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

[S.J.]

Republicans had to listen to "Read my lips" when Bush agreed to a let the Dems raise taxes. Turnabout's fair play.

 

[Flash]

Republicans had to listen to "Read my lips" when Bush agreed to a let the Dems raise taxes. Turnabout's fair play.

Most people would understand that policies can change over time. That is not the issue here.

Bush admitted he changed his mind. He didn't try to claim that his tax increase was not a tax increase.

What makes this a filthy ass Obama lie is that last week his spokesman was denying that combat troops were being sent to Syria.

Our best combat troops are being sent over and Hussein is trying to cover his sorry lying ass by claiming they are not combat troops, even though one was killed in combat a week earlier.

It would be nice if Hussein could for once in his life tell the truth and not lie to the American people. That would be a welcome change, wouldn't it?

That way you Gruberidiots that believe his lies would not have to make a fool of yourself having to defend Obama's blatant lies.

 

[S.J.]

Republicans had to listen to "Read my lips" when Bush agreed to a let the Dems raise taxes. Turnabout's fair play.

Most people would understand that policies can change over time. That is not the issue here.

Bush admitted he changed his mind. He didn't try to claim that his tax increase was not a tax increase.

What makes this a filthy ass Obama lie is that last week his spokesman was denying that combat troops were being sent to Syria.

Our best combat troops are being sent over and Hussein is trying to cover his sorry lying ass by claiming they are not combat troops, even though one was killed in combat a week earlier.

It would be nice if Hussein could for once in his life tell the truth and not lie to the American people. That would be a welcome change, wouldn't it?

That way you Gruberidiots that believe his lies would not have to make a fool of yourself having to defend Obama's blatant lies.

Yeah, Bush admitted he went back on his word (which Obama isn't man enough to do). He took responsibility for his own actions (which Obama isn't man enough to do). Obama just says whatever he thinks will sound good at the time to get what he wants with no moral obligation to keep his word about anything. I'm only speaking to the ribbing aspect of it. Libs deserve to have this rubbed in their collective face.

 

[bendog]

Imo, y'all are being a mite harsh on Obama. I mean 16 screw-ups but he's still willin to try again. The man's persevering.

 

[Avatar4321]

War mongers on the Right just can't be satisfied.

And yet we are the ones who think war is a bad idea

 

[TNHarley]

Obama could save a Christian baby from a muslim and they would complain about him..
Have you people ever considered he is doing this because you guys wouldn't shut the fuck up?
I wouldn't STFU about it, but I am not bitching. Get it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama does nothing= Obama sucks
Obama does something= Obama sucks


Idiot thread.

Obama fucks up. Conservatives suck.
Obama fucks up more. Conservatives really suck.
Idiot poster.

So you're actually arguing against action against ISIS or just hacking?

Im arguing the same thing I've argued for 2 years. IF we want to defeat ISIS we need a coherent strategy that has a chance of succeeding. So far Obama has dabbled and been more interested in deflecting domestic criticism than actually doing something.

 

[The Rabbi]

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
― Robert Burns, Collected Poems of Robert Burns

Truly, it doesn't matter if the man stated 1,600 times that he wouldn't send our servicemen to fight on the ground in Syria. The fact is that each time he made the statement, one or more high or low level details -- those pertaining to the situation in Syria, ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Syrian Rebels, Russia, and the rest of the world that is affected by it -- were different than they are now. If it were today sunny, and you asserted that you won't ever wear a raincoat and it next month rained, would you stand in the rain getting soaked and look like a wet dog, or would you don a raincoat?

Domestic and foreign policy matters are fluid. They issue from the actions of highly unpredictable, sometimes capricious humans. A good leader sets a tack in accordance with the conditions as they present themselves. No matter how calm the seas now, if a maelstrom appears in the water, only a foolish captain, rather than plot a new course, would stay the course and sail into it. About the only thing more supercilious than holding against him taking the replotted course, is deriding him for doing so and insisting that he sail into the whirlpool.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.
By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama could save a Christian baby from a muslim and they would complain about him..
Have you people ever considered he is doing this because you guys wouldn't shut the fuck up?
I wouldn't STFU about it, but I am not bitching. Get it?

Has Obama saved a Christian baby from Muslims? Or does he claim that "Christian" doesnt really exist? Or maybe the baby was just escalating the cycle of violence and the sad victim of "hate".

 

[S.J.]

like when Bush said he'd run a humble foreign policy?

and lied about WMD's in iraq..... ???

If Bush lied, Clinton lied several years before.

no.

See post #89, hack.

Psst.....The whole premise of the thread is a hack attack.

i know that... but the winger o/p doesn't.

or maybe he does. who can tell when dealing with that level of ignorance and trolling.

Irony.

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama could save a Christian baby from a muslim and they would complain about him..
Have you people ever considered he is doing this because you guys wouldn't shut the fuck up?
I wouldn't STFU about it, but I am not bitching. Get it?

He's doing this because that's been the plan all along.

And we've been saying he shouldn't go in and we have no business having our military in Syria. Why do you think we fought him so much the last time he wanted to cause problems in Syria.

You can only draw a line in the sand so many times and have it crossed before you have to either act or stop drawing lines.

Which is why it's better to not be drawing lines in the first place.

We don't need to be getting involved in a global conflict in Syria.

 

[320 Years of History]

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
― Robert Burns, Collected Poems of Robert Burns

Truly, it doesn't matter if the man stated 1,600 times that he wouldn't send our servicemen to fight on the ground in Syria. The fact is that each time he made the statement, one or more high or low level details -- those pertaining to the situation in Syria, ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Syrian Rebels, Russia, and the rest of the world that is affected by it -- were different than they are now. If it were today sunny, and you asserted that you won't ever wear a raincoat and it next month rained, would you stand in the rain getting soaked and look like a wet dog, or would you don a raincoat?

Domestic and foreign policy matters are fluid. They issue from the actions of highly unpredictable, sometimes capricious humans. A good leader sets a tack in accordance with the conditions as they present themselves. No matter how calm the seas now, if a maelstrom appears in the water, only a foolish captain, rather than plot a new course, would stay the course and sail into it. About the only thing more supercilious than holding against him taking the replotted course, is deriding him for doing so and insisting that he sail into the whirlpool.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.

By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

 

[320 Years of History]

Obama could save a Christian baby from a muslim and they would complain about him..
Have you people ever considered he is doing this because you guys wouldn't shut the fuck up?
I wouldn't STFU about it, but I am not bitching. Get it?

While I doubt the opposing outcries one way or the other didn't spur Mr. Obama's actions, I give props to you specifically props for acting with integrity as indicated by your closing statement. It is rare in these days of Internet fueled "No, I from my living room sofa know better than you do, Mr. President" and "politics of obstruction/no" attitudes, to find men and women of genuine principle. Kudos.

 

[TooTall]

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?

What rifle did he use to kill OBL?

Why did bush land on a carrier in a flight suit to celebrate Obama's kill years before the mission was accomplished?

Want to redo that sentence so it makes sense?

Nope! Looks perfect to me.

"Why did bush land on a carrier in a flight suit to celebrate Obama's kill years before the mission was accomplished?"

What are Obama's kill years?

Bush landed on a carrier to congratulate them for a successful mission.

 

[TooTall]

Shit happens...Bush got us in the mess that is the middle east.

And all this time I thought it was because of the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon that was ordered by Osama bin laden. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[TooTall]

We know he's a f*ing liar. It seems to be a necessary trait to run for office as a Democrat.

like when Bush said he'd run a humble foreign policy?

and lied about WMD's in iraq..... ???

If you will call Hillary and Kerry liars, I may agree with you.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

[S.J.]

We know he's a f*ing liar. It seems to be a necessary trait to run for office as a Democrat.

like when Bush said he'd run a humble foreign policy?

and lied about WMD's in iraq..... ???

If you will call Hillary and Kerry liars, I may agree with you.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

She'll never admit it, even though it's been documented dozens of times.

 

[The Rabbi]

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
― Robert Burns, Collected Poems of Robert Burns

Truly, it doesn't matter if the man stated 1,600 times that he wouldn't send our servicemen to fight on the ground in Syria. The fact is that each time he made the statement, one or more high or low level details -- those pertaining to the situation in Syria, ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Syrian Rebels, Russia, and the rest of the world that is affected by it -- were different than they are now. If it were today sunny, and you asserted that you won't ever wear a raincoat and it next month rained, would you stand in the rain getting soaked and look like a wet dog, or would you don a raincoat?

Domestic and foreign policy matters are fluid. They issue from the actions of highly unpredictable, sometimes capricious humans. A good leader sets a tack in accordance with the conditions as they present themselves. No matter how calm the seas now, if a maelstrom appears in the water, only a foolish captain, rather than plot a new course, would stay the course and sail into it. About the only thing more supercilious than holding against him taking the replotted course, is deriding him for doing so and insisting that he sail into the whirlpool.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.

By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

 

[320 Years of History]

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
― Robert Burns, Collected Poems of Robert Burns

Truly, it doesn't matter if the man stated 1,600 times that he wouldn't send our servicemen to fight on the ground in Syria. The fact is that each time he made the statement, one or more high or low level details -- those pertaining to the situation in Syria, ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Syrian Rebels, Russia, and the rest of the world that is affected by it -- were different than they are now. If it were today sunny, and you asserted that you won't ever wear a raincoat and it next month rained, would you stand in the rain getting soaked and look like a wet dog, or would you don a raincoat?

Domestic and foreign policy matters are fluid. They issue from the actions of highly unpredictable, sometimes capricious humans. A good leader sets a tack in accordance with the conditions as they present themselves. No matter how calm the seas now, if a maelstrom appears in the water, only a foolish captain, rather than plot a new course, would stay the course and sail into it. About the only thing more supercilious than holding against him taking the replotted course, is deriding him for doing so and insisting that he sail into the whirlpool.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.

By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

Lord, have mercy! Did you not make it to the first and second sentences in the second paragraph of my reply? Did you not notice in the news that in late September 2015 the Russian commitment to Mr. Assad shifted from passive to active? Does Russian military personnel's executing their first Syrian civil war related bomb strikes in 2015 not indicate to you that something has changed in the nature of things in Syria between the first time Mr. Obama made that assertion in 2013 and September 2105?

I don't know exactly what impetus moved Mr. Putin to authorize his forces to actively bomb targets in Syria, but that he did in September 2015, and had not before then so done, tells me that something has changed. We civilians may not know, indeed we don't need to know, what specifically has changed. Russia's actions, using their own fighters and personnel to drop bombs, alone tell us that something significant has changed.

Red:
Right now, I'd say, no, Mr. Obama was not lying. What he was doing was stating his then current thinking with regard to the nature and extent of U.S. military action he was willing to authorize given the conditions at the time. The atmosphere in Syria differs now from what it was then; accordingly, the actions Mr. Obama will countenance have too.

 

[Flash]

Obama could save a Christian baby from a muslim and they would complain about him..
Have you people ever considered he is doing this because you guys wouldn't shut the fuck up?
I wouldn't STFU about it, but I am not bitching. Get it?

Obama is the one that first claimed he would never send combat troops to Syria.

Obama is the one that sent combat troops to Syria.

Obama is the one that told the lie that they weren't combat troops, even after one being killed in combat the week before.

Somebody needs to hold the sonofabitch accountable for his lies.

Heaven knows the Gruberidiot Moon Bats won't hold him accountable.