Even the NY Times Admits Obama's a Failure in Syria

[Weatherman2020]

To be fair, to call it a failure is to assume that you know what it was intended to accomplish.


Russia has not only avoided a quagmire in Syria, its successes on the battlefield against C.I.A.-backed rebels have given it new leverage in the Middle East. . . .

Remember the good old days when all the Obama acolytes gloated that the hapless Putin had fallen into Obama’s trap in Syria, that poor pitiful Putin would be caught in a quagmire in Syria just like Brezhnev in Afghanistan, while America’s moral standing and world influence would grow?

Now even the NYT seems ready to accept that the jaws of the trap aren’t closing as planned, and that Putin’s Syria policy is, well, working, while the American record in that miserable country is one of, well, failure.

Obama’s Syria Play a Failure

 

[jillian]

To be fair, to call it a failure is to assume that you know what it was intended to accomplish.


Russia has not only avoided a quagmire in Syria, its successes on the battlefield against C.I.A.-backed rebels have given it new leverage in the Middle East. . . .

Remember the good old days when all the Obama acolytes gloated that the hapless Putin had fallen into Obama’s trap in Syria, that poor pitiful Putin would be caught in a quagmire in Syria just like Brezhnev in Afghanistan, while America’s moral standing and world influence would grow?

Now even the NYT seems ready to accept that the jaws of the trap aren’t closing as planned, and that Putin’s Syria policy is, well, working, while the American record in that miserable country is one of, well, failure.

Obama’s Syria Play a Failure

the NY Times article does not call Obama's efforts a "failure". those are the words of the rightwingnut blogosphere that you're linking to.

the NYT article was much more nuanced.

I realize that's beyond you. no worries.

and you understand dum dum that Hillary wasn't secretary of state then, right?

and no doubt you also understand that the imperfection of this president's Syria initiate doesn't make psychopathic dumb Donald an acceptable alternative, right?

 

[Weatherman2020]

To be fair, to call it a failure is to assume that you know what it was intended to accomplish.


Russia has not only avoided a quagmire in Syria, its successes on the battlefield against C.I.A.-backed rebels have given it new leverage in the Middle East. . . .

Remember the good old days when all the Obama acolytes gloated that the hapless Putin had fallen into Obama’s trap in Syria, that poor pitiful Putin would be caught in a quagmire in Syria just like Brezhnev in Afghanistan, while America’s moral standing and world influence would grow?

Now even the NYT seems ready to accept that the jaws of the trap aren’t closing as planned, and that Putin’s Syria policy is, well, working, while the American record in that miserable country is one of, well, failure.

Obama’s Syria Play a Failure

the NY Times article does not call Obama's efforts a "failure". those are the words of the rightwingnut blogosphere that you're linking to.

the NYT article was much more nuanced.

I realize that's beyond you. no worries.

and you understand dum dum that Hillary wasn't secretary of state then, right?

and no doubt you also understand that the imperfection of this president's Syria initiate doesn't make psychopathic dumb Donald an acceptable alternative, right?

Epic failure:

"Russia has won the proxy war, at least for now,” said Michael Kofman, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

Russia’s battlefield successes in Syria have given Moscow, isolated by the West after its annexation of Crimea and other incursions into Ukraine, new leverage in decisions about the future of the Middle East."

 

[jillian]

To be fair, to call it a failure is to assume that you know what it was intended to accomplish.


Russia has not only avoided a quagmire in Syria, its successes on the battlefield against C.I.A.-backed rebels have given it new leverage in the Middle East. . . .

Remember the good old days when all the Obama acolytes gloated that the hapless Putin had fallen into Obama’s trap in Syria, that poor pitiful Putin would be caught in a quagmire in Syria just like Brezhnev in Afghanistan, while America’s moral standing and world influence would grow?

Now even the NYT seems ready to accept that the jaws of the trap aren’t closing as planned, and that Putin’s Syria policy is, well, working, while the American record in that miserable country is one of, well, failure.

Obama’s Syria Play a Failure

the NY Times article does not call Obama's efforts a "failure". those are the words of the rightwingnut blogosphere that you're linking to.

the NYT article was much more nuanced.

I realize that's beyond you. no worries.

and you understand dum dum that Hillary wasn't secretary of state then, right?

and no doubt you also understand that the imperfection of this president's Syria initiate doesn't make psychopathic dumb Donald an acceptable alternative, right?

Epic failure:

"Russia has won the proxy war, at least for now,” said Michael Kofman, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

Russia’s battlefield successes in Syria have given Moscow, isolated by the West after its annexation of Crimea and other incursions into Ukraine, new leverage in decisions about the future of the Middle East."

no. your using the rightwingnut blogosphere to characterize what the NYT said is the epic fail.

again, imperfection in this president's Syria initiate does not make psychopathic dumb Donald an acceptable alternative. you can return to your propaganda now.

you're welcome.

 

[Weatherman2020]

To be fair, to call it a failure is to assume that you know what it was intended to accomplish.


Russia has not only avoided a quagmire in Syria, its successes on the battlefield against C.I.A.-backed rebels have given it new leverage in the Middle East. . . .

Remember the good old days when all the Obama acolytes gloated that the hapless Putin had fallen into Obama’s trap in Syria, that poor pitiful Putin would be caught in a quagmire in Syria just like Brezhnev in Afghanistan, while America’s moral standing and world influence would grow?

Now even the NYT seems ready to accept that the jaws of the trap aren’t closing as planned, and that Putin’s Syria policy is, well, working, while the American record in that miserable country is one of, well, failure.

Obama’s Syria Play a Failure

the NY Times article does not call Obama's efforts a "failure". those are the words of the rightwingnut blogosphere that you're linking to.

the NYT article was much more nuanced.

I realize that's beyond you. no worries.

and you understand dum dum that Hillary wasn't secretary of state then, right?

and no doubt you also understand that the imperfection of this president's Syria initiate doesn't make psychopathic dumb Donald an acceptable alternative, right?

Epic failure:

"Russia has won the proxy war, at least for now,” said Michael Kofman, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

Russia’s battlefield successes in Syria have given Moscow, isolated by the West after its annexation of Crimea and other incursions into Ukraine, new leverage in decisions about the future of the Middle East."

no. your using the rightwingnut blogosphere to characterize what the NYT said is the epic fail.

again, imperfection in this president's Syria initiate does not make psychopathic dumb Donald an acceptable alternative. you can return to your propaganda now.

you're welcome.

That was a direct quote from the NY Times, dufus.

Only a turd thinks Obama even has a plan for his war on Syria, let alone being successful at it.

 

[paulitician]

They've backed some very bad folks in Syria, Libya, and so on. Some of those bad folks turned out to be ISIS. We should have stayed out of Syria's Civil War. The 'Regime Change' policy has to end. It's immoral and illegal.