| | | CJ, I'll bring up one because it's the clearest example of liberals prematurely claiming a "foreign policy" victory for Obama.
Remember when Syria was using chemical weapons against it's own citizens? Obama talked tough before backing down in a transparent move toward Congress. (Cause you know, Congress mattered to him at the time.)
In comes Putin announcing a deal where Syria gets rid of its chemical weapons. You know, the weapons that Syria claimed they never used, but promised they'll never use again? That was a sham deal on its surface, plus it didn't address the allegations that Syria already used them. That's like telling a murder suspect that, if he gives up his guns, all is forgiven.
Yet the liberals cheered this deal as a foreign policy victory for Obama. No bombs were dropped, and Syria gives up its stockpile of WMD. Which of course they never used in the first place, uh huh. Which of course they will never use again, uh huh.
Meanwhile, reports of chemical weapon usage are once again popping up, some as recently as last week:
news.sky.com
Really? I thought the issue of Syrian chemical weapons was under control now. Obama was the one who did that without firing a shot, right?
(Arguably, this brutality may be driving a lot of people in the region toward ISIS.)
By the way, the complexity of the situation, where "frienemies" seem to change with the desert winds, could point to the wisdom of isolationism. But even Obama doesn't have the backbone to declare that.
And that's not a "nuance" that you can easily dismiss like you always do with other inconvenient truths. That's something that, in my mind, would be a lot better than the wishy-washiness of this thin-skinned, arrogant administration.
Tenchusatsu |
|
