Bach wrote:And who ever will ever forget how complete his sentences were back a few years ago:
"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,”
If only his resolve and commitments were a shadow of the completion of his lips!
Such a puppet of cowardice and liberal policy.
How did Obama's cautious approach to getting involved in civil wars in the Middle East have a direct and specific adverse affect on your life? Please indicate it in terms of dollars, employment, net worth, constitutional rights, civil liberties or even religious rights.
Obama could have potentially spent trillions of dollars, killed thousands of soldiers, and permanently disabled tens of thousands more by totally jumping into that war. Not having done that is a great thing for American tax payers and soldiers.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Analytics wrote: Obama could have potentially spent trillions of dollars, killed thousands of soldiers, and permanently disabled
Hmmm. Now how many have been killed in Syria by the very act and use of chemical weapons that were, by Obama, the line in the sand?
Now, how long did it take for the US to act on it, under this administration, without loss of one US life? And how many people have been killed by chemical weapons in Syria since the US actually showed resolve to act?