-Obama said, on multiple occassions, that Assad using chemical weapons would be a "red line". Assad crossed it. Obama did not strike Assad.
-Syrians asked repeatedly for a no-fly zone like that imposed against Gaddafi, to prevent Assad from pulverizing residential neighborhoods. Obama refused.
-Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey wanted to send serious weapons to those struggling against Assad. Obama essentially vetoed any such steps.
I'd also contrast with what Obama did when Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane with the loss of a pilot, he didn't even offer the slightest of rebukes to Turkey, but rather slapped additional sanctions on Russia. Standing by allies right or wrong seems to be a bipartisan thing.
nit: The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to. obscures the reality that the opposition party - and its grassroots supporters was ruthless in opposing all that Obama did, often for no apparent reason. For instance, the SCOTUS nominee. It was poor behavior, giving us "legislative debt", as it fostered executive action over legislative action.
Regarding the point 6), he actually did achieve that - missile shields in Czech Rep. and Poland were cancelled. I am not Obama fan, but there were much worse choices in the past.
This is nothing new though, Obama committed extensive bombing in Syria too. Obama's initial reason for involvement was alleged chemical weapons. I don't see how this qualifies as direct action while everything else we've been doing there for the past 5+ years is not. Still, that's not to say this isn't horrible.
Here's a reminder for people of what Obama was up to:
Just one example: "The day before the Archives speech, the Democratic-held Senate dealt Obama’s plans an even harsher blow. By a blowout bipartisan margin of 90-9, the Senate rejected financing the closure. A Senate leadership aide at the time, stunned by what she considered White House lassitude, explained why even people inclined to help Obama would vote against the measure: Obama had decreed Guantánamo be closed without presenting lawmakers with a specific plan they could defend to skeptical constituents."
To be fair though, there's a lot in that article to justify getting angry at both Democrats and Republicans. For example:
"As implied by the term, Graham spent the summer of 2009 looking beyond Guantánamo. His basic proposition to the White House, reported in detail in Charlie Savage’s 2015 book Power Wars, was to deliver the votes in the Senate for shuttering Guantánamo and opening a replacement facility. In exchange, Graham wanted a broader wartime detentions policy than Obama was willing to embrace. It would allow the US military to continue making captures far beyond the declared battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, sending them to the alternative site. When trial was an option, it would occur in the military commissions."
Dirty politics, absolutely unacceptable (to me).
These things are extremely complicated. I really dislike this simplistic recurring narrative (not you specifically, I'm speaking in general) that everything is the Republican's fault. I have no problem believing this is usually true, it is the implicit assertion that it is always true that bothers me.
Although, the Republicans now have a historic opportunity to show their true colors with no excuses....I am ready to be extremely disappointed.
I would like examples of Obama authorizing the assassination of journalists/activists/etc., and not someone who's been called the "bin Laden of the Internet". Its much easier to be outraged about extrajudicial killings when the target isn't linked to Al Qaeda.
>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal
It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.
The problem, though, is that some of Obama's accomplishments aren't "accomplishing nothing"--they're accomplishing bad things. In particular, the "red line" in Syria and the (effective) capitulation to Russia over Ukraine feel eerily similar to the run-up to WWII, where the Allies capitulated to Hitler rather than go to war and ended up going to war when Germany was a lot stronger and harder to counter. In contrast, the situation of the Cuban missile crisis was resolved in large part by JFK refusing to let the USSR declare a new normal.
As a thought experiment, do you think that Putin would have attempted to dislodge Crimea from Ukraine or Assad would have used chemical weapons had Bush still been in power? If you're tempted to answer "no," then that is a success of Bush's foreign policy. But if words will never be backed up with power, then words are just words and can be safely ignored.
I wonder how Obama has such a hold over the rights imagination. He was a bad president all in all (Syrian red lines/biofuel caused Arabian spring) but not exceptionally though. He definitely was no bush or Trump. And the ability to direct affairs for president or congress has significantly shrunk ever since the cold War ended.
There is always a choice, and he made his. Choice to bomb and crush Libya in 2014, which became a stone-age bloodbath ever since, choice to invade and bomb Syria in 2014, choice to continue wasting lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were deliberate decisions, not something inherited from someone.
At some point Obama might have to take an actual stand on something, and then follow up on it. Him being a politician doesn't absolve him of his uselessness.
Last example: ooh Putin, you're going to face costs for these shenanigans!
That one is actually easier to swallow than others if the implication is just that Obama is soft on threats. Every leader can be considered 'complicit' in that regard.
-Obama said, on multiple occassions, that Assad using chemical weapons would be a "red line". Assad crossed it. Obama did not strike Assad.
-Syrians asked repeatedly for a no-fly zone like that imposed against Gaddafi, to prevent Assad from pulverizing residential neighborhoods. Obama refused.
-Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey wanted to send serious weapons to those struggling against Assad. Obama essentially vetoed any such steps.
reply