Obama Never Would Have ......

[GURPS]

Former Obama Official Makes STUNNING Admission About Trump Vs. Obama



Politico quoted Anne-Marie Slaughter, Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department, stating, “I feel like finally we have done the right thing. The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”

Politico’s article revolved around its supposition that more than anything, President Trump desires to be seen as the Not-Obama, whether it’s intervening in Syria, attempting to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or warming relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Allahpundit at HotAir has his own guess as to why some Obama former officials are deserting their guy: “Maybe … there’s a troubled conscience at work? Not just for letting Assad act with impunity for years, but for the administration lying outright to Americans to make them believe he was more compliant on ridding himself of chemical weapons than he really was.”

 

[Hijinx]

Former Obama Official Makes STUNNING Admission About Trump Vs. Obama



Politico quoted Anne-Marie Slaughter, Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department, stating, “I feel like finally we have done the right thing. The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”

Politico’s article revolved around its supposition that more than anything, President Trump desires to be seen as the Not-Obama, whether it’s intervening in Syria, attempting to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or warming relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Allahpundit at HotAir has his own guess as to why some Obama former officials are deserting their guy: “Maybe … there’s a troubled conscience at work? Not just for letting Assad act with impunity for years, but for the administration lying outright to Americans to make them believe he was more compliant on ridding himself of chemical weapons than he really was.”

I cannot fathom what was going through Kerry and Obama's mind when they accepted the word of Russia and Syria that the chemical weapons were gone, and then started bragging on it.

If Russia was merely mistaken and not complicit in that lie, why are they not ready to put Assad out on the street?
Fact is we haven't heard much from Russia about this except that they have moved assets into the neighborhood.

 

[Larry Gude]

Look, if we were ever going to do good for the region, drag it kicking and screaming out of tribe, clan and division, it was under Dubbya and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice. We blew it. We failed. We were not willing to do what needed doing to establish a post WWII success story as we did with Germany and Japan. If that level of talent and effort and intent fails so drastically, actually making the region LESS stable by providing Iran the time and money to build their nuke program while making Iraq into...I don't even know what to call it, what was Obama, a reluctant crusader to say the VERY least, gonna do in Syria or Libya?

 

[This_person]

Look, if we were ever going to do good for the region, drag it kicking and screaming out of tribe, clan and division, it was under Dubbya and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice. We blew it. We failed. We were not willing to do what needed doing to establish a post WWII success story as we did with Germany and Japan. If that level of talent and effort and intent fails so drastically, actually making the region LESS stable by providing Iran the time and money to build their nuke program while making Iraq into...I don't even know what to call it, what was Obama, a reluctant crusader to say the VERY least, gonna do in Syria or Libya?

Something positive :shrug:

You're suggesting the problem is enough wasn't done before, so Obama should have simply given up and started issuing gas masks to US citizens here in North America because the cause was lost. The general consensus is that what you say, Obama being a reluctant crusader at best, was ALSO (and more recently) a huge part of the problem we face today.

 

[Larry Gude]

Something positive :shrug:

You're suggesting the problem is enough wasn't done before, so Obama should have simply given up and started issuing gas masks to US citizens here in North America because the cause was lost.

On what basis would you even suggest that????????????

 

[This_person]

On what basis would you even suggest that????????????

This:

...what was Obama, a reluctant crusader to say the VERY least, gonna do in Syria or Libya?

What else could possibly be meant by this question?

 

[Larry Gude]

This:

​

What else could possibly be meant by this question?

How does that equate to handing out gas masks?

 

[Hijinx]

Look, if we were ever going to do good for the region, drag it kicking and screaming out of tribe, clan and division, it was under Dubbya and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice. We blew it. We failed. We were not willing to do what needed doing to establish a post WWII success story as we did with Germany and Japan. If that level of talent and effort and intent fails so drastically, actually making the region LESS stable by providing Iran the time and money to build their nuke program while making Iraq into...I don't even know what to call it, what was Obama, a reluctant crusader to say the VERY least, gonna do in Syria or Libya?

Obama=a reluctant crusader.------------------LMAO-----Most stupid thing I ever heard you say.

 

[This_person]

How does that equate to handing out gas masks?

Were you not suggesting there was nothing he could do? If you were, then what is the ultimate outcome of a president not doing anything in this case? In my estimation (as a lay-person with no experience in international affairs), the likely response is that the chemical weapons end up in hands even more unfriendly to the US than the Syrian government, and then are eventually used on the American public. If your assertion is correct that only Bush/Cheney/et al could have done it, then there's no reason for Obama or Trump to ever try because ipso facto they will fail. :shrug: have to then go to the ultimate outcome.

 

[Hijinx]

Were you not suggesting there was nothing he could do? If you were, then what is the ultimate outcome of a president not doing anything in this case? In my estimation (as a lay-person with no experience in international affairs), the likely response is that the chemical weapons end up in hands even more unfriendly to the US than the Syrian government, and then are eventually used on the American public. If your assertion is correct that only Bush/Cheney/et al could have done it, then there's no reason for Obama or Trump to ever try because ipso facto they will fail. :shrug: have to then go to the ultimate outcome.

Sending the Iranians 400 million dollars in cash and another 1,3 billion to pay for hostages while making a nuclear deal that allows them to build a nuke was certainly the act of a reluctant crusader. Oh!! And lets not forget releasing 5 terrorists to get back a traitor.

 

[Larry Gude]

Obama=a reluctant crusader.------------------LMAO-----Most stupid thing I ever heard you say.

Do you read, at all? Or just kinda stare at the screen, see what your imagination wants you to see and just start jumping up and down? That wasn't complimentary to Obama, at all, you moron.

 

[Larry Gude]

Were you not suggesting there was nothing he could do? If you were, then what is the ultimate outcome of a president not doing anything in this case? In my estimation (as a lay-person with no experience in international affairs), the likely response is that the chemical weapons end up in hands even more unfriendly to the US than the Syrian government, and then are eventually used on the American public. If your assertion is correct that only Bush/Cheney/et al could have done it, then there's no reason for Obama or Trump to ever try because ipso facto they will fail. :shrug: have to then go to the ultimate outcome.

Why would ANY president hand out gas masks in the US in response to Assad gassing his own folks?

 

[Larry Gude]

Were you not suggesting there was nothing he could do? If you were, then what is the ultimate outcome of a president not doing anything in this case? In my estimation (as a lay-person with no experience in international affairs), the likely response is that the chemical weapons end up in hands even more unfriendly to the US than the Syrian government, and then are eventually used on the American public. If your assertion is correct that only Bush/Cheney/et al could have done it, then there's no reason for Obama or Trump to ever try because ipso facto they will fail. :shrug: have to then go to the ultimate outcome.

Look. Obama sealed Syrians fate when he pulled us out of Iraq. We were the only thing holding Bush's Rube Goldberg contraption together. He could have NOT done that but he did promise to get us out. Now, like Saddam, Assad was no threat to the US. WHEN, not if, WHEN there is a gas attack in the US, it won't be because Assad handed it to ISIS. It will be because all sorts of chemical agents are not that big of a deal to make and use, at least on a small level, and that's all our opponents want; a terror attack, because they know we WAY over react and do exactly as they wish us to do; keep destroying ourselves.

 

[black dog]

Look, if we were ever going to do good for the region, drag it kicking and screaming out of tribe, clan and division, it was under Dubbya and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice. We blew it. We failed. We were not willing to do what needed doing to establish a post WWII success story as we did with Germany and Japan. If that level of talent and effort and intent fails so drastically, actually making the region LESS stable by providing Iran the time and money to build their nuke program while making Iraq into...I don't even know what to call it, what was Obama, a reluctant crusader to say the VERY least, gonna do in Syria or Libya?

I almost slipped alittle mud when I read this.. That's funny $hit right there Larry.

 

[This_person]

Why would ANY president hand out gas masks in the US in response to Assad gassing his own folks?

Well, I don't mean they would personally stand out at a counter handing masks out.

But, if that's not what you mean, I answered you: ...the likely response is that the chemical weapons end up in hands even more unfriendly to the US than the Syrian government, and then are eventually used on the American public.

 

[This_person]

Look. Obama sealed Syrians fate when he pulled us out of Iraq. We were the only thing holding Bush's Rube Goldberg contraption together. He could have NOT done that but he did promise to get us out. Now, like Saddam, Assad was no threat to the US. WHEN, not if, WHEN there is a gas attack in the US, it won't be because Assad handed it to ISIS. It will be because all sorts of chemical agents are not that big of a deal to make and use, at least on a small level, and that's all our opponents want; a terror attack, because they know we WAY over react and do exactly as they wish us to do; keep destroying ourselves.

I agree we are hurting ourselves more than they are hurting us. No doubt about that. But, it's much easier to use stuff that's already been weaponized than make it yourself. It is far more likely they'll use the weapons we know Syria has than come here and start making stuff on their own.

 

[Larry Gude]

But, if that's not what you mean, I answered you: ...the likely response is that the chemical weapons end up in hands even more unfriendly to the US than the Syrian government, and then are eventually used on the American public.

I know that's what you meant and I am asking what, on earth, do you base that on? Not history. The last person to use WMD's on the US was patriots inside the US gummint who thought a little anthrax scare was needed to help along the cause of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam and seeding liberty in a land parched for it.

 

[This_person]

I know that's what you meant and I am asking what, on earth, do you base that on? Not history. The last person to use WMD's on the US was patriots inside the US gummint who thought a little anthrax scare was needed to help along the cause of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam and seeding liberty in a land parched for it.

So, since it hasn't happened, it won't happen? I feel much safer.

 

[Larry Gude]

So, since it hasn't happened, it won't happen? I feel much safer.

You're not arguing that foreign policy be based on what COULD happen? Not on what is likely?

9/11 was totally predictable, was predicted, inside the US gummint, more or less, and the FBI was on Atta and company for several years.
Pearl Harbor, more or less the same thing minus the direct knowledge of the attackers.

A gas attack in the US is totally possible and likely. But it isn't coming from Assad and it was never going to come from Saddam. Those guys are/were secularist and did know a thing or tow about self preservation.

 

[This_person]

You're not arguing that foreign policy be based on what COULD happen? Not on what is likely?

9/11 was totally predictable, was predicted, inside the US gummint, more or less, and the FBI was on Atta and company for several years.
Pearl Harbor, more or less the same thing minus the direct knowledge of the attackers.

A gas attack in the US is totally possible and likely. But it isn't coming from Assad and it was never going to come from Saddam. Those guys are/were secularist and did know a thing or tow about self preservation.

The fear wasn't what Saddam would do directly, it's what he would fund/provide material support for in the form of his WMD. The problem isn't what Assad will do, it's what is likely to happen with his materials.

Yes, I do think all of foreign policy throughout our lives has been based on what could happen. We provide refuge for people because of what we believe could happen to them. We provide foreign aid to prevent what could happen if we didn't. We fight World Wars based on what could happen if the victors are the wrong people. We join alliances based on what could happen if we weren't in those alliances. I do not believe all of government should be reactionary, no.