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

[FA_Q2]

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

This.

 

[Rustic]

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.

He's a progressive they fail everything they do, typical of a bleeding heart

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

A lie?

Are you really going to state direct quotes are a lie? Just when I thought you could not get further into partisan hackery I am proven incorrect.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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

I think it's safe to say no boots on the ground Monday and then put boots on the ground Wednesday if something happens Tuesday. Don't you?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

He's a progressive they fail everything they do, typical of a bleeding heart

You haven't had a good president majority leader or speaker of the house since Reagan.

Dennis hastert. Gay pedophile. Tom delay, Jon boehner, Mitch McConnell, newt. Real winners.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Nicholas_1982]

Congress and the american public are just letting him get away with it. we shoulder the blame for this by not voicing our outrage in a constructive manner. refer to my post on the 14 war that has demoralized the american people. we sit back and let our elected representatives get away with awful policy

 

[Vigilante]

Congress and the american public are just letting him get away with it. we shoulder the blame for this by not voicing our outrage in a constructive manner. refer to my post on the 14 war that has demoralized the american people. we sit back and let our elected representatives get away with awful policy

You don't seem to realize that the ELITES of both parties are THE SAME politically!

 

[KGB]

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.

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

I think it's safe to say no boots on the ground Monday and then put boots on the ground Wednesday if something happens Tuesday. Don't you?

How about you don't announce your intentions to your adversaries in the open? It was not wise to make such statements in the first place. You paint yourself into a corner by stating no boots on the ground & then have to back track. While not nearly the same, it was the first President Bush's statement about no new taxes which helped cause him to lose the '92 election when taxes were raised. All that had to be said is "we will not rule out any action we find necessary to deal with the problem".

 

[rightwinger]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

 

[mudwhistle]

I think we've clearly established that Obama is a lying piece of shit.

Nothing he says has any weight to it at all.

The whole world knows this.

Our president is a two-faced, backstabbing, dickhead.

 

[Vigilante]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

 

[sealybobo]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

 

[rightwinger]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

I have a simple question for Republicans

You want boots on the ground in Syria or not?

 

[Preacher]

Can someone gather the many times the right and neocons whined because he said no boots on the ground? They all LOVE American boys and girls spilling their blood obviously. The ONLY damn reason there are boots on the ground now is because Russia is destroying ALL the terrorists trying to knocked Assad from power and Obama needs to hide the evidence and try and stop them. Just a proxy war really.

 

[the_human_being]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

I have a simple question for Republicans

You want boots on the ground in Syria or not?

Absolutely not. Nor aircraft including drones. Let Putin handle it. Obama doesn't have a plan nor does he know which side he's on.

 

[rightwinger]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

I have a simple question for Republicans

You want boots on the ground in Syria or not?

Absolutely not. Nor aircraft including drones. Let Putin handle it. Obama doesn't have a plan nor does he know which side he's on.

We actually agree

U.S. Has nothing to gain in Syria

 

[the_human_being]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

I have a simple question for Republicans

You want boots on the ground in Syria or not?

Absolutely not. Nor aircraft including drones. Let Putin handle it. Obama doesn't have a plan nor does he know which side he's on.

We actually agree

U.S. Has nothing to gain in Syria

Actually, it has a lot to loose. We could easily force a mishap with aircraft in the skies with a Russian fighter jet or get into a skirmish with Assad's troops, Iranian troops, or even Russian troops. We need to pull out completely.

 

[S.J.]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

I have a simple question for Republicans

You want boots on the ground in Syria or not?

No. I don't want Obama sending troops anywhere because he doesn't have our have our interests in mind.

 

[sealybobo]

Putin puts boots on the ground in Syria.......Republicans taunt Obama that he is weak

Obama puts boots on the ground in Syria.....Republicans whine....but you said you wouldn't

Ridiculous aren't they?

I have a simple question for Republicans

You want boots on the ground in Syria or not?

Absolutely not. Nor aircraft including drones. Let Putin handle it. Obama doesn't have a plan nor does he know which side he's on.

He did when he killed Osama bin ladin bitch!

As if a schmuck like you knows what's going on. Lol. It's going as good as can be expected.

You remember bush handed Obama a shitty war and economy, right? You want the party that fucked up in the first place back?