Posted on 10/04/2016 12:30:45 PM PDT by Leaning Right
U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime will be back on the table Wednesday at the White House, when top national security officials in the Obama administration are set to discuss options for the way forward in Syria. But there’s little prospect President Obama will ultimately approve them. *snip*
The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented in the Deputies Committee meeting by Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said. That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But this is the WaPo, so who knows what's really true.
To be truthful, the best strategy going out would be for him to kill Assad going out, then the next President can say they were not in on that.
How will this stop ISIS?
What has Assad done to the USA?
Precisely. It will help ISIS!
Insanity, how will Obama deal with return strikes on US forces by Russia and Iran? He won’t and more Americans will die because of his and Hillary’s multi year efforts to destabilize and overthrow governments that stand in the way of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Greater Caliphate.
It won't. Obunghole is starting WWIII with Russia. Prepare.
Juan and Linda approve....
I have the best plan. Bring our people home and stay the heck out of it. Afghanistan too.
Plenty of time to seek authorization from Congress.
Unless that Pinko prick has gone completely mad with his lust for death and power.
I'm not sure why Assad should be taken out. All he's been doing is defending his country and his people from murderous terrorists bent destroying a once peaceful, westernized, religiously tolerant Middle Eastern country. And those terrorists and their "spontaneous" uprising through "peaceful" protests have been funded, armed and supported by Obama and the CIA.
So let me know if I understand this correctly, again....
Kerry and 0bama want to use our military air power to attack the military assets of a sovereign nation on that nation’s soil without a declaration of war and without that nation having committed any act of war against the United States. Do I have it right?
Because now I would like them to explain how that is somehow different than what the Japanese did on the morning of December 7, 1941. And at least the Japanese tried to deliver something like a declaration of war, but they had a bad typist.
No need for that quaint old procedure. If the Administration decides to strike Assad, they'll base their actions on some prior Congressional resolution.
And most Congressmen will be OK with that. Because it frees them from having to make a tough decision, one that later on might turn out to be wrong.
According to the article (and remember, it's the WaPo), this time around Kerry and Obama are skeptical of the use of military force. It's the CIA and the Joint Chiefs who are pushing for it.
This could, of course, be just a smokescreen to protect Kerry and 0bama.
I posted the article because SOMEONE in the administration is advocating for military action against Assad. And that would almost certainly bring us in conflict with Russia.
Aside from the Kurds, who are the good guys?
Why do we have a dog in this fight?
Assad is miserable tyrant.
Assad’s Syria was secular and Christians were in no danger.
Assad was no danger to us.
Hillary Clinton and Obama destabilized the entire Mid East.
In Iraq Obama pulled out and left a power vacuum. Iran filled the vacuum. They destabilized Libya and it is now a failed state and a nexus of terrorism. They destabilized Egypt but thankfully the Egyptian people and the military took their country back.
Why would any sane person vote for Hillary?
“It won’t. Obunghole is starting WWIII with Russia. Prepare.”
____________
Good advice. The Asshat in Chief in doing everything he can to damage the country.
Look for him to (over)reach farther and farther as the end of his term nears.
X2 once it’s confirmed that Hitlery won’t be inheriting his throne.
I deliberately went the smokescreen route. 0bama and Kerry have long been hopping around like monkeys to the Saudi Sheikh organ grinder’s tune of “bomb Assad.” Remember when Kerry went before the Senate asking for authority to do exactly this same thing, what, three years ago now? When told we didn’t have the money because of sequestration, Kerry stupidly let the cat out the bag when he said the Saudis would foot the bill.
This is just more obfuscation for the people with short memories.
Great question. If Hillary is elected, she will be Obama, part two. You'd just be getting more of the same. No, I take that back.
It would be much worse. Obama is by nature lazy and risk-adverse. Hillary is driven, reckless and irresponsible. She'd be using force (and dodging sniper fire) all over the globe.
If you like war, vote Hillary.
We don't. The Saudis do. Follow the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.