Forget Obamacare -- Aleppo is Obama’s legacy

Dr. Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, says President Barack Obama’s legacy is the utter chaos and destruction that is in Aleppo, Syria, as the result of a years-long civil war between Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and rebel forces trying to overtake the government.

“Obama imagines that the Obama [Iran] deal is his legacy. It is not. Aleppo is his legacy,” Krauthammer said on Fox News Thursday.

“History will remember this as kind of the symbolism of the whole policy of retreat and the inevitable outcome,” he added.

The outspoken Obama administration critic made the point that the Syrian civil war would have happened regardless of what the U.S. did. But, he added, how the U.S. handled the situation left much to be desired.

“The civil war was in a sense in equilibrium a year and a half ago when the Russians decided that their side, Assad, was losing. The rebels were actually on the advance in Aleppo and elsewhere. He stepped in to rescue Assad, then he saw that there was no response on the part of the West, no penalties whatsoever, even economic, coming from the United States and he decided to drive the advantage,” Krauthammer explained.

The result of the administration’s decision not to more aggressively intervene in the region, Krauthammer argued, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power “pleading” with the Iranians, Russians and Syrian dictator to stop the killing.

“Are you truly incapable of shame? Is there literally nothing that can shame you? Is there no act of barbarism against civilians, no execution of a child that gets under your skin?” Power said Tuesday.

Krauthammer responded to Power’s comments on Thursday, saying, “The answer is obvious they have none.”

“The only thing that could have stopped this, ultimately, would have been some kind of deterrent from the United States, warning from the United States. We didn’t, and now we have what we have,” Krauthammer concluded.

So why don't you tell us exactly how a Republican president would have handled it? Ground troops? Body bags? How many American soldiers, sailors, or airmen would he have thrown in there?

Be specific.

The Alt Right doesn't deal in detail, Irn.  Aleppoo is a city in Syria, and the Republican Congress has refused to declare a war in Syria, which would be a constitutional condition precedent to any more action than air strikes

ftnote 1:

This is the way the Alt right reasons: Although, constitutionally only Congress can declare war, a Republican would have ignored the Constitution and gone in on a white horse, guns ablazing.  Constitutions and precautions are for pussies, and anyone who doesn't support us is against us.  Wasn't that GWB's position, that got us the longest war in US history, $17-trillion in debt and the October 2008 almost depression?

Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a physician, not trained or skilled in political science.  He appears predominately on Faux News.  Here, he conveniently ignores (or perhaps he doesn't know) Art. I of the US Constitution grants only Congress the authority to declare war.  Krauthammer also conveniently leaves out that Congress was in Republican hands at the time.  Aleppo is a Republican legacy; Obama had nothing to do with it.  Aleppo is a victim of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine.

ftnote 2:

 

Republicans put party before country, and it was barren US lawmaking that left the Syrians defenseless.

ASSAD rose to power while being ignored by the former_presidents Bush, and under Putin's sponsorship;   while as Quill has pointed out above, it has been the Republican controlled Congress that has prevented the US joining in actions in Syria...

At the same time, Trump and various business chums have been increasingly cosying up to Putin in that part of the world..

No real surprise then, to see our GOP troll Ivanka peddling Fox/Tea Party/ Zionist attempts at rewriting history, and attempting to blame Obama for the fallout from GWB/Putin/Iranian machinations, is it  !        

Many Republicans privately say a vote for a new AUMF would be seen as tantamount to approving Obama’s foreign policy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/paul-ryan-islamic-state-military-force-217429

Rank politics to take a crisis like Aleppo, do nothing about it because it might send an inconvenient message, and then try to beat Obama over the head with it.

Politico wrote:Ryan’s desire to define the mission against the Islamic State would be one of his most ambitious efforts since taking over as speaker in late October. Ryan has said he wants to use 2016 to craft a new Republican policy slate and defining the mission against what most consider to be a major world threat could help bolster the party’s national security chops.

Hidden beneath the Republican cowardice and inaction regarding ISIS is a profound reluctance on the part of the American people to endure any more adventures in the middle east.  Obama got us out of Iraq, and cooled heels in Afghanistan, and the American public wants no more of it.  

Americans realize that neither Iraqis nor Syrians were involved in 9/11, and there are no WMD's in Iraq.  There are a lot of belligerent people in what is known as ISIS, but their heavy armor are pickup trucks and, with no navy, they pose no threat to us.  Now, whatever else Americans are, they are eminently practical people...they no longer see the percentage in hopping over to kill a few Arab babies, and then take on the Chinese or North Koreans, just to be ballsy.

Trump is going to have a hard sell getting people to enjoy the pleasure of foreign adventures for the hell of it.  There's no money in it, we are not threatened by them, and really, killing babies just doesn't seem like fun anymore.  Trump will quickly adopt a WTF attitude with regard to ISIS...he recognizes a bad investment when he sees one.

I know Trump said he was going to fix things with ISIS, but he also said he was for the workers, and then picked no minimum wage, Andy Puzder, for Labor Secretary.  The Wall is quickly turning into a 12' Anchor Fence here and there.  Even Hillary gets to walk.  Trump has shown he has no problems giving the lie to everything he said during the campaign.  Why would this be any different?

I think Mr. Ryan and pussy-grabber are going to have a showdown sometime soon next spring.

.

IT WAS George Bush Snr. who was responsible for originally stuffing up in Iraq...

He went into Kuwait with the first Gulf War, in 1990/'91, to send Saddam's troops back home;  but had no follow up plans for once 'Desert Storm's' primary aims were achieved..


The allied forces back then could have carried through to Baghdad, and permanently crippled Saddam Hussein's hold on power.  No need for a 2nd Gulf War a decade later;  no rise of ISIL in more recent years..

Instead, Bush had his two leading Generals taken back to the USA to hit the talk circuits and GOP political missions...


And the allies later on even had to put an Aussie colonel in there to tidy up some of the messes resulting from the elder Bush's incompetence ..  

Repub' apologists and revisionists certainly have a hide, constantly attempting to Blame Obama for decisions originally made by both Bushes, Rumsfeld and Cheney..        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:.

IT WAS George Bush Snr. who was responsible for originally stuffing up in Iraq...

He went into Kuwait with the first Gulf War, in 1990/'91, to send Saddam's troops back home;  but had no follow up plans for once 'Desert Storm's' primary aims were achieved..

The allied forces back then could have carried through to Baghdad, and permanently crippled Saddam Hussein's hold on power.  No need for a 2nd Gulf War a decade later;  no rise of ISIL in more recent years..

Instead, Bush had his two leading Generals taken back to the USA to hit the talk circuits and GOP political missions...

And the allies later on even had to put an Aussie colonel in there to tidy up some of the messes resulting from the elder Bush's incompetence ..  

Repub' apologists and revisionists certainly have a hide, constantly attempting to Blame Obama for decisions originally made by both Bushes, Rumsfeld and Cheney..        

I have to disagree on one minor point: George H. W. Bush showed strategic wisdom in limiting his actions to Kuwait.  Saddam Hussein was a pawn in a huge chessboard.  It was precisely the leaving of Saddam Hussein in place that prevented--albeit, temporarily--the mess we are in today.  His son and the Neo-cons fucked it all up of course, but had his policy been left in place we would not have had the al Qaeda growth, the emergence of ISIS and the explosion of the middle east that we now have.  

Ever the wiser, never forget that Bush Sr. was the former head of the CIA, and well-schooled in geopolitics...his son was schooled in running a baseball team.  By leaving Hussein in place, Bush Sr. created a firewall that shored up the dam--to wantonly mix metaphors.

GWB (the junior) recklessly and unscrupulously tore the dam down.  GWB was a spineless, brainless idiot who was no match for the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Wolfowitzs and the Boltons around him...and they had none of the wisdom that caused Bush Sr. to forbear.  The argument Bush Jr. and the Neo-cons used was that Bush Sr. left unfinished business in place that needed to be rectified.  That business, in fact, was one and the same as the boiling cauldron that Sr. didn't want to tip over. Hussein held in check the Sunnis, the Shi'ites, and the Kurds, as well as other factions. 

They claimed Bush Sr. was careless...yeah, careless like a fox!