For Obama / HRC supporters

He'd be sending a few more pallets of cash to Iran this morning. HRC would be accepting a few more pallets of cash from the Devil himself.

HRC would have likely put boots on the ground for "humanitarian reasons".

She was so far in the tank for the Saudis.

Obama yes, Hillary no. That was one of the main gripes about her around here. That she was going to start a war with Russia by intervening in Syria.

quote:

---

HRC would have put boots on the ground already, Obama would be drawing lines.

---

Yeah I don't think anyone who doubts what would have happened in Syria has ever listened to a word that came out of Hillary's mouth. Had Clinton been elected in 2008 we would have been on the ground in Syria for at least a couple of years now....had she been elected in 2016 we would have been at war with someone in Syria, god knows who...and at loggerheads with Russia because she was serious about a no fly zone....we would, in other words, be exactly where we are today.....about to have boots on the ground in Syria and at odds with Russia over Syria....

I didn't say he dropped them on Syria. But obviously he's not afraid to drop

Had Hillary won, we would have already been at war in Syria and possibly with Russia. Her hardline Russia stance is what started everyone down the path of "Trump is in bed with Russia" because he had a much more nuanced view.

quote:

---

I have always been critical of Obama for not following through with some sort of (even if a token) surgical strike after the red line was crossed.

---

Let's review the red line.....


LINK


The "red line"[edit]
On August 20, 2012, President Barack Obama used the phrase "red line"[27] in reference to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, saying, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."[28][29]

President Obama seeks Congressional approval for intervention[edit]
Following the publication on 30 August of the U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013, President Obama gave a speech in the White House Rose Garden on 31 August in which he announced that he would seek authorization from Congress before using American military forces to intervene in the Syrian civil war.[33][34] In the speech, he announced that he was "prepared to give that order," referring to ordering a strike on Syria.[33] Obama argued that it was necessary to intervene because the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria "risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemicals weapons" and that it put U.S. regional allies that share a border with Syria in danger.[35]

Speculation over bill passage[edit]
There was immediate speculation by the New York Times that Obama would fail to get approval from Congress for intervention in Syria as soon as he announced that he would seek such approval.[33] It called it "one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency."[33] On the day it was formally filed, September 6, it was still unclear whether the resolution would pass, with many senators having already announced their opposition.[1]

Deal to remove chemical weapons[edit]
On 10 September 2013, military intervention was averted when the Syrian government accepted a US–Russian negotiated deal to turn over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction and declared its intention to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.[50][51] The bill never received a floor vote.


And don't forget.....

quote:

---

Greatest Success

---

Its an amazing day when a want is supporting trump

Of course you libs think that

Cant wait for your narrative that vlad and don set this up together