obama Has The Blood Of Syrian Children On His Hands

Let's see. Former president obama said back in 2012 that if Syria used chemical weapons, it would be a "red line". Does everyone remember that? Of course you do.

Then, Russia stepped in and brokered a deal wherein Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles would be eliminated.

obama wound up with egg on his face and was exposed as the pussy that he is.

Fast forward to now. Assad uses chemical weapons (didn't he get rid of those?) on children.

Now, President Trump is having to clean up the mess left behind by that stupid idiot, obama which SHOULD have been taken care of 5 years ago but, obviously, wasn't.

What Assad did to those children in Syria is sickening. It never should have happened. obama has their blood on his hands and President Trump is now having to make decisions that should have been made long ago.

President Trump has inherited one hell of a mess from obama. One hell of a mess.

 

"Sen. Marco Rubio suggested Wednesday that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's comments about Syria could have encouraged President Bashar al-Assad to commit a deadly chemical attack. (April 5)"

You were saying, sorry, lying?

 

I put the blame squarely on obama for not taking care of this problem when he had the chance! obama said that Assad had removed chemical weapons from Syria, but that wasn't true, was it? Why didn't obama take care of this when he threatened his "red line in the sand" back in 2012?

So, now these children are dead because obama allowed a murderer and child killer like Assad to remain in power. If obama hadn't been such a failure, these children would be alive today.

Our country had an opportunity to take care of this problem 5 years ago, but obama failed miserably. Now, little dead children are the result of his failure.

This is truly sickening.

This attack has changed President Trump's focus toward Syria. One thing's for certain: he won't be the pussy that obama was.

 

Bullshit mountain speaks again and this idiot gobbles down as much crap as possible.

 

The blame never seems to end up on Trump's doorstep. How convenient. Maybe Trump's Russian buddy can do him a solid and ask Assad nicely not to gas children.

 

Congress (both Democrat and Republican) was against the direct use of American force in Syria.

Dishonestly re-writing history for partisan effect is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

 

The following is hypothetical.

For weeks, select U.S. military personnel have been in Syria, but their presence there, their mission, has been kept quiet. Some of those special forces are trained to use counter-insurgent tactics, including secret bombings made to look like an enemy attack.

Hypothetically, trump and the pentagon could have ordered our special forces to go into Syria, find chemical munitions (or bring their own), and set them off in a civilian area as enemy aircraft are overhead. This tactic provides "proof" of enemy chemical bombing of a civilian target, allowing for engagement by a greater force at a later time.

Now, all of this is hypothetical, but the U.S. does do this from time to time, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. Our nation may appear to be "sugar and sweet", but it does have a nasty, despicable side, and I try to keep that in mind when I see stuff like a semi-secret force entering a hostile country.

To date, I have no idea what our select forces are doing there, but you can be sure it's special forces on a very specific mission. What that mission is is unknown, but it fits the profile of a staged incident.

I should amend it in a couple of ways. I don't think this is trump's doing, he's too simple-minded, in my opinion. I do see the CIA doing this though, in conjunction with other higher-ups in the Pentagon.

Syria is a strategic asset, one where Russia is entrenched. It's possible that the CIA decided to do this to spur the simple-minded trump into going into Syria to lessen Russia's influence there. A staged incident fits nicely into that scenario.

One other point: The attack occurred in the last stronghold held by rebels. It wouldn't be in Syria's best interests to use chemical weapons on a force so contained, so beaten already. It's likely that within a year or two the last major remnants of the rebels would have been defeated anyway.

That also fits into a hypothetical CIA staged incident. Since the rebels appear to be on the verge of defeat, Russia and Assad stand to solidify their power there. With a staged attack, trump, and other countries, could be convinced to remove Assad from power. The effect is to hinder Russian influence in the region, so strategically it's sound.

 

President Obama had been waging war in Syria for some time:

The OP is a continuation of Obama-bashing bs, misdirection and outright lies committed by so-called conservative republican extremists bent on attacking his character at every opportunity.

Source