Excellent question. You have to ask yourself, why all of the attention on Assad and why now? Assad is a secular leader in a predominantly Moslem environment. He has kept the peace in his nation for the vast majority of his tenure. But until BHO and HRC started their shite in the ME, no one paid any attention to him.
Egypt nearly falls to the Moslem Brotherhood, Libya does fall, Tunisia has seen an increase in MB affiliated groups as well as several other North African states. But Syria? What benefit would Assad have of attacking his own people? Were Assad to fall, who would fill the void?
IMHO BHO and HRC would see fruition to their plan to have the MB take over Syria and subsequently provide a safe haven for those that seek the destruction of Israel.
Hillary(!) said Syria is “a hotbed of terrorism”. And remember, “America is great because we are good”. [projectile vomit]
I guess that my root question is:
Does the USA oppose Assad simply because The RussianBear is supporting Assad? Does this not mean that the USA will contermand activities in Syria simply based on ideology?
Putin says, “Yes”. USA says “NO” (queue the Beatles, please..)
Assad defends his people against ISxx-whomever, we can’t find a liberty agreement while searching for the “hole-in-our-ass” with both hands.
Really, do we (USA) oppose Assad simply because Putin supports him? That is bad ju-ju my friends, just bad ju-ju.