After the incident the 'saber rattling' began. puppet-spicer, from the White House pulpit, announced that
"[t]oday's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world". I listened to spicey-boy say this and I found it curious that he tripped over the word 'civilized'.
Niki Haley, our U.N. Ambassador said that if the U.N. fails to respond in the appropriate way, “there are times in the life of states when we are compelled to take our own actions”.
I have to point out here that trump's command of the English language leaves a good deal to be desired. With the use of the word "this", his sentence makes zero sense. If he insists on using the word "this", then he needs to understand that the sentence is unfinished or that different wording was required after the use of the word "this". If he wanted to end this sentence where it does end, then he needed to use the word "the" in place of "this". Read it both ways and you will easily see what I mean
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
2:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013
The astute observation? trump is oh too willing to 'pull the trigger' on using military force in Syria, but at the same time contradicts himself by not wanting Syrian refugees in our country. How does he reconcile these two actions that are 180 degrees from one another? I suspect he hasn't a clue.
Last night, in a speech to our nation, he informed us that he had ordered a strike on the Syrian airbase that launched the chemical attack. This is a knee jerk response. I, personally do not have a problem with a measured military response to such a heinous act, although if possible I would always choose this as an absolutely last resort. What needs to be understood is the difference between a knee jerk reaction and thought out response as part of a clear strategy to work through a traumatizing world issue.
trump's stance on Assad prior to this week was one of hands off. he refused to see the obvious danger that Assad presents to the world. In recent days, before this chemical attack, trump's various Bozo's described Mr. Assad’s hold on his office as a political reality. trump et.al. have refused to acknowledge the unstabilizing force that Assad is. This stance was echoed by various administration officials, including Secretary of state, rex tillerson.
Last week tillerson said that Assad’s fate “will be decided by the Syrian people”. This week, after the chemical attack and when asked asked if Assad needs to go, tillerson said, “Assad’s role in the future is uncertain clearly and with the acts that he has taken, it will seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”
tillerson said that to get Assad out of power will require “an international community effort”. he pointed out that it will involve first defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), then to stabilize Syria as a country to avoid further civil war, and lastly to work collectively with U.S. partners for a political transition. he also said “Those steps are underway.” It is noteworthy that if you remove tillerson's southern draw, this sounds a great deal like Jon Kerry and President Obama.
During trump's national television broadcast, he told us that we had launched tomahawk missiles from U.S. ships, that were aimed at the Syrian airbase strongly believed to have launched the chemical attack. In his remarks, trump gave, the following as a reason for launching this reactionary unilateral action:
Last night, in a speech to our nation, he informed us that he had ordered a strike on the Syrian airbase that launched the chemical attack. This is a knee jerk response. I, personally do not have a problem with a measured military response to such a heinous act, although if possible I would always choose this as an absolutely last resort. What needs to be understood is the difference between a knee jerk reaction and thought out response as part of a clear strategy to work through a traumatizing world issue.
trump's stance on Assad prior to this week was one of hands off. he refused to see the obvious danger that Assad presents to the world. In recent days, before this chemical attack, trump's various Bozo's described Mr. Assad’s hold on his office as a political reality. trump et.al. have refused to acknowledge the unstabilizing force that Assad is. This stance was echoed by various administration officials, including Secretary of state, rex tillerson.
Last week tillerson said that Assad’s fate “will be decided by the Syrian people”. This week, after the chemical attack and when asked asked if Assad needs to go, tillerson said, “Assad’s role in the future is uncertain clearly and with the acts that he has taken, it will seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”
tillerson said that to get Assad out of power will require “an international community effort”. he pointed out that it will involve first defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), then to stabilize Syria as a country to avoid further civil war, and lastly to work collectively with U.S. partners for a political transition. he also said “Those steps are underway.” It is noteworthy that if you remove tillerson's southern draw, this sounds a great deal like Jon Kerry and President Obama.
During trump's national television broadcast, he told us that we had launched tomahawk missiles from U.S. ships, that were aimed at the Syrian airbase strongly believed to have launched the chemical attack. In his remarks, trump gave, the following as a reason for launching this reactionary unilateral action:
"It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."
Okay, making fun of d. j[ackass] aside, these twit tweets from 2013 will clearly show trump for the d. j[ackass] that he is. President Obama, in 2012, drew a "red line" with reference to Assad using chemical or biological weapons. In 2013, Assad committed genocide by killing more than 1,000 people with chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus. President Obama went to Congress to get our representatives' approval for sustained military action, which the republican dominated Congress voted against. At that time trump twit tweeted on the subject as you can read, below:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
2:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment