COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Trump condemns Syria chemical attack but won't say what action U.S. will take

59 Comments
By JOSH LEDERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


59 Comments
Login to comment

An American review of radar and other assessments showed Syrian aircraft flying in the area at the time of the attack, a U.S. official said. Russian and U.S. coalition aircraft were not there, the official said.

That's the smoking gun that Assad did it?

Syrian aircraft were in the vicinity at the time.

What a joke.

-8 ( +8 / -16 )

The Middle East is a complicated place. Trump would be wise to get experienced foreign policy advisors and listen to them. He needs to hire back foreign service diplomats. Everyone should worry that our President, a man with no foreign service experience and less understanding is involved in these matters.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

No he will send a tweet..

9 ( +12 / -3 )

@brBush Syrian aircraft were in the vicinity at the time.

I just checked Russia Today which reported this:

According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, the Syrian Air Force destroyed a warehouse in Idlib province where chemical weapons were being produced and stockpiled by rebels before being shipped to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq.

What do your other Russian 'sources' say?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

That's right. Makes perfect sense. Assad did it because he wants the US to invade his country and overthrown him. Anyone who could entertain such thoughts should probably go back to coloringbooks.

Either Trump is too trusting of the intel from the neocons and their MSM lackeys, or he's playing along so he can fire the lot of them after the investigation.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

So let me see if I got this right: the Syrian government is making major gains against the rebel/Al-Qaeda terrorist groups and has ISIS on the run, and the U.S. had changed its policy of removing Assad...and so it decides that it's time to do something that will bring world condemnation and jeopardize its advantage. Hmmm, I'm just not buying it. And remember that last time the Western media rushed to blame Assad for a chemical attack, it turned out that--after a proper investigation--it was the Turks who had supplied the chemical bomb making materials to the terrorists to use and create a false flag event to try and push Obama into declaring a no-fly zone.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

So Trump will fix Syria, NK, China, Russia, USA first and what else?

Don't think he thought it through and the real costs will be carried by US citizens may it be in taxes, costs or lifes(conscription is likely as current forces are stretched).

Expect more reshuffling and changes of goal posts down the line.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Anyone who could entertain such thoughts should probably go back to coloringbooks.

Logic is lost on most unfortunately. Anyone calling for brute force must surely stand in line to sign up for the cause instead of mashing the keyboard.

the Syrian government is making major gains against the rebel/Al-Qaeda terrorist groups and has ISIS on the run, and the U.S. had changed its policy of removing Assad

That right there was what the parties concerned could not stomach. Nothing gets mob justice revved up than watching innocent people suffer. They know this hence where we are now. As long as there's loads of money involved in anything, scenarios such as these will continue to happen!!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

the deadly chemical attack in Syria crossed “many, many lines”

Trump and his UN Ambassador may have even encouraged this attack with his dismissive attitude toward Russia and Assad. Even Turkey, the great moral compass in the area (joke), has said as much.

Now, he is drawing lines. Unfortunately, the many many lines are vague and are not a policy.

Maybe he will issue a half brained Tweet.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

We will see what Trump does. I suspect he doesn't talk about plans because he doesn't have any yet. As for not disclosing them, it's a double edged sword. If you announce your plans and start putting the pieces in place the other side has a chance to come to the table and make concessions without a single shot fired. Without that, everyone just waits and nothing changes.

In terms of reporting...

This is what moderate and left-wing newspapers printed about the "Red Line":

Obama had put Assad on notice that using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” necessitating a U.S. response, but then failed to follow through, pulling back from planned airstrikes on Assad’s forces after Congress wouldn’t vote to approve them.

This is how the right wing media presented the story:

Obama had put Assad on notice that using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” necessitating a U.S. response, but then failed to follow through, pulling back from planned airstrikes on Assad’s forces.

That's why most of the right wingers you talk to have no idea about that, and constantly blame Obama for not following through. Sometimes it's what you don't print that's just as important as what you do print.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Guess Obama should have followed up on his "red-line". Hundreds of thousands of people might still be alive today.

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

Trump told us he was going to win so much we'd be sick of his winning. Is anyone sick yet?

Guess Obama should have followed up on his "red-line". Hundreds of thousands of people might still be alive today.

One more failure by the Republican congress that refused it.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Too late now for what Obama should or shouldn't have done, focus on the now and what Trump should/can do.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

@suplib Obama had put Assad on notice that using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” necessitating a U.S. response, but then failed to follow through, pulling back from planned airstrikes on Assad’s forces after Congress wouldn’t vote to approve them.

@Wolfp Guess Obama should have followed up on his "red-line". Hundreds of thousands of people might still be alive today.

Please note bolded info above. But then I know the rightist's synapse hardened narrative is 'Obama did it'. Deal with it: it's Trump's problem.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

This is what moderate and left-wing newspapers printed about the "Red Line":

Obama had put Assad on notice that using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” necessitating a U.S. response, but then failed to follow through, pulling back from planned airstrikes on Assad’s forces after Congress wouldn’t vote to approve them.

Nice try. Obama didn't need the approval of Congress to order airstrikes. He asked for it after realizing he made a mistake with his "unscripted" red line challenge. Furthermore, what IF Congress had approved them? This could have opened the door, just as Bush had done, to a larger/broader conflict that could have led to many more deaths. Think about that please.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

As awful as this chemical attack was, it has opened Trump's eyes about Assad, his regime and the complex Syrian situation. Not that long ago Trump was adamant everyone fighting ISIS (Iran, Russia and Bashar in particular) had pretty much carte blanche that's why he didn't want to get involved in the Syrian conflict.

Thing is black and white approaches rarely work in international politics and regimes who fight the same enemies on one front may very well kill innocents with impunity.

So it's good to see the US may finally follow UK and France lead, hopefully within the UN, and make a new diplomatic push on Syria. Trump and the US on their own won't resolve anything.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Trump condemns Syria chemical attack but won't say what action U.S. will take

Because he's clueless. And so are his ultra partisan, so-called advisors.

Great that Bannon's kicked off the national security council, by the way.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Ahh, the left once again goes nuts. What's he going to do? Trump shouldn't say anything, why on Earth should he tell the people and especially the enemy what he will or won't do, seems very counterproductive to me. What a mess Obama left, jeez almighty.

Guess Obama should have followed up on his "red-line". Hundreds of thousands of people might still be alive today.

Obama was NEVER going to do anything because he thought that Assad would be scared of the anointed one and that wasn't the case. Assad just ratcheted up his rhetoric. Obama only made the threat because he didn't want to be seen as an ineffective president when it comes to confrontation with our enemies, it all backfired on him and as usual decided to the kick can down the road and here we are. His ignorance, ego and pride did this.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

Obama was NEVER going to do anything because he thought that Assad would be scared of the anointed one and that wasn't the case.

"Can you prove this?"

Obama only made the threat because he didn't want to be seen as an ineffective president when it comes to confrontation with our enemies

"How would you know this?"

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Sometimes it's what you don't print that's just as important as what you do print.

How right you are. Which is why I guess you left out the part that Obama didn't need congressional approval for such military action. He went into Libya on his own, for example. He just used the congress ploy to cover his rear when he decided to back out.

That said, it was the right decision, even if for the wrong reasons. It makes no sense fight on the side of ISIS and similar rebels against Assad, to save the children no less. As though they would be safer under ISIS. On top of that, this looks very much like an ISIS false flag to bring in the US to support their losing battle.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

As others have pointed out before, the regime has planes- the opposition doesn't and that includes ISIS. That means that this attack was carried out by the regime.

Some may ask why the regime is doing this. Being half syrian, and having lived in Syria for a LONG time under Hafez (Bashar's) father, I can offer my opinion as to why.

The regime really doesn't care about world opinion as long as Russia and Iran have got its back. When you think about it, they have a member of the security council willing to veto any action against the regime no matter what as well as fight along its side, a regional power (iran) ready to send as many fighters and weapons as needed, a bumbling US president with an incoherent policy, and a EU that is collapsing under the stress of the number of refugees. So what do they have to worry about? They can do whatever they want.

So why use chemical weapons, and why now? I think the regime wants to send a message to the rebels: we can use chemical weapons and the world can't do anything about it. It wants to strike a severe psychological blow to the opposition by telling them that all bets are on the table. Why does it feel it needs to do that? Because anyone who has lived under this regime knows that its all about terrifying people. But even more important: It also wants to retaliate against the successful counterattack the opposition had in Damascus a week or two ago. The attack was a severe psychological blow to the regime. Anyone who knows Damascus will tell you that the attack terrified the regime, as the opposition fighters got within 2km, 2 kilometers, from where Bashar was. This was a significant blow to the regime's reputation, morale, and legitimacy. That's why they launched this attack.

It also wants to send a message out to the world that there is nothing anyone can do to the syrian regime as long as Russia has got its back. Its a challenge- a middle finger to the western nations who oppose Assad.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

So, let's see, the US claims that these folks put snipers on the roof of buildings filled with civilians to get America to kill civilians, but dismisses the idea that they might have a warehouse full of chemicals with snipers on the roof to draw fire and get America to kill the troops that are liberating their civilian hostages and driving them back. I don't know which is sadder, that they make those claims, or that so many at least claim to believe them.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Of course he won't say, because he's keeping it a secret.....(he's sending his son-in-law to fix the problem).

3 ( +6 / -3 )

...a warehouse full of chemicals....

One chemical weapons expert I'd read refuted the argument that an Assad airstrike could have unintentionally released chemicals the rebels had prepared themselves by noting that such chemicals - particularly sarin - would have been mostly incinerated.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Assad may directly be killing innocent children and adults. Don't need any lecture. It's a good thing the likes of similar thinking as yours will not cloud this issue, which is far to simple for your's to understand. Sad.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Well Trump has put himself in a difficult position here; he either pushes forward and clashes with his Slav boyfriend Putin or pulls back like a coward and presents his backside for severe violation by his Slav boyfriend Putin. Judging by the emotional wreck that is Trump, I can only see the latter occurring once again. Surely Repubs are pretty butthurt too by now from their constant embarrassments?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So trumpy was so critical of the previous administrations handling of Syria, but offers no solution to end it, typical trumpism.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

"Everyone should worry that our President, a man with no foreign service experience"

At least we don't have to worry about having more Obama and Clinton bad foreign service.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I'd rather have President Trump focus on East Asia and especially finding peaceful ways of dealing with North Korea. Assad - if his forces are indeed responsible for the gas attack - poses no threat to Japan where my family lives and no threat to the USA.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

As Joeintokyo accurately points out how could Assad possibly benefit from a sarin gas attack on innocent civilians at this point? When there's a crime, the motive needs to be thoroughly taken into account. The only people who gain from this are the largely Sunni fundamentalist terrorist groups who are invading Syria and their backers; The West, Turkey and the Gulf Kingdoms. It's the 2014 "Red Line" scenario all over again, an attack that was clearly a false flag operation. Again, ask yourself about the motive of that attack. Clearly Turkey and it's terrorist allies stood to gain from US military involvement, just as they do so now more than ever in light of Trumps recent comments about Assad's ouster no longer being a US priority. How obvious does it have to be?

Take the time to read this article, largely ignore by the MSM of course.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The gas attack by the Russian backed Assad, and two aircraft delivered the deadly weapons, one Russian one Syrian, is more to do with Trump than anything to do with Obama’s redlines back in 2013.

Trump’s outspoken support of Russia and Putin probably gave Assad the confidence to do whatever he thought he could do and get away with it.

At least, its good to see Trump speak out against Assad and the sarin gas attacks and the attacks on the clinics treating the victims including children and babies.

Doctors Without Borders said victims showed signs of constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation indicative the gas was sarin. They also reported some victims smelled of bleach, indicative of possible exposure to chlorine.

Trump has now drawn his own red lines. How to act? Obama’s redline was prevented by the congress will the same happen to Trump’s.

Trump confronted by Assad and Dear Leader Kim Jong-un.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Peeking in on the conservative media. These are the number of articles on the front page dealing with certain topics:

Susan Rice / surveillance (13) Syria (3) Tupac murder mystery: 'Confession letter' names rapper's killers (1) Student shaves her head to confront ‘hair privilege (1) North Korea (1) China (1)

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Guess Obama should have followed up on his "red-line".

You mean the "red line" that was actually crossed by the "rebels"?

Assad is winning, and the US had just been hinting that they would accept Assad staying in power. It doesn't make any sense that he would now decide to do such a thing, he would have nothing to gain from this, but only lose big time. His opponents, on the other hand, are desperate, they have so much to gain from this attack, and they have been caught doing the same thing multiple times.

Recall Bush's pearl of wisdom: "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

zichi: "Trump confronted by Assad and Dear Leader Kim Jong-un."

Where's the confrontation of Trump by Assad? I doubt Assad gives a good spit about Trump (or about Obama) because Russia's in his corner. If he threatened Israel directly it could involve the USA, but Assad won't touch someone whom he couldn't beat.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Only idiots seek to blame this on Obama. This attack was perpetrated by a madman pure and simple. Why won't Trump subject Obama to his own rhetoric and concede that Obama wasn't the president of the world? The fact that this happened on Trump's watch and not Obama's is telling. When will Trump man up and stop trying to pin all and sundry on Obama? No one wants to consider that Russia backed Assad by killing tons of Syrian civilians; Russian civilians were just killed by a suicide bomber; now Assad drops a gas bomb. And it's clear to politicians of the world that Trump is a first-rate clown who arrived at the White House on a cloud of GED-holding-blue collar-middle-American-white populism. Trump can't even formulate and articulate a response. It's clear from the way he speaks he's a fish out of water: "I've changed my mind on Assad. He's crossed many lines. He's a bad guy". That's your response? Tell us something we don't already know. Trump speaks like a kindergartner. His responses are the results of being prodded by reporters, reporters who clearly have more sophisticated English than Trump does, and can easily guide him in the direction the reporters want Trump to go. The only credit I give to Trump is that he won't speak about and telegraph any military actions. But from the way he talks, I doubt he has any ideas. His only skill is to blame Obama.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Compared to chlorine or mustard gas, sarin gas is much more difficult to manufacture and weaponize due to its high volatility and toxicity - not any state can just do that

Assad is testing Trump to see where his red line is

Trump says he's gonna do something, but in 2013, he tweeted Obama --more than a few times-- not to attack Assad (even though now he's blaming Obama for doing nothing)

So what is Trump gonna do - is he gonna do the same thing as Obama?

That's the smoking gun that Assad did it?

Syrian aircraft were in the vicinity at the time.

What a joke.

That would've been enough if those were US aircraft

Though it's not a stretch to believe - when Assad admin is willing to kill civilians in times of peace to preserve stability in Syria, would it be a stretch that the Assad admin is also willing to kill civilians in times of war

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Sarin gas is not that tough to manufacture Aum did it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

One chemical weapons expert I'd read refuted the argument that an Assad airstrike could have unintentionally released chemicals the rebels had prepared themselves by noting that such chemicals - particularly sarin - would have been mostly incinerated.

I read this too, Laguna. But a BBC article I read which includes the above, also included this piece:

'However, the official who led the UN-backed operation to remove Syria's chemical weapons told the UK's Channel 4 News that the Russian version of events could not be discounted. "If it is Sarin that was stored there and conventional munitions were used, there is every possibility that some of those [chemical] munitions were not consumed and that the Sarin liquid was ejected and could well have affected the population," Jerry Smith said.'

I'm left not knowing who to believe. I was suspicious of the speed at which western governments condemned Assad. But that doesn't mean he (or some of his minions) didn't do it. I doubt learning the truth will bring much relief to those who suffered.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Only idiots seek to blame this on Obama

@Mr. Noidall - Calling Repubes idiots is a deep, deep insult to idiots

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Here is some exercise in logic.

On March 30 Tillerson said that the fate of Assad should be decided by the Syrian people. On the same day N.Haley, US ambassador to the UN, said the priority of the US policy concerning Assad is to no longer force him out of power.

So, we have an apparent shift in the US policy towards the Syrian war. And immediately after that Assad allegedly "uses chemical weapons". Is he idiot, to spoil a very favourable shift in US policy? No, I doubt it. Are Russians idiots to use chemical weapons while Putin looking for common ground with Trump administration? No, I doubt it.

So, cui prodest, as Ancient Romans used to say, "whom does it profit?". This gas attack will profit three parties:

first, the so-called opposition or, to be exact, mad headcutters of all stripes, who are loosing the war and who are desperate for anything that would help them

second, Gulf monarchies who support these thugs and who, after the thugs lose the war, lose all their investments in the war. Their plans to build a pipeline for Qatar gas through Syrian therritory will aslo be finished

third, anti-Trump forces in Washington, blinded by hatred of Trump and who are eager to force him, to corner him into the same stupid head-on confrontation with Russia, while Trump preferred cooperation on the basis of fight against terrorism.

I think that the most probable cause of this tragedy is that chemical weapons, made by the headcutters and stored in an ammunition dump in a residental area, were unknowingly detonated by Syrian planes that attacked the dump. And then started the abuse of the tragedy by MSM and bots.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

How did the rebels manufacture or buy sarin nerve agents, and the Doctors Without Borders treating the victims have stated sarin gas was used in the attack.

The only non-state actor known to have engaged in large-scale sarin production was the Aum Shinrikyo. They invested $30 million in this endeavor which included the creation of a production facility. The precursors are neither easy to obtain nor inert. Even if the precursors are obtainable, anyone trying to make sarin in an at-home lab would face a challenge because, in many ways, the ingredients are more dangerous than the final product.

Making sarin requires a sophisticated lab.

Amy E. Smithson, a researcher on chemical and biological weapons at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, who investigated the Aum Shinrikyo attacks in Japan emphasized that in assessing the capacity of non-state actors to use chemical weapons there is a huge gulf between the “theoretical possibility” and the “operational reality.”

http://warincontext.org/2013/12/11/how-easy-is-it-to-make-sarin/

Building a sophisticated lab in a 5 year war zone constantly being bombed and attacked and then obtaining enough precursors does not seem like the rebels could achieve that.

Certainly Trump Putin relationship is souring before they have even met.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

How did the rebels manufacture or buy sarin nerve agents

Headcutters can not manufacture, but nevertheless they have any weapons and equipment they want, from sophisticated arms like TOW anti-tank missiles (NATO issue, by the way) to very simple (Toyota pickup trucks). How did they get all this? From sponsors of the war - Gulf states, Turkey, Israel, CIA and other such services. Let me remind you about open border with Turkey (here are NATO weapons) and Iraq (from ISIS), plus there were reports about seizures of ships, full of weapons for headcutters. Abovementioned sponsors could provide all the technology and specialists to manufacture any kind of chemical agent for any provocation with "regime's gas attack" they desire.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Assad is testing Trump to see where his red line is

Seriously? How in the world did you come to such a preposterous conclusion?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@zichi

From you clumsy personal attack I can presume you're running out of logical arguments, and you fail with them at every attempt.

where why and how the rebels could have bought or manufactured sarin nerve gas

Where? From the same sponsors who provide missiles, rifles, ammunition, radios and everything else. Why? To kill people. How? By trucks, ships.

You consistently use the term "headcutters"

Yes, because cutting heads of their enemies is the basic thing these thugs do. ISIS, Al-Quaieda, Jabhat-an-Nusra, Nureddin-an-Zinki, Jebhat-ash-Sham - you name them.

Sarin isn't a stockpiled weapon of NATO

Neither of Assad.

Yes, no need to provide any actual evidence

Yes, you still failed to provide any evidence that this attack was made by Assad forces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SuperLib

"Obama had put Assad on notice that using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” necessitating a U.S. response, but then failed to follow through, pulling back from planned airstrikes on Assad’s forces after Congress wouldn’t vote to approve them."

Your argument is disingenuous as all hell. You know full well the War Powers Act exists. You know full well Obama launched airstrikes against Libya without Congress's approval first. And you know full well that Obama never prefaced his red-line with 'assuming Congress approves'. For someone as well acquainted in politics as you are, you can't possibly plead ignorance on these facts.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Sarin, invented by Hitler and the Nazi Germans who were afraid to use it because of the quickness of death. Not used by many country or groups and last used in Syria in Aug 2013 when the Syrian army sed it to attack a rebel area near Damascus which killed 1,429 including 426 children which was the worse attack by the nerve agent ever.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@zichi

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530

"Earlier, several Turkish newspapers had reported that 12 people from Syria's al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front who allegedly had been planning an attack inside Turkey and were in possession of 2 kg (4.5 pounds) of sarin, had been detained in Adana."

But of course Erdogan government, which backs the jihadists, quickly denied this:

"Cos said unknown chemical materials were found during the raids and sent away for investigation. He denied media reports that a small amount of the nerve agent sarin had been uncovered."

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@illyas

Not sure what you are saying with the linked story. Sarin hasn't been used in many attacks. I think this was only the second time inside Syria.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

last used in Syria in Aug 2013 when the Syrian army sed it to attack a rebel area near Damascus which killed 1,429 including 426 children which was the worse attack by the nerve agent ever.

Sounds like a good headline for the MSM bobble heads, or members of the warmongering petrodollar club. Every one else would these days call it a CIA lie.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Wolfpack: "Guess Obama should have followed up on his "red-line". Hundreds of thousands of people might still be alive today."

I love that you guys blame this on Obama not taking a harder line and "allowing" Assad to do this when 1) Trump and his cronies have not said they will do ANYTHING about it, and rather Tillerson all but said Assad can remain in power (and but a mere two or three days later, this happens!), and 2) Trump himself demanded Obama NEVER go into Syria more than once by Twitter.

From Trump: "AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"

From Trump again: "President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!"

So, what is that red-line Obama should have followed up on?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

U.S. President Donald Trump declared Wednesday the deadly chemical attack in Syria crossed “many, many lines” and abruptly transformed his thinking about Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Because Assad was a real humanitarian before - torturing and murdering thousands. We really do have someone "special" for a president.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Can you prove this?"

He almost certainly cannot.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Action US will take: i-n-a-c-t-i-o-n.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Autopies of the gas victims showing they were killed from sarin gas.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Can you prove this?"

Yeah, Assad is still in power.

"How would you know this?"

Because when he made his Red Line threat, he never intended to follow through on that promise, which goes back to my first answer, Assad is still in power, which goes back to the second answer, that's how we know.

Only idiots seek to blame this on Obama.

Some call them idiots, others call them wise and logical.

This attack was perpetrated by a madman pure and simple. Why won't Trump subject Obama to his own rhetoric and concede that Obama wasn't the president of the world?

Obama was ALL about appeasing the world, a true rock star of political standings, which he loved so much ego as big as a blimp.

The fact that this happened on Trump's watch and not Obama's is telling. When will Trump man up and stop trying to pin all and sundry on Obama?

So you understand now for 8 years we had to hear Bush this and Bush that, monotonous, isn't it?

No one wants to consider that Russia backed Assad by killing tons of Syrian civilians; Russian civilians were just killed by a suicide bomber; now Assad drops a gas bomb. And it's clear to politicians of the world that Trump is a first-rate clown who arrived at the White House on a cloud of GED-holding-blue collar-middle-American-white populism.

That sounded pretty racist to me.

Trump can't even formulate and articulate a response. It's clear from the way he speaks he's a fish out of water:

Doesn't matter, that's why all presidents have advisors, we had a president that had all the education one could receive and the guy was a totally weak and disastrous, so it doesn't matter if you can talk, doesn't make you a functioning president

"I've changed my mind on Assad. He's crossed many lines. He's a bad guy". That's your response?

So what on Earth is the president supposed to say? Obama mucked this up so badly, in all honesty, there really isn't that much that Trump can do, think about it...Obama didn't leave him with a lot of options, helping Assad is helping ISIS, helping ISIS is helping Assad, this is such a big mess made by a president trying to act tough issuing a red line and blinking in the process and now here we are.

Tell us something we don't already know. Trump speaks like a kindergartner. His responses are the results of being prodded by reporters, reporters who clearly have more sophisticated English than Trump does, and can easily guide him in the direction the reporters want Trump to go.

Ok, so besides bringing some interesting ideas to the table, the left through their usual whiny put downs, it's the only thing they can do, with comments like these the left keep on showing us why they are the party or marginalization and obscurity.

The only credit I give to Trump is that he won't speak about and telegraph any military actions. But from the way he talks, I doubt he has any ideas. His only skill is to blame Obama.

Yes and the last admin. did the same to Bush, blame, blame, anyway if I were Trump, I would just stay out as much as it pains me to see children suffer like this, but getting involved would be a monumental mistake.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Don't draw any more red lines and don't get involved. Obama blew America's opportunity to have a positive influence in Syria way before the hundreds of thousands of deaths and prior to Russia's involvement. Stay out of Syria - the Dems will support you at first then stab you in the back at the first whiff of difficulty.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Who appointed the US to be the world's police and interfere in in other country's affairs, by imposing sanctions, invading and executing state leaders, destabilizing regions to war zones???????

The US is exporting its corruption to countries that threaten to ditch the Petro-Dollar. Someone needs to stand up to this bully.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Stay out of Syria - the Dems will support you at first then stab you in the back at the first whiff of difficulty.

The Republicans on the other hand will obstruct it from happening, the blame the democrats for it not happening.

But regardless, you're right, stay out of Syria.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Republicans on the other hand will obstruct it from happening, the blame the democrats for it not happening.

Right about that.

But regardless, you're right, stay out of Syria.

You may be right. The breathtaking incompetence of Republicans in foreign policy generally and this administration in particular begs us not to get involved into another Middle East adventure on their watch.

Sadly, and as I predicted, it looks like the Trump clownshow will make the calculation that their only shot at reviving their worst-ever-popularity at this stage of a presidency is to make Trump a war time president.

Hilarious that the folks who though Trump would avoid war was a "better choice than the warmonger", are now blaming it on the "MSM" and the "CI". #dimwits

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites