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

[IsaacNewton]

Honestly its time the US stops with this parsing and stepping softly regarding military action where it is needed. Vietnam has given the US a form of the yips, where we flinch about using military force even where it is definitely needed and warranted. And various presidents make these kinds of statements and then try to live up to them, even though the world is forever an unstable place and we DO need to change policy and decisions, sometimes fairly frequently.

We have to face up to the fact that we will have to have a military force, probably 30,000 troops with tanks and helos, in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly for the next 20+ years. Similar to South Korea.

The bad actors around the world don't act according to our internal political nonsense, they look for us to be absent then they move. Period.

The Taliban, Al Qaeda, IsiL and the other similar groups need to be denied a safe place to organize and train for as long as it takes.

No matter how long that takes. Sometimes the most painful solution is the only one.

 

[hazlnut]

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

So, things changed.

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux

Yep and when things change, smart people change policy.

But when you're a black or white thinker or tied to what some political master tells you to think then you give up you free will.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

No, idiot. You have yet to show:
1) How Russia sending troops necessitates Obama sending troops.
2) That Russia's move caused Obama's move
3) That Obama's move is in response to something other than the gross failure of his previous policies
4) That Obama understands that he has reversed course from what he said.

It's frightening to think that you might not know something, but more frightening to think that, by and large, the world is run by people who have faith that they know exactly what is going on.
― Amos Tversky

You will recall that I stated that Mr. Obama is now willing to entertain "putting boots on the ground" because the situation in Syria now differs from what it was when he earlier indicated he didn't intend or want to do that.

OK we can stop right there.
Now, please post anywhere that Obama said he was putting boots on the ground in response to Russia's moves in Syria.

Seeing as I answered the initial question you asked -- what changed? -- why have you not withheld the corresponding courtesy and answered the ones I asked you? You will recall the most recent ones were posed here and were:

• Do you claim that Russia's active participation in the conflict does not constitute a change in the situation in Syria?
• Do you assert that the active role of a near-superpower nation is insignificant? If so, why so?
• Do you have any specific details about the situation that show why (or why not) an overt military presence of ~50 special forces troops is the wrong course of action now or before?

I bid you instead show us where he said or implied that's not among the reasons why he feels putting boots on the ground is not why he's opted to do so now. Alternatively, please present an sound argument refuting the following assertion:

That Russia has utilized its military forces to execute strikes against Rebel and/or ISIS forces in Syria is plausibly an indicator that the circumstances pertaining to the Syrian civil war have changed sufficiently to warrant deploying at a small contingent (~50 soldiers) to assist the anti-Assad Rebel forces in that war.​

I think most folks recognize that a near-superpower taking an active role in the combat arena is a significant enough change that it's not unreasonable to infer that such a change is or might be a plausible cause for taking a revised approach to handling matters -- putting boots on the ground where, ostensibly, none existed before -- in the region is necessary. As I said, I have not found any Administration statements that identify the specific factors that militate for now deploying troops in Syria, but Russia's stepped-up role in the conflict is certainly enough on its own for me to infer that something is notably different now from what it was in 2013 and that U.S. may deem it necessary to step-up its role as well.

You see, some things the U.S. government (and by extension its leaders) does -- especially the military and paramilitary arms of it -- and why it does them don't need to be, and often enough won't be, spelled out in gory, literal detail, and they won't be for a variety of good reasons. That's just the way it is when the form of democracy one has is representative rather than direct; the citizenry must trust and respect that the leaders it elected ably use its discretionary power when conducting acts whereof it can't, for obvious reasons, share all the "whys and wherefores" that justify the actions taken.

Another thing, albeit not directly related to the situation in the Syrian combat arena, that has changed is the American public's willingness to support using ground troops.

• February 2015 -- Growing Support for Campaign Against ISIS – and Possible Use of U.S. Ground Troops
  
• October 2014 -- Support for U.S. Campaign against ISIS; Doubts about Its Effectiveness, Objectives

It is entirely possible that Mr. Obama and his advisors felt in 2013 that sending troops was the best solution approach, but, given the lack of will among the citizenry, knew they could not do so in 2013; however, now that the American public's has become more amenable to doing so, he has elected to exercise his discretion and send troops.

 

[Geaux4it]

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

So, things changed.

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux

Yep and when things change, smart people change policy.

But when you're a black or white thinker or tied to what some political master tells you to think then you give up you free will.

Oh no,, please don't use the word 'smart' when implying people are O-Tardbama

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

No, idiot. You have yet to show:
1) How Russia sending troops necessitates Obama sending troops.
2) That Russia's move caused Obama's move
3) That Obama's move is in response to something other than the gross failure of his previous policies
4) That Obama understands that he has reversed course from what he said.

It's frightening to think that you might not know something, but more frightening to think that, by and large, the world is run by people who have faith that they know exactly what is going on.
― Amos Tversky

You will recall that I stated that Mr. Obama is now willing to entertain "putting boots on the ground" because the situation in Syria now differs from what it was when he earlier indicated he didn't intend or want to do that.

OK we can stop right there.
Now, please post anywhere that Obama said he was putting boots on the ground in response to Russia's moves in Syria.

Seeing as I answered the initial question you asked -- what changed? -- why have you not withheld the corresponding courtesy and answered the ones I asked you? You will recall the most recent ones were posed here and were:

• Do you claim that Russia's active participation in the conflict does not constitute a change in the situation in Syria?
• Do you assert that the active role of a near-superpower nation is insignificant? If so, why so?
• Do you have any specific details about the situation that show why (or why not) an overt military presence of ~50 special forces troops is the wrong course of action now or before?

I bid you instead show us where he said or implied that's not among the reasons why he feels putting boots on the ground is not why he's opted to do so now. Alternatively, please present an sound argument refuting the following assertion:

That Russia has utilized its military forces to execute strikes against Rebel and/or ISIS forces in Syria is plausibly an indicator that the circumstances pertaining to the Syrian civil war have changed sufficiently to warrant deploying at a small contingent (~50 soldiers) to assist the anti-Assad Rebel forces in that war.​

I think most folks recognize that a near-superpower taking an active role in the combat arena is a significant enough change that it's not unreasonable to infer that such a change is or might be a plausible cause for taking a revised approach to handling matters -- putting boots on the ground where, ostensibly, none existed before -- in the region is necessary. As I said, I have not found any Administration statements that identify the specific factors that militate for now deploying troops in Syria, but Russia's stepped-up role in the conflict is certainly enough on its own for me to infer that something is notably different now from what it was in 2013 and that U.S. may deem it necessary to step-up its role as well.

You see, some things the U.S. government (and by extension its leaders) does -- especially the military and paramilitary arms of it -- and why it does them don't need to be, and often enough won't be, spelled out in gory, literal detail, and they won't be for a variety of good reasons. That's just the way it is when the form of democracy one has is representative rather than direct; the citizenry must trust and respect that the leaders it elected ably use its discretionary power when conducting acts whereof it can't, for obvious reasons, share all the "whys and wherefores" that justify the actions taken.

Another thing, albeit not directly related to the situation in the Syrian combat arena, that has changed is the American public's willingness to support using ground troops.

• February 2015 -- Growing Support for Campaign Against ISIS – and Possible Use of U.S. Ground Troops
  
• October 2014 -- Support for U.S. Campaign against ISIS; Doubts about Its Effectiveness, Objectives

It is entirely possible that Mr. Obama and his advisors felt in 2013 that sending troops was the best solution approach, but, given the lack of will among the citizenry, knew they could not do so in 2013; however, now that the American public's has become more amenable to doing so, he has elected to exercise his discretion and send troops.

OK you are incapable of defending your position and being intellectually honest. And you spend way too much bandwidth doing it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So, things changed.

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux

Yep and when things change, smart people change policy.

But when you're a black or white thinker or tied to what some political master tells you to think then you give up you free will.

Oh no,, please don't use the word 'smart' when implying people are O-Tardbama

-Geaux

Has Obama even acknowledged there is a change in policy?

 

[Geaux4it]

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

So, things changed.

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux

Yep and when things change, smart people change policy.

But when you're a black or white thinker or tied to what some political master tells you to think then you give up you free will.

Oh no,, please don't use the word 'smart' when implying people are O-Tardbama

-Geaux

Has Obama even acknowledged there is a change in policy?

You mean he has a policy in Syria as in a foreign policy? Kind of like the Feds policy of needing 2-3% inflation to raise rates?

I digress

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

So, things changed.

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux

Yep and when things change, smart people change policy.

But when you're a black or white thinker or tied to what some political master tells you to think then you give up you free will.

Oh no,, please don't use the word 'smart' when implying people are O-Tardbama

-Geaux

Has Obama even acknowledged there is a change in policy?

You mean he has a policy in Syria as in a foreign policy? Kind of like the Feds policy of needing 2-3% inflation to raise rates?

I digress

-Geaux

Yes/ Dont you read the papers? Our foreign policy is "Don't Do Stupid Shit." I'm perfectly serious.

 

[Geaux4it]

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux

Yep and when things change, smart people change policy.

But when you're a black or white thinker or tied to what some political master tells you to think then you give up you free will.

Oh no,, please don't use the word 'smart' when implying people are O-Tardbama

-Geaux

Has Obama even acknowledged there is a change in policy?

You mean he has a policy in Syria as in a foreign policy? Kind of like the Feds policy of needing 2-3% inflation to raise rates?

I digress

-Geaux

Yes/ Dont you read the papers? Our foreign policy is "Don't Do Stupid Shit." I'm perfectly serious.

LOL... Indeed. I have short and long term memory loss

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

And the ... Dont do stupid stuff

-Geaux

 

[Wildman]

The crazies don't seem to understand a leader's actual job...

YES!!
you fucking libercrazies have no idea what a true leaders job is, he must look ahead and plan for what may a disaster in the coming months or even a year or two.

that illegal alien muslime mulatto from Kenys has no idea about future projections.

and him too!!!

 

[MisterBeale]

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

It's a necessary trait to run for office as any establishment politician.

 

[320 Years of History]

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

No, idiot. You have yet to show:
1) How Russia sending troops necessitates Obama sending troops.
2) That Russia's move caused Obama's move
3) That Obama's move is in response to something other than the gross failure of his previous policies
4) That Obama understands that he has reversed course from what he said.

It's frightening to think that you might not know something, but more frightening to think that, by and large, the world is run by people who have faith that they know exactly what is going on.
― Amos Tversky

You will recall that I stated that Mr. Obama is now willing to entertain "putting boots on the ground" because the situation in Syria now differs from what it was when he earlier indicated he didn't intend or want to do that.

OK we can stop right there.
Now, please post anywhere that Obama said he was putting boots on the ground in response to Russia's moves in Syria.

Seeing as I answered the initial question you asked -- what changed? -- why have you not withheld the corresponding courtesy and answered the ones I asked you? You will recall the most recent ones were posed here and were:

• Do you claim that Russia's active participation in the conflict does not constitute a change in the situation in Syria?
• Do you assert that the active role of a near-superpower nation is insignificant? If so, why so?
• Do you have any specific details about the situation that show why (or why not) an overt military presence of ~50 special forces troops is the wrong course of action now or before?

I bid you instead show us where he said or implied that's not among the reasons why he feels putting boots on the ground is not why he's opted to do so now. Alternatively, please present an sound argument refuting the following assertion:

That Russia has utilized its military forces to execute strikes against Rebel and/or ISIS forces in Syria is plausibly an indicator that the circumstances pertaining to the Syrian civil war have changed sufficiently to warrant deploying at a small contingent (~50 soldiers) to assist the anti-Assad Rebel forces in that war.​

I think most folks recognize that a near-superpower taking an active role in the combat arena is a significant enough change that it's not unreasonable to infer that such a change is or might be a plausible cause for taking a revised approach to handling matters -- putting boots on the ground where, ostensibly, none existed before -- in the region is necessary. As I said, I have not found any Administration statements that identify the specific factors that militate for now deploying troops in Syria, but Russia's stepped-up role in the conflict is certainly enough on its own for me to infer that something is notably different now from what it was in 2013 and that U.S. may deem it necessary to step-up its role as well.

You see, some things the U.S. government (and by extension its leaders) does -- especially the military and paramilitary arms of it -- and why it does them don't need to be, and often enough won't be, spelled out in gory, literal detail, and they won't be for a variety of good reasons. That's just the way it is when the form of democracy one has is representative rather than direct; the citizenry must trust and respect that the leaders it elected ably use its discretionary power when conducting acts whereof it can't, for obvious reasons, share all the "whys and wherefores" that justify the actions taken.

Another thing, albeit not directly related to the situation in the Syrian combat arena, that has changed is the American public's willingness to support using ground troops.

• February 2015 -- Growing Support for Campaign Against ISIS – and Possible Use of U.S. Ground Troops
  
• October 2014 -- Support for U.S. Campaign against ISIS; Doubts about Its Effectiveness, Objectives

It is entirely possible that Mr. Obama and his advisors felt in 2013 that sending troops was the best solution approach, but, given the lack of will among the citizenry, knew they could not do so in 2013; however, now that the American public's has become more amenable to doing so, he has elected to exercise his discretion and send troops.

OK you are incapable of defending your position and being intellectually honest. And you spend way too much bandwidth doing it.

And at least as goes the conversation between you and me, you appear (1) very capable only of making unsubstantiated assertions and (2) incapable of answering questions that call only for "yes" or "no".

 

[rdean]

Um, watching the GOP leadership, the problem isn't he put boots on the ground. They feel he did put enough.

Correction: Um, watching the GOP leadership, the problem isn't he put boots on the ground. They feel he DIDN'T put enough.