New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump inherits mess- how Obama's failure in Syria continues to haunt us

Dino

Russian Asset
The tin-foil hat people make a good case on this one. If Obama was telling the truth, Syria was disarmed. Where do the Sarin and chlorine gas attacks come from then? Is it Assad, ISIL, Russia or someone else behind it ? Or were we simply snow-jobbed on yet another Obama failure?
Any way you slice it, it's another inherited issue for Trump to have to deal with and the left is only beginning to come around to the atrocity.


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-obama-trump-assad-chemical-douma/557486/

The Terrible Cost of Obama's Failure in Syria


Four years ago, it almost looked as if chemical attacks on Syrian civilians would stop. “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” declared then-Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press in 2014. Kerry was referring to Bashar al-Assad’s declared stockpiles of chemical weapons which, under a 2013 deal struck by the Obama administration following a sarin nerve gas attack that brought the U.S. to the brink of striking Syrian government forces, were dismantled and shipped out of the country.

But there were two important and deadly loopholes. The first was that Assad did not declare everything—a reality that Kerry acknowledged publicly, including in a farewell memo to staff, in which he wrote that “unfortunately other undeclared chemical weapons continue to be used ruthlessly against the Syrian people.” The second was that chlorine gas, which has legitimate civilian uses, was not part of the deal. The Syrian American Medical Society and the White Helmets civil-defense group have documented 200 chemical attacks in Syria since 2012, many involving chlorine. On Saturday, the group alleged a particularly gruesome attack in the besieged city of Douma, which has reportedly killed dozens and injured hundreds. It remains unclear exactly what chemical weapon was involved in the alleged attack.

The deal’s failure to prevent attacks like this was evident even before last April, when sarin gas killed roughly 100 people in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun. By then, Assad’s renewed campaign of chemical attacks, involving the use of chlorine in barrel bombs, was well underway. But sarin was explicitly prohibited, and those weapons were supposed to be out of the country. The deal, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg wrote at the time, “was not a complete failure, in that [chemical-weapons] stockpiles were indeed removed, but Assad kept enough of these weapons to allow him to continue murdering civilians with sarin gas. The argument that Obama achieved comprehensive WMD disarmament without going to war is no longer, as they say in Washington, operative.”


What the deal did achieve, according to Avril Haines, who served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was to force Syria to declare 1,300 tons of chemical weapons, which were then destroyed. “This was a major achievement and one that has put us in a better position to address the threat posed by [Assad] … we have learned a great deal about Syria's holdings and capabilities” because the regime was effectively forced to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, she wrote in an email.

If all this added up to something short of disarmament, Trump’s strikes on regime targets following last April’s sarin attack haven’t achieved it either. The seeming logic of that response—that where diplomacy had failed, punishment might succeed—also fell apart quickly, as reports began emerging soon afterward that Assad was once again using chlorine gas against civilians. The United States did not strike Assad again in retaliation. And on Saturday, the Syrian American Medical Society and the White Helmets noted that dozens of victims in Douma were exhibiting the symptoms of chemical exposure—including seizures and foaming at the mouth.

President Trump has labeled the event “an atrocity,” blaming the Obama administration for declining to enforce its declared “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013. But if anything, until this morning it looked like the Trump administration was more interested in extricating itself from Syria entirely. The attacks follow a strange few days in Washington, as the president stated his desire to get out of Syria “very soon;” his advisers insisted the U.S. was staying to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State; and the White House tried to resolve the contradiction by insisting that American troops would stay in Syria until ISIS was gone, an outcome that was rapidly coming to pass.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
According the the Left and the sainted defenders of all things Obama, any chemical attacks in Syria took place the minute Obama left office and the weapons used were made that morning............ :rolleyes:
 

Arkady

President
The tin-foil hat people make a good case on this one. If Obama was telling the truth, Syria was disarmed. Where do the Sarin and chlorine gas attacks come from then? Is it Assad, ISIL, Russia or someone else behind it ? Or were we simply snow-jobbed on yet another Obama failure?
Any way you slice it, it's another inherited issue for Trump to have to deal with and the left is only beginning to come around to the atrocity.


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-obama-trump-assad-chemical-douma/557486/

The Terrible Cost of Obama's Failure in Syria


Four years ago, it almost looked as if chemical attacks on Syrian civilians would stop. “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” declared then-Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press in 2014. Kerry was referring to Bashar al-Assad’s declared stockpiles of chemical weapons which, under a 2013 deal struck by the Obama administration following a sarin nerve gas attack that brought the U.S. to the brink of striking Syrian government forces, were dismantled and shipped out of the country.

But there were two important and deadly loopholes. The first was that Assad did not declare everything—a reality that Kerry acknowledged publicly, including in a farewell memo to staff, in which he wrote that “unfortunately other undeclared chemical weapons continue to be used ruthlessly against the Syrian people.” The second was that chlorine gas, which has legitimate civilian uses, was not part of the deal. The Syrian American Medical Society and the White Helmets civil-defense group have documented 200 chemical attacks in Syria since 2012, many involving chlorine. On Saturday, the group alleged a particularly gruesome attack in the besieged city of Douma, which has reportedly killed dozens and injured hundreds. It remains unclear exactly what chemical weapon was involved in the alleged attack.

The deal’s failure to prevent attacks like this was evident even before last April, when sarin gas killed roughly 100 people in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun. By then, Assad’s renewed campaign of chemical attacks, involving the use of chlorine in barrel bombs, was well underway. But sarin was explicitly prohibited, and those weapons were supposed to be out of the country. The deal, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg wrote at the time, “was not a complete failure, in that [chemical-weapons] stockpiles were indeed removed, but Assad kept enough of these weapons to allow him to continue murdering civilians with sarin gas. The argument that Obama achieved comprehensive WMD disarmament without going to war is no longer, as they say in Washington, operative.”


What the deal did achieve, according to Avril Haines, who served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was to force Syria to declare 1,300 tons of chemical weapons, which were then destroyed. “This was a major achievement and one that has put us in a better position to address the threat posed by [Assad] … we have learned a great deal about Syria's holdings and capabilities” because the regime was effectively forced to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, she wrote in an email.

If all this added up to something short of disarmament, Trump’s strikes on regime targets following last April’s sarin attack haven’t achieved it either. The seeming logic of that response—that where diplomacy had failed, punishment might succeed—also fell apart quickly, as reports began emerging soon afterward that Assad was once again using chlorine gas against civilians. The United States did not strike Assad again in retaliation. And on Saturday, the Syrian American Medical Society and the White Helmets noted that dozens of victims in Douma were exhibiting the symptoms of chemical exposure—including seizures and foaming at the mouth.

President Trump has labeled the event “an atrocity,” blaming the Obama administration for declining to enforce its declared “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013. But if anything, until this morning it looked like the Trump administration was more interested in extricating itself from Syria entirely. The attacks follow a strange few days in Washington, as the president stated his desire to get out of Syria “very soon;” his advisers insisted the U.S. was staying to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State; and the White House tried to resolve the contradiction by insisting that American troops would stay in Syria until ISIS was gone, an outcome that was rapidly coming to pass.
The mess in Syria goes back a lot farther than Obama. The entire region was destabilized with the mindless Iraq invasion -- just as that invasion's opponents correctly predicted would happen. Syria's Ba'athist regime was closely tied to Iraq's Ba'athist regime, and when we created chaos in Iraq, into which Al Qaeda grew, things were set in motion, eventually leading to ISIS and the Syrian civil war. The Bushies had envisioned Iraq setting off a series of dominoes, and in a way they were right. They were just hopelessly naive in imagining it would be a toppling of autocratic regimes to be replaced by healthy democracies (or at least Israel-friendly puppet governments), and instead it's been a toppling of stable governments, to be replaced by bloody, endless war. I was about to say something trite like "live and learn," but the truth is that half of us knew this would happen, and the other half are unlikely ever to learn from their mistakes.
 

sear

Mayor
President Obama is more politically conservative than that.
President Obama was exercising a principle as traditional (and therefore by definition "conservative") as President Adams.
"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams
Why the Republican party has so utterly forsaken political conservatism I do not know.

But whatever else is true, the GOP today is clearly the political party without principle.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
The mess in Syria goes back a lot farther than Obama. The entire region was destabilized with the mindless Iraq invasion -- just as that invasion's opponents correctly predicted would happen. Syria's Ba'athist regime was closely tied to Iraq's Ba'athist regime, and when we created chaos in Iraq, into which Al Qaeda grew, things were set in motion, eventually leading to ISIS and the Syrian civil war. The Bushies had envisioned Iraq setting off a series of dominoes, and in a way they were right. They were just hopelessly naive in imagining it would be a toppling of autocratic regimes to be replaced by healthy democracies (or at least Israel-friendly puppet governments), and instead it's been a toppling of stable governments, to be replaced by bloody, endless war. I was about to say something trite like "live and learn," but the truth is that half of us knew this would happen, and the other half are unlikely ever to learn from their mistakes.
It wasn't George W. Bush who put down a red line in Syria then failed to enforce it.
It was not George W. Bush who allowed Putin and Assad to dupe him into carrying out some farce by turning over some chemical weapons while continuing to gas the people in Syria.
It was not George W. Bush who then sold a fairy tale to the American people about Assad being so afraid of getting bombed he knuckled under..........nor was it George W. Bush who claimed:

“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,”

It wasn't George W. Bush or Donald Trump for that matter who did NOTHING about Syria in order to keep the Mullah's of Iran at the nuclear talks in order to get an agreement that is not worth the paper it is written on.

Syria is all about the legacy of President Obama's one strategic blunder after another.
 

Arkady

President
It wasn't George W. Bush who put down a red line in Syria then failed to enforce it.
It was not George W. Bush who allowed Putin and Assad to dupe him into carrying out some farce by turning over some chemical weapons while continuing to gas the people in Syria.
It was not George W. Bush who then sold a fairy tale to the American people about Assad being so afraid of getting bombed he knuckled under..........nor was it George W. Bush who claimed:




It wasn't George W. Bush or Donald Trump for that matter who did NOTHING about Syria in order to keep the Mullah's of Iran at the nuclear talks in order to get an agreement that is not worth the paper it is written on.

Syria is all about the legacy of President Obama's one strategic blunder after another.
No, it was GW Bush who destabilized the whole region for a war-of-choice on Iraq, justified by a hunt for non-existent WMDs. We've been paying dearly for it ever since. That's not to excuse Obama's missteps. But it's because of Bush that we've basically been in a situation where Obama (and, to be fair, Trump) have been stuck having to try to choose the least-bad out of a set of bad options.
 
The tin-foil hat people make a good case on this one. If Obama was telling the truth, Syria was disarmed. Where do the Sarin and chlorine gas attacks come from then? Is it Assad, ISIL, Russia or someone else behind it ? Or were we simply snow-jobbed on yet another Obama failure?
Any way you slice it, it's another inherited issue for Trump to have to deal with and the left is only beginning to come around to the atrocity.


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-obama-trump-assad-chemical-douma/557486/

The Terrible Cost of Obama's Failure in Syria


Four years ago, it almost looked as if chemical attacks on Syrian civilians would stop. “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” declared then-Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press in 2014. Kerry was referring to Bashar al-Assad’s declared stockpiles of chemical weapons which, under a 2013 deal struck by the Obama administration following a sarin nerve gas attack that brought the U.S. to the brink of striking Syrian government forces, were dismantled and shipped out of the country.

But there were two important and deadly loopholes. The first was that Assad did not declare everything—a reality that Kerry acknowledged publicly, including in a farewell memo to staff, in which he wrote that “unfortunately other undeclared chemical weapons continue to be used ruthlessly against the Syrian people.” The second was that chlorine gas, which has legitimate civilian uses, was not part of the deal. The Syrian American Medical Society and the White Helmets civil-defense group have documented 200 chemical attacks in Syria since 2012, many involving chlorine. On Saturday, the group alleged a particularly gruesome attack in the besieged city of Douma, which has reportedly killed dozens and injured hundreds. It remains unclear exactly what chemical weapon was involved in the alleged attack.

The deal’s failure to prevent attacks like this was evident even before last April, when sarin gas killed roughly 100 people in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun. By then, Assad’s renewed campaign of chemical attacks, involving the use of chlorine in barrel bombs, was well underway. But sarin was explicitly prohibited, and those weapons were supposed to be out of the country. The deal, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg wrote at the time, “was not a complete failure, in that [chemical-weapons] stockpiles were indeed removed, but Assad kept enough of these weapons to allow him to continue murdering civilians with sarin gas. The argument that Obama achieved comprehensive WMD disarmament without going to war is no longer, as they say in Washington, operative.”


What the deal did achieve, according to Avril Haines, who served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was to force Syria to declare 1,300 tons of chemical weapons, which were then destroyed. “This was a major achievement and one that has put us in a better position to address the threat posed by [Assad] … we have learned a great deal about Syria's holdings and capabilities” because the regime was effectively forced to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, she wrote in an email.

If all this added up to something short of disarmament, Trump’s strikes on regime targets following last April’s sarin attack haven’t achieved it either. The seeming logic of that response—that where diplomacy had failed, punishment might succeed—also fell apart quickly, as reports began emerging soon afterward that Assad was once again using chlorine gas against civilians. The United States did not strike Assad again in retaliation. And on Saturday, the Syrian American Medical Society and the White Helmets noted that dozens of victims in Douma were exhibiting the symptoms of chemical exposure—including seizures and foaming at the mouth.

President Trump has labeled the event “an atrocity,” blaming the Obama administration for declining to enforce its declared “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013. But if anything, until this morning it looked like the Trump administration was more interested in extricating itself from Syria entirely. The attacks follow a strange few days in Washington, as the president stated his desire to get out of Syria “very soon;” his advisers insisted the U.S. was staying to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State; and the White House tried to resolve the contradiction by insisting that American troops would stay in Syria until ISIS was gone, an outcome that was rapidly coming to pass.
Fried Sunni Side Up

The air-conditioned ethics of the Geneva Convention were all about sheltered snobs humiliating working-class soldiers by making those lives less important than the lives of enemy "civilians." Any weapon that saves lives on the side using it is legitimate. What happens to the wives and children of the Saudis' mercenaries is none of America's business.
 
President Trump has labeled the event “an atrocity,” blaming the Obama administration for declining to enforce its declared “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013.
Obama shouldn’t have drawn a red line to be sure, but enforcing it was never an option he had. Which is why it shouldn’t have been drawn to begin with.
 
It was not George W. Bush who allowed Putin and Assad to dupe him into carrying out some farce by turning over some chemical weapons while continuing to gas the people in Syria.
It was never proven that president Assad gassed his own people, and certainly there’s nothing logical about the assertion. And president Assad had everything to loose and literally nothing to gain by doing so.
 
No, it was GW Bush who destabilized the whole region for a war-of-choice on Iraq, justified by a hunt for non-existent WMDs. We've been paying dearly for it ever since. That's not to excuse Obama's missteps. But it's because of Bush that we've basically been in a situation where Obama (and, to be fair, Trump) have been stuck having to try to choose the least-bad out of a set of bad options.
Deep-Sixing the Deep State Is the Only Regime Change We Should Care About

Trump actually wants to have nothing to do with Syria, but the NeoCon snakes slithered out of the Swamp's quicksand and bit him in the ass. It's like the way Putin had to deal with Yeltsin's kleptocratic oligarchs running and ruining Russia. Even with Vlad's methods, it takes time to wipe them out.
 

sear

Mayor
"Obama shouldn’t have drawn a red line" M #10
Did he ever?
Obama said it would cross a line.

Did Obama ever say:

And if Assad does A, then
Obama's going to do B ... .

I don't recall such thing.

"If it becomes Wednesday, it crosses a red line." sear
So WHAT ?!?!
And therefore WHAT ?!?!
"to be sure, but enforcing it was never an option he had. Which is why it shouldn’t have been drawn to begin with." M #10
"Enforce" WHAT ?!?!

If there's an "if ... then ..." please quote it.

If there isn't (none that I've read about) then what are you perdiddling about ?!?!
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
The problem we have today simply would not exist except for Obama and his total failure.
The problem we have today...terrorists who got a foot-hold after the invasion of Iraq, didn't come from President Obama. Did you forget Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction and yellow cake lies?
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
The mess in Syria goes back a lot farther than Obama. The entire region was destabilized with the mindless Iraq invasion -- just as that invasion's opponents correctly predicted would happen. Syria's Ba'athist regime was closely tied to Iraq's Ba'athist regime, and when we created chaos in Iraq, into which Al Qaeda grew, things were set in motion, eventually leading to ISIS and the Syrian civil war. The Bushies had envisioned Iraq setting off a series of dominoes, and in a way they were right. They were just hopelessly naive in imagining it would be a toppling of autocratic regimes to be replaced by healthy democracies (or at least Israel-friendly puppet governments), and instead it's been a toppling of stable governments, to be replaced by bloody, endless war. I was about to say something trite like "live and learn," but the truth is that half of us knew this would happen, and the other half are unlikely ever to learn from their mistakes.
Eric doesn't want to remember Bush and his stupid invasion of Iraq.
Bush wanted to be a War President. But Trump obviously wants to become a Dictator.
 
Enforce" WHAT ?!?!

If there's an "if ... then ..." please quote it.

If there isn't (none that I've read about) then what are you perdiddling about ?!?!
Ok, if Obama’s assertion is that Assad gassing civilians would cross a line didn’t mean that he intended to do something if Assad did so, I’m not sure what purpose it was to point it out.
 
Enforce" WHAT ?!?!

If there's an "if ... then ..." please quote it.

If there isn't (none that I've read about) then what are you perdiddling about ?!?!
Obama dispatched HRC three times to the UN to seek a UNSCR for the use of force in Syria. All three times Russia and China said hell no, citing the abuse of UNSCR 1973 in Libya. Without the cover of a UNSCR the British parliament wouldn’t give Cameron a green light to support any US use of force in Syria. Obama tried to pitch it to congress for authorization but congress refused to vote on it. 70% of Americans were opposed to a US war in Syria. So Obama was SOL. All he had left was to help the rebels fighting within Syria to topple the Assad government by smuggling arms confiscated from the Gadaffi army out of the Benghazi CIA annex to Turkey for distribution to the rebel fighters.
 

sear

Mayor
M #18
It's an EXCEEDINGLY common ploy.
When EVER anyone speaks in vague terms, PARTICULARLY in metaphor * it's a strong indication of one of two things.

a) Either they're so inarticulate (& thus by implication, incapable) that they can't formulate a more coherent commitment; and therefore would be unlikely to be able to fulfill it. Or

b) They're hiding something.

I strongly suspect Obama, commander in chief of the greatest military in the history of the known cosmos, was trying for humanitarian reasons to back Assad down with words.
I don't know if it worked on Assad or not.

BUT !!

It has SURELY worked on many Republican Obama critics (20:20 hind-sighters).

* MAGA
Drain the swamp
 
Top