the wall until something finally sticks. The UN determined that Assad was not responsible for the chemical attacks so that has been forgotten, too hard to keep on lying.

Syria is the goal and it looks like this time the stuff they decided to throw at the wall, is sticking.

I'm sure that pretty soon we will be hearing about Assad. Who is the biggest threat to world peace. Disregarding his own battle with ISIS and counting on the support of the Corporate Media NOT to remind those who will forget the 'details', they will forge ahead towards their inevitable goal, Regime Change in another one of the PNAC's list of countries to 'turn into a parking lot'.

[CJCRANE]

33. ISIS's debut in the MSM came with the take over of Mosul IIRC.

Remember how they swept out of the desert in a convoy of white Toyota pick up trucks, all garbed in black ninja suits?

Before that they were just grouped into "Al Qaeda" or the "bad rebels".

[padfun]

13. I think they did that to snooker Congress into action

They knew if Obama wanted to bomb, then the House wouldn't.

And it worked.

[cheapdate]

15. Yes, I remember when approximately 1,000 people were killed with Sarin nerve gas

outside of Damascus. Under extreme pressure from the United States, Bashar al-Assad agreed to handover his entire stockpile of chemical weapons rather than face attacks from the United States.

[Maedhros]

17. Yes - killed by Turkey.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

[cheapdate]

28. Could have, but this is hardly compelling.

Basically, Hersh talked to some guys known only as "the former intelligence official", "An American foreign policy expert", "a Turkish diplomat" and various other anonymous people. There some paraphrasing of second hand conversations, and a lot is made over the fact that chemical analysis couldn't prove definitively one way or another what gas was used and where it came from.


"...a former senior Defense Department official told me"

"...the former intelligence official said"

"...An American foreign policy expert who speaks regularly with officials in Washington and Ankara told me.

"...The foreign policy expert told me that the account he heard originated with Donilon. (It was later corroborated by a former US official, who learned of it from a senior Turkish diplomat.)"

"...‘We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line,’ the former intelligence official said."

[Maedhros]

29. Hersh has more credibility that the White House, IMO. [n/t]

[cheapdate]

30. I'm not questioning Hersch's credibility. n/t.

[Maedhros]

35. That's how I read it.

The Administration can trot out officials who leak "on condition of anonymity" all sorts of claims designed to make us support their wars. Yet you take Hersh to task for doing the same.

Hersh has established his bona fides as a reliable journalist.

[cheapdate]

48. Hersch is an excellent journalist.

That doesn't mean this narrative is the correct one. Plausible doesn't make it correct. There are plausible arguments just as well presented that the Saudi's were responsible. There are plausible arguments that the Syrian opposition was responsible. And there is the plausible argument that the Assad government was responsible, which has an awful lot going for it.

Unnamed sources quoting other unnamed sources is a reason to stop and think. Doesn't mean that Hersch is misrepresenting or misreporting what his sources told him, but "former intelligence officials" and "former Turkish diplomats" sometimes get it wrong.

[sweetloukillbot]

51. So when did we invade Iran? I remember that was Hersch's scoop for about 10 years? n/t

[cheapdate]

52. That's quite a scoop.

[Maedhros]

53. True enough.

Hersh is pretty careful, though, and he was getting the same story from multiple sources.

[Cha]

68. Assad gassed his own people I don't care what Hersh has to say about it.. I trust Bernie Sanders

over Hersh and the White House.

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Senator Sanders also said Assad Gassed his own people.. whether the conspiracy theorists around here believe it or not..

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

[karynnj]

31. No, it was Assad - even though there are diehards pushing the stories you post

Hersh was a great reporter in the 1970s, but he has had some major stories that just did not pan out. Here, later reports by the UN and other groups did find that it was almost certainly Assad.

[Cha]

69. Here's Bernie talking about Assad gassing his own people, karyn..

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Senator Sanders also said Assad Gassed his own people.. whether the conspiracy theorists around here believe it or not..

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

[waddirum]

77. Please post a link showing that the gassing was definitively from Assad

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

81. According to a has- been who prints

thinly sourced gossip posing as news,

[sabrina 1]

40. The pressure did not come from the US. Kerry stated, when asked what Assad needed to

do to avoid being targeted, that they needed to give up their WMDS. Russia stepped in and persuaded them to do that. Not the US.

The UN conducted an investigation and reported findings that Sarin Gas was used in those terrible attacks. However, they did not directly place the blame on the Assad Government.

Meanwhile a German news source reported that German Intel had intercepted calls between Assad and those wanting to use chemical weapons which showed Assad refusing to do so.

That made it way more difficult to pursue the chemical weapons charge anymore, and Assad's willingness to give them up, blew that excuse for invading Syria.

But Russia has not been forgiven for helping to remove Syria's chemical weapons and for helping to avoid an invasion and war in Syria. See Ukraine!

[cheapdate]

46. So, we're to believe that the intense manuevering, negotiations, and last-miuinte actions

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

to revive the long-stalled chemical weapons talks and agree to handover Syria's entire stockpile had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PRESSURE FROM THE UNITED STATES? Just an amazing coincidence that Russia and Syria decided to move, huh? Incredible.

[blm]

16. LOL. 'What Kerry never expected'...that's what low-information corpmedia has people thinking.

More like...Corpmedia had no clue what had been going on between Kerry, Assad, and Lavrov long before corpmedia started reporting what they THINK they were seeing.

Anyone at DU who has paid attention to Syria and the figures involved over the last few decades knew what was going on. And it wasn't the corpmedia version.

[sabrina 1]

42. You have inside information? Could you please share it with us? We poor

low information morons can only look at what we can see. What we saw was an attempt to use the tragic gassings of over one thousand human beings as an excuse to invade Syria.

Then we saw the UN's investigation results. Those results seemed to coincide with the results from the German Intel's interception of Assad calls with members of his military. In those calls Assad refused to use Chemical Weapons. The UN did not name Assad as the perpetrator but DID say members of Syria's military may have been involved. The intercepted calls together with the UN findings made it far more difficult to make a case against Assad personally. So that plan had to be dropped.

What is your 'inside' information that we who have nothing but reports from the UN and German Intel and a few other sources, do not have?

[blm]

55. Low-information corporate MEDIA. Like I said - If you weren't paying attention in

the years and months BEFORE, especially between Kerry, Assad and Lavrov, you wouldn't get what was going down last fall, because corporate media was often making the exact wrong calls.

Sorry, but, that's the way it is.

I've been posting here about behind the scene talks, efforts, and actions in Syria for about 8 years now. Unlike the corporate media, I would never rely on leaks or press releases from Clintonites.

[sabrina 1]

75. I don't read or listen to Corporate Media other than to check them against more

credible sources. They have zero credibility. I see you have nothing to add to what we already know, what was covered all over the world by multiple credible sources. What is it I 'didn't get' about this 'relationship' between Lavrov and Assad.

What I am seeing now is that everything we saw over the past year, the several failures to 'get Assad' is finally coming to pass. Nothing surprising at all in where it has all led for those who have been watching.

If you have something that shows Kerry is not on board with the neocon plan of regime change in Syria eg, I would love to see it.

[blm]

79. Your 'credible sources' read the Kerry-Assad-Lavrov page completely wrong.

We are used to it - it happens all the time because Kerry is more interested in keeping the efforts PROGRESSING than to stop for PR and applause - he's NOTHING like the corporate media has determined.

See what you want from your 'credible' sources - I know the view from the source used above is a completely incorrect conclusion relying heavily on low-information corporate media stereotype.

[sabrina 1]

87. All you need to do is give us something concrete, not what you are 'thinking' or 'interpreting'

from what we know, that Kerry does not want 'regime change' in Syria?? It ought to be simple since I can give you his own words regarding Syria which is all we have to go on, unless you know him personally and he has told you something else privately.

[blm]

88. LOLOL - I posted plenty at the time - enjoy your search.

I haven't the patience to play catch up for you. I had to study BCCI Report to understand the dynamics of the region for all the players involved - it takes months, and it is the basis for everything that is still happening today. You want Reader's Digest version of what occurred last fall and that's why you rely on your 'credible sources' who are so certain that Kerry blundered his way into getting a chemical weapons deal. Yep - that Kerry is nowhere near as smart and competent and capable as your 'credible sources' have been.

[karynnj]

72. You don't need inside information to follow this at all

You just had to listen to what was SAID, not what you feared was meant.

Both Obama and Kerry spoke of the Assad crossing a red line when he used chemical weapons. They also clearly spoke of wanting to have a limited air strike that would sufficiently raise the cost of using chemical weapons in Assad's calculations. They specifically denied that their goal was to force Assad out of power by the airstrike. This is why McCain was pretty verbal against what they planned.

Kerry was asked a good question by a journalist. Was there anything Syria could do to stop the attack? Kerry's answer was 100% consistent with everything he and Obama had said before. If the goal was to make future use of chemical weapons less likely - as they said - his answer was incredibly matter of fact and obvious.

At that point, the Obama team had had no success pushing this idea - which they had proposed as early in spring, before the August use. What is clear is that Putin had not made this push until the US threat. Then note that Obama sent Kerry to negotiate this. Obama has a large number of people he could have sent. If as so many here want to believe, Kerry had completely gone off from administration goals - even by mistake, would Obama trust him for this?

Then read the accounts of the Geneva talks, that the media always thought would be unsuccessful - up until an agreement that met every goal Kerry listed the first day was signed.

Then read the accounts of what happened at the UN. It is clear that both the Russian and US ambassadors tried to amend the agreement - the US adding condemnation of Assad. Kerry and Lavrov again met and the agreement's language returned to what it was in Geneva.

[Romulox]

19. Of course I remember. The President's bombing plan was thwarted this year, so a new excuse

was conveniently found. What are the odds?

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. This is a bit facile.

Last year, the air strikes were going to be aimed at the Assad regime.

This year, the air strikes are aimed against one of Assad's foes--ISIS.

Obama did, however, ask for $500 million to arm Syrian rebels to, apparently, fight against both Assad and ISIS. I don't really have too much problem with attacking ISIS, but I think it is wrong-headed, illegal, and pouring fuel on the flames to continue to attempt to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria.

[GeorgeGist]

67. The MIC doesn't care who or why we're bombing.

War means cha ching!

[RoccoR5955]

34. Bombing never solves anything.

It only breeds more terrorists. WHENEVER it is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. "See ... We were right, all along!" ...

Different situation ... Different circumstance ... but yeah, you were right back then.

[JI7]

38. i was actually thinking of this

i'm sure we can link this back to some other thing that happened some decades ago, and go "SEE, IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW" "IT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG".

there are people here still pushing the 9/11 conspiracy theories and trying to connect it to things happening now.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. Republicans don't want Obama to have ANY power, much less wartime powers.

[whatchamacallit]

39. Memory Lame

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 04:35 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638705

Some highlights:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638705#post57
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638705#post30
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638705#post91
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638705#post155

Yeah, I remember...

[sabrina 1]

43. Lol, that IS funny. Looks like a few people owe YOU an apology!

[whatchamacallit]

44. ;)

[woo me with science]

60. Oh my WORD.

I had forgotten that thread.

Some jaw-dropping performances by the Third Way/corporate/MIC posters there...

[whatchamacallit]

61. Haha, yup

[BrotherIvan]

62. SNAP!

Ah yes, the scolders and snarkists in stark relief.

[SidDithers]

71. Wait. You think you come out looking good in that thread?...

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

73. Better than you

[geek tragedy]

83. You humiliated yourself in that thread. nt

[whatchamacallit]

85. Lol

Nobody cares what you think.

[kelliekat44]

41. Evidently the media doesn't remember either. McCain at al are allowed to say "shoulda" "wppida"

they say Obama waited until too late. Do they even remember what side they were on?

[Enthusiast]

50. Kicked and recommended!

[IronLionZion]

56. Who benefits?

I certainly remember sequestration and budget cuts putting lots of Americans out of work in STEM fields (defense contracts) last year. Obama was called lots of things for that.

Obama just doesn't like Syria? Even though its completely different targets and governing authorities?

[grahamhgreen]

59. Who pays?

[IronLionZion]

63. Indeed, who, what and why?

Are much bigger questions in this case than where, when, and how.

[SidDithers]

57. No Compromise...nt

Sid

[Cha]

70. "Understanding Obama's Syrian Speech" by EarlG..

Assad had to be threatened



Before you start throwing "bullshit" around you need to know the history.. Of course, Kerry knew there was a possibility Assad's friend Putin would be the broker.. they were working on it behind the scenes.



And, who else is supporting President Obama's airstrikes..

Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, all well respected leaders, have access and know a hellava lot more about this than those on the internet who can't grasp this isn't being run by the bush-cheney neocon crowd.

"I think we need to attack ISIS. I'm really concerned about them."

"Is the bombing of ISIS justified? I say yes. And I hope President Obama has every possible success in getting allies to join with us, some with ground troops effected inside Syria."

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5566788

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Senator Sanders also said Assad Gassed his own people.. whether the conspiracy theorists around here believe it or not..

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq

BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”


Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she supports president Barack Obama's decision to authorize new airstrikes in Iraq but cautioned against U.S. involvement in a new war in the Middle East.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html



Leyla @MiamiLib
Follow
The French Did For President Obama What They Refused To Do For Bush http://nydn.us/1tz28Oy
#p2 #tcot #uniteblue #teaparty #gop #lnyhbt
8:43 AM - 23 Sep 2014
Au revoir, ISIS fighters: French jets kill dozens of jihadists,...
The French did for President Obama on Friday what they refused to do for his predecessor — they joined the fight in Iraq.
New York Daily News @NYDailyNews

72 Retweets 20 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/09/23/a-tweet-or-two-125/

[whatchamacallit]

74. EarlG presented his opinion as fact

Considering what we're told now (ISIS), it would appear answer D is no longer Obama's reason for assaulting Syria. Obviously it never was.

[geek tragedy]

82. Wrong. Still derp.

Note that he is not bombing Syrian government positions.

These subtleties matter.

[woo me with science]

78. kick

[geek tragedy]

80. And that threat resulted in Syria giving up

all of its chemical weapons, so now there is no danger of either Assad or ISIL using them.

People who pay attention know this was a big success for Kerry and Obama.

Ignoramuses will claim that Obama and Kerry were bloodthirsty warmongers whose drive for war was staved off only by the statesmen Putin and Assad and their brilliant diplomatic bid to promote peace and uphold international law.

[whatchamacallit]

84. You talk a lot

make sweeping pronouncements, and befitting the profile, don't know shit.

[woo me with science]

86. Kick for exposing lies.