But the story didn't start after Syria used chemical weapons the second time. Obama was very resistant to get involved prior to that. He made absolutely no attempt. The first time he mentioned to get involved was in March or so when the first set of chemical weapon accusations were made. Obama said he would send in small arms. Did he actually go through with it? No. Also, there was very little pushback against intervention at that time.
Then, when Assad used chemical weapons the second time, it took Obama a long time before deciding to attack. Also, I remember a lot of articles calling Obama weak because he did not respond quickly to his "red line".
So I ask you the question. Did Obama delay attacking Assad because he secretly wanted to get involved but couldn't think of an excuse or because he didn't want to get involved but felt he had to because Assad crossed his red line?
Yes there was pushback after he decided to attack but then also you have to assume that Obama was suddenly influenced by the media when his past history does not always line up with that. Also, I read sources from all sides and while there was a strong non-interventionist push, there was definitely interventionist voices as well. So it wasn't "everyone" or even close to "everyone". The 90% of American against intervening in Syria poll was a skewed question that was not representative. The true poll was more like 60%.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
You, too, need to look further. Up until the second chemical weapons attack, he was refusing to get involved militarily. Then he decided he had to maintain his "red line", and made the impassioned speech. Luckily for everyone (except the moderate rebels in Syria), an out appeared, and he jumped at it.
|
Yes.