🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria

Geaux4it

Intensity Factor 4-Fold
May 31, 2009
22,873
4,295
290
Tennessee
You know... like if you like your doctor.... so on and so forth....

-Geaux

--------------------------
One thing you might have noticed if you watched White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest trying to explain to reporters why embedding US spec ops with the YPG in Syria doesn’t amount to putting US boots on the ground, is that despite the fact that there are any number of more important questions the media should be asking about the new “plan” (see our full account here), Americans are far more concerned about the apparent contradiction between Obama’s “new” strategy and statements he’s made with regard to US forces in Syria in the past.

Indeed, nearly every question Earnest fielded revolved around whether The White House is set to recant on the administration’s pledge not to put American “combat” forces in Syria.


Carter.png


emarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."

The rest follow here

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-01/here-are-16-times-obama-promised-no-boots-ground-syria
 
You know... like if you like your doctor.... so on and so forth....

-Geaux

--------------------------
One thing you might have noticed if you watched White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest trying to explain to reporters why embedding US spec ops with the YPG in Syria doesn’t amount to putting US boots on the ground, is that despite the fact that there are any number of more important questions the media should be asking about the new “plan” (see our full account here), Americans are far more concerned about the apparent contradiction between Obama’s “new” strategy and statements he’s made with regard to US forces in Syria in the past.

Indeed, nearly every question Earnest fielded revolved around whether The White House is set to recant on the administration’s pledge not to put American “combat” forces in Syria.


Carter.png


emarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."

The rest follow here

Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria | Zero Hedge

Wonder how those boys get to the latrine without their boots hitting the ground?
 
'Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria'

Another ridiculous lie from the right.
I knew some stupid liberal would claim he didn't say it. :lol:

Come on now. You've gotta cut him some slack. How would you like the job of trying to cover every lie Obama and Hillary tell? It's a 24/7 job with loads of overtime. On top of that, he's got to turn racist bigot against Ben Carson and go on the Democrat's war on women too. He probably hasn't slept in many a night.
 
I think we should allow Obama to admit he made a mistake and change his strategy. I only hope he doesn't take some half ass approach to the problem. If we are going to boot U.S. troops in harms way go in with overwhelming force and destroy the evil pricks don't dick around.
 
You know... like if you like your doctor.... so on and so forth....

-Geaux

--------------------------
One thing you might have noticed if you watched White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest trying to explain to reporters why embedding US spec ops with the YPG in Syria doesn’t amount to putting US boots on the ground, is that despite the fact that there are any number of more important questions the media should be asking about the new “plan” (see our full account here), Americans are far more concerned about the apparent contradiction between Obama’s “new” strategy and statements he’s made with regard to US forces in Syria in the past.

Indeed, nearly every question Earnest fielded revolved around whether The White House is set to recant on the administration’s pledge not to put American “combat” forces in Syria.


Carter.png


emarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."

The rest follow here

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-01/here-are-16-times-obama-promised-no-boots-ground-syria


That WTF guy is hilarious!
 
I think we should allow Obama to admit he made a mistake and change his strategy. I only hope he doesn't take some half ass approach to the problem. If we are going to boot U.S. troops in harms way go in with overwhelming force and destroy the evil pricks don't dick around.


I'm no longer allowed to agree. I got into trouble elsewhere when I said something to effect: "the only answer is to eliminate all Muslim from the planet". I'm out. Some sort of decorated gold bar Mods' saw it.
 
Myth #1 Obama has a different foreign policy approach to the Middle East than Bush.

Liberals love to slam Bush for "getting us into this mess" but they forget that Obama has maintained or expanded nearly every party of the Bush war doctrine.
Conservatives love to slam Obama for his policy failures in the Middle East but they forget he is just an extension of the Bush war doctrine.

Our failure of a middle east strategy is probably the most bi partisan policy that ever existed anyone who says different is probably just engaging in partisan hackery
 
It's racist to call him a liar.

And the fact that he did something he said he wouldn't 16 times is no excuse for your racist behavior.
 
Myth #1 Obama has a different foreign policy approach to the Middle East than Bush.

Liberals love to slam Bush for "getting us into this mess" but they forget that Obama has maintained or expanded nearly every party of the Bush war doctrine.
Conservatives love to slam Obama for his policy failures in the Middle East but they forget he is just an extension of the Bush war doctrine.

Our failure of a middle east strategy is probably the most bi partisan policy that ever existed anyone who says different is probably just engaging in partisan hackery
 

Forum List

Back
Top