Sad state of hyperpartisan america.
People support or oppose military action based upon the party of the president.
People high-five the Gorsuch confirmation while being unable to intelligently discuss a single one of his rulings.

Flip flopping, and lying are either vital or unimportant based upon what team jersey the guy wears

Obama made the threat about the red line and then when that line was clearly crossed he backed peddled.
He could of taken some type of action but decided against that and then tried to place the blame on congress for his inaction. So we know what happened after he refused to follow through with some military action. Hundreds of thousands killed and a massive refugee problem that has cause problems across the world. All he had to do was do what he said he would and a completely different tone would have been set.

September 1, 2013,
Obama's request for congressional approval on a Syria strike marks "retreat," Syrian state media says
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-request-for-congressional-approval-on-a-syria-strike-marks-retreat-syrian-state-media-says/

"Whether the Congress lights the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Al-Thawra said.

"Obama has given himself a chance to take a step backward by talking about Congress' approval and to search for other parties to participate in the attack," Haidar told The Associated Press by telephone. "In other words, he wants to keep brandishing the sword of aggression on Syria without fully giving up the idea of an attack and even without setting a definite date for the aggression."

Last edited by Common Sense (4/09/2017 9:23 am)

Obama says U.S. will take military action against Syria, pending Congress’s approval

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?utm_term=.c3093d18625e

August 31, 2013
Shifting the burden to Congress potentially gives the president a way out of the political bind he created last year when he said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for the United States.

It also buys the administration time to shore up domestic and international support for a strike that many came to see as a hasty response with potentially catastrophic consequences.The decision could work in Assad’s favor, giving him more time to prepare for an attack that could ultimately become politically untenable for Obama.Obama argued Saturday that the United States would be setting a dangerous precedent if it did not respond to the Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb, which U.S. intelligence officials say killed nearly 1,500 civilians, including 426 children.

“This attack is an assault on human dignity,” Obama said in an impassioned afternoon address in the White House Rose Garden. “It also presents a serious danger to our national security. . . . It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”

Last edited by Common Sense (4/09/2017 9:29 am)

Common Sense wrote:

Obama made the threat about the red line and then when that line was clearly crossed he backed peddled.
He could of taken some type of action but decided against that and then tried to place the blame on congress for his inaction. So we know what happened after he refused to follow through with some military action. Hundreds of thousands killed and a massive refugee problem that has cause problems across the world. All he had to do was do what he said he would and a completely different tone would have been set.

September 1, 2013,
Obama's request for congressional approval on a Syria strike marks "retreat," Syrian state media says
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-request-for-congressional-approval-on-a-syria-strike-marks-retreat-syrian-state-media-says/

"Whether the Congress lights the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Al-Thawra said.

"Obama has given himself a chance to take a step backward by talking about Congress' approval and to search for other parties to participate in the attack," Haidar told The Associated Press by telephone. "In other words, he wants to keep brandishing the sword of aggression on Syria without fully giving up the idea of an attack and even without setting a definite date for the aggression."

 


So, now you're giving credence to some press release by the Syrian state media spokesman criticizing Obama inaction in 2013 due to the U.S. Legislature's abdication of their responsibility when it comes to a declaration of war? The various conflicts in the Mideast and the U.S. Military involvement shortcomings has much more to do with the inability of the federal legislative branch's inability to stand up and perform their constitutionally defined responsibilities than the actions of any president since the 1950's.