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

I want to ask that refugee what he thinks about Trump and his support for the Assad Regime and Putin as long as Assad and Putin annihilates his people without using chemical weapons?

That's the question I would ask if I was the reporter. Let's see how he praises Trump then.

 

Is that an actual survivor and not a joe the plumber type? Why are they asking about Hilary. I know it's like 1993 in the middle east but ask them trump and glorious comrade putin.

 

Because of the use of chemical weapons?

What was his policy on Assad and Russia before the chemical attack and probably is still his policy as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons?

His language towards Assad was far more friendly. In fact he even suggested working with Assad. Remember how is priority was the opposition and ISIS?

 

I didn't say that. I said it was different. In my opinion, he should have congressional approval either way. I would argue that military intervention where our own security is not directly threatened should be done with both congressional approval and allied support. There is nothing logically inconsistent with believing that this congressional approval is all the more important if he doesn't have support from other NATO allies.

He campaigned on not engaging in wars in the region without widespread approval among allies and at home. He evidently believed the bar was met for Libya in 2011 but not for Syria in 2013.

Call that "spin", if you wish. But explain to me how you claiming that he was just worried about backlash and about being able to spread blame around does not qualify as spin. You are taking the facts of the matter, and then making a inference about what his true motivations must have been and portraying that as if its also a fact. That is the very definition of spin, is it not?

 

They brought up Hillary in an effort to turn the conversation from "Thank you Mr. President for finally doing something that your predecessor refused to do" into "Trump is an ******* for the travel ban who hates refugees" but it backfired.

 

Because there's no way that the bar could be met in Libya and not met in Syria given that they crossed what HE called a "red line". When you set a precedent for approving action without congressional approval, you can't then say that you would never approve action without congressional approval.

 

Serious question?? Do you hate anything more than you hate your fellow Americans who just so happened to vote Democrat, or are you just a bored internet troll?

Putin doesn't even have to pay you like he did the 1000 internet trolls during the election. Your loyalty to fighting liberal democracy comes for free.

 

So what do you think his answer would be to "What do you think of President Trump's support for the Assad regime as long as they bomb your hospitals without chemical weapons?"

What would his answer be then?

 

I'm sorry, that's just a bizarre argument.

Again, there was a NATO-led coalition engaged in the Libya conflict. The US was acting as part of a team. That military venture, in retrospect, did not turn out very well. Obama called it the biggest mistake of his presidency (as an aside, I can't imagine Trump ever acknowledging any mistake, but we'll see).

You're saying that because he decided to stay committed to the military campaign when House Republicans voted against a resolution authorizing continued involvement, he is therefore obligated to act militarily without regard for congressional approval or allied support in the future? How does that make any sense?

 

It's still really the same thing though. The difference I guess is that he had NATO to blame so he wasn't scared to act, in Syria he wanted congress to blame and didn't get it so he was too scared to back up what he said.

Also, when we're talking about Syria, we're not even talking about an invasion, just some air strikes would have been sufficient to send them a message.

Anyway, I'll just say that it's good Obama is gone. From a foreign policy stance he was an absolute disgrace to the point that Donald Trump, a well known idiot, is already making him look bad.

 

OK. And that's your "spin". Own it as such.

Let's see what is the effect of this "message" that Trump sent. If it actually slows down anything. I hope I'm wrong and it actually makes a positive difference, but I'm doubtful.

 

It's not "spin", it's just logic. You making counter logical excuses for Obama is spin. He screwed up, it's okay for you to admit it. I know he's a deity to the left, but most likely no one will stone you to death for heresy.

 

You are essentially saying that Obama should have launched air strikes without congressional approval. Ok. Let's see about your responses to other instances where Obama acted without congressional approval. Now that Trump has acted let's see where we go from here in Syria.

 

Classic response from someone engaging in spin. They believe their interpretation of events is simply a logical assessment of the situation, not in any way influenced by political bias.

Obama elected to negotiate a deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, rather than go ahead with a military strike without the backing either of Congress or allies. It appears that deal was not 100% successful -- though we can't know what may have happened if instead he carried out a limited military strike to "send a message", thereby hurting our chances of negotiating the deal with Russia.

It is debatable which would have been a more effective strategy. It is clearly spin on your part to look at those events, as they unfolded, and claim as fact that the only reason Obama chose not to initiate a military strike was to protect his image. This is a theory on your part, and as much as you may want to pretend otherwise you did not simply arrive at it through pure logical deduction.

 

If you are going to say that something is a "red line" and someone violates that, you have to stand by your words or you look like a joke. Obama doing nothing showed that his words mean nothing and further weakened the image of the US overseas. Action was required with or without congressional approval.

 

It's really not debatable. The "negotiate a deal" and just hope they keep their pinky swear was naive and stupid.....and just showed that they could do whatever they wanted to do and Obama would be too much of a little b**** to do anything about it. When chemical weapons were used after his "red line" speech, it was put up or shut up time....and he picked shut up.

 

I'd love to hear what you think the "errors of their ways" are with liberals.

Wanting-
Clean air and water
Health care for all
Billionaires to pay fair share of taxes
Peace (or diplomacy before violence)
Diversity
Human rights & LGBT rights
Equal pay for women
Etc

Such a horrible horrible agenda liberals have that the BIG BAD MEDIA brainwashes us with. I've always been a moderate independent who has some fiscally conservative views but folks like you keep driving me more and more to the left.

You have taught me something Texx... that I hope I never have such a sad small world view as to think that i need to try and bring everyone down to my level to feel normal. Go enjoy the rest of your weekend Texx. Tomorrow I'm sure Bill OReilly and Sean Hannity will give you some new Liberal outrage talking points to come back with.