Obama Failed to Stop Nerve Gas Attack? He Knew It Was Coming?

Listen, clearly you have no case, when you have to tell other people what they are thinking. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I never said Obama could know the future. He laid down the red line. He knew this attack was probably about to happen if the Syrians continued their actions- if this report is true. He could have acted to prevent it and he apparently did nothing.

Now, I have a few questions for you:

Do you think Obama should resign, if he let those people be nerve gassed and did nothing?

Do you think Obama should be impeached for violating the War Powers Act by attacking Libya?

How about if he violates it twice?

 

Neo-cons? I haven't heard that term in a while......

[video=youtube;YT3Ae9IqWkU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT3Ae9IqWkU[/video]


[video=youtube;IxxwfaIAl_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxxwfaIAl_Q[/video]

It seems the Neo-Cons are in the White House. I suspect that the Left will support these Neo-Con no matter what.

 

If President Obama knew that there was a chemical weapons attack about to happen.....and did nothing about it....I would want him to resign.

Got any more SYRIA questions?

 

By expecting Obama and the Pentagon to "Know" this was going to happen you did indeed say they should have known the future. I will answer your questions, but expect you to also answer my own:

What should we have done to prevent this?

Do you think Obama should resign, if he let those people be nerve gassed and did nothing?

The United States did not "Let" anything happen, this implies we are in control of the Syrian Civil War. Just as we did not "Let" Benghazi happen.

Do you think Obama should be impeached for violating the War Powers Act by attacking Libya?

No I do not, I disagreed with the actions in Lybia but understand the reasoning behind it. I also understand this was not a violation of the WPA.

How about if he violates it twice?

If he even violates the War Powers Act once....he is breaking the law and should be held accountable.

 

Yes:

How about if he violates it twice?

 

We all know that no one can predict the future. Basically, you are saying that a secret service agent should not have shot Lee Harvey Oswald as he began to point a rifle at JFK because he could not tell the future. LOL!!!!!

Asked and answered:

I wish you guys would read the posts in the threads.


Basically, you are refusing to hold judgement on Obama because he couldn't predict the future. That is absurd.

I supposed you would be ok with FDR letting the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor despite intelligence saying that Japan intended to attack Pearl Harbor and the Japanese fleet had left port with 6 fleet aircraft carriers. The defense of Obama is laughable, if he received the intelligence that the OP article says he did.

If Syria wasn't preparing to launch WMD's what would have Obama attacked? Nothing. If they were preparing, then Obama would have had something to attack. Your defense of Obama fails, and you are simply unwilling to seriously answer the question. It is an uncomfortable one to be sure, but at least one progressive answered it directly and put his morality before politics.

 

have to love how confused republicans are right now, attack him for not having congress decide or attack him for having congress decide... lol

 

No.....no......no. Don't gloss over my answer like that, bro! Lets hear what your take on my answer is first. Libya is another discussion. You are not showing adequate interest in the answer to your question. Why would you expect a person to answer yor questions if all you do is ask another one.....about a different topic?

That is no way to have a discussion.

 

The report above shows that we had intelligence of the act 72 hours before it occurred( or in other words, 3 days).

Now, what we've all heard is that we had military contingencies and plans for over the past month. So surely, we had things in place.
You can argue, and we would indeed concur that we had no rights to begin an offensive without consulting congress.

However, we did have this information. We could have, at the very least warned the rebels or, with our financial and logistic assistance we could have helped them to avoid the attack.

So you're being dishonest in saying "we couldn't control the Syrian Civil war" Of course not, but we could control our own intelligence and our actions based on that intelligence.

Seemingly, according to reports, we did nothing. Because of course, we needed a successful chemical weapons attack in order to justify war on Syria.

The same is true BTW of Benghazi, we had at least a week prior's warning, and as we saw with that absurd utter farce of closing all of our embassies on a past, non-existent threat(based on a phone call, ROFL). We could have positioned forces closer to the embassy at the time.

Or if we couldn't do that, we could have at least evacuated them before the attack took place. We could've been pre-emptive and placed our embassy in a neutral setting in Libya where the government had a much firmer strong hold.

Though I'm on Don's side here, I'll answer his questions from my P.O.V

If Obama knew of these attacks and did absolutely nothing, he should resign. Especially after giving logistic support to the Rebels. A neutral position could have been held if we stayed out of it from the onset, but because he rushed into it like a fool as usual, we can no longer remain neutral. Imagine if we did so and the rebels were victorious, then we most certainly would be on the wrong foot with "Syria".

And I thought he should have been impeached for violating the WPA as it regards Libya, hell, further more I believe this Congress needs to be held responsible for failing to impeach him. Some might say "Then Joe Biden would take over", I'd suspend the constitution and allow for a public mandate for leadership.

There's no one within congress or the house who presently has the political qualifications or trust to hold this most important realm. If there is one among them, they must prove it with their words and with their action.

If he violates it twice, and if he resists calls for his impeachment, it's up to the U.S. Military much the same as in Egypt to follow the constitution, not their "commander in chief", in fact at that moment he would have lost his privileges.

 

I am beginning to think that you did not want answers to yor question. You seem to have prepared your reply in advance......anticipating the response that you would get. Very odd.

 

No...I am not. Equating the prevention of an assassination by seeing the assassin as he acts, bares no resemblance whatsoever to seeing a man with a gun in his backyard and assuming he is going to assassinate someone. It was well known Assad had these weapons, thus they were monitored from afar. It was noted they were being moved, and assumed this meant the possibility of use. Where, when, how and if were all unknowns.

So, basically go to war and spread massive amounts of Sarin Gas over large areas of the Syrian Population with no guarantee the stockpile was completely destroyed, and provoke the people and government into hating us even more....great plan, if you wish to be an even bigger target and kill a lot of innocent people.

It seems to me your grasp of this civil war and the players might be a bit limited.

 

Wait! What?! 72 hours is the same thing as 3 days!

Thanks for that info, bro! In the glorious words of Wendy....I feel like blowin' my mind up!

 

To be fair to him, if that is what Obama did, he would be asking the same question, posed a bit differently: "how can this incompetent president continue to led the nation and the free world? He attacked a foreign country without Congrssional approval? A US president did that!?! He should be told to resign by his party and the Media."

 

[MENTION=29154]Lone Laugher[/MENTION]:Couldn't help but notice this is essentially spam. Either rebut the points or if you can't, simply acknowledge them.

 

Are you still working on my third question?

 

I guess I'll have to spell out what I meant by "twice".

Would you support Obama's violation of the WPA, if he attacked Syria without Congressional approval?

 

You really don't think the US is watching the Syrian armed forces in real time? You are just ducking the question. Obama need not attack until he was fairly certain that the attack was imminent, but he could have already informed the leaders of Congress to the situation and his intentions should Syria begin to act. Your defense of Obama is not holding up to scrutiny and you continue to duck the question. He had three days to prepare. He did nothing.

Israel destroyed Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs with air strikes. Did they go to war with them? You aren't making sense and apparently lack a basic grasp of the history of the Middle East. You think the Syrians love us? Do you need Syrian love? Do you think they love Obama letting them get attacked with nerve gas? Another of your arguments collapses.......

Right, Obama is the brilliant foreign policy genius that gave us Benghazi. BTW- has he brought the Benghazi attackers to justice or are they still in Libya giving interviews to the US media?

 

Then you haven't been paying attention.

These people never went away.

You could see them most nights on Fox News giving their "analysis". Kagan, Kristol, even Wolfowitz made a brief renessaisnce.

Now their proxies and second stringers have spread themselves out across the conservative foreign policy establishment.

The Project for a New American Century may be dorment, but the Institute for the Study of War is alive and well, and staffed by many of the same people, advocation military involvement in the Middle East.

If the President does strike Syria, it won't be because these people want it, or on behalf of their essentially imperialistic agenda.

They had their day with George W Bush, and we are all still seeing the collateral damage from that.

 

They knew.......