Posted on 08/12/2014 6:40:04 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
President Obama recently told lawmakers that their criticism of his policy in Syria is “horse****,” according to a report published late Monday.
A member of Congress told The Daily Beast Obama used the expletive during a July 31 meeting at the White House just before the August recess.
Another lawmaker also said that the president got visibly angry after both Democrats and Republicans questioned the administration’s policy.
Many lawmakers and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have urged Obama to arm Syrian rebels to push back at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, attended the meeting and asked a long question in which he sharply criticized a series of U.S. foreign policies, one lawmaker said.
Obama responded by defending the administration’s approach in Syria, arguing that the idea that arming the rebels earlier would have produced a better outcome was “horse****,” the lawmaker told The Daily Beast.
White House officials confirmed the tense exchange, but did not confirm the president used the expletive, the report said.
Rep. Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, arrived late to the meeting and caught part of Obama's defense of his policy. Engel said he heard Obama use more polite language.
“The president still feels very strongly that we are deluding ourselves if we think American intervention in Syria early on by assisting these rebels would have made a difference,” Engel told The Daily Beast. “He still believes that. I disagree, respectfully. They were not looking for U.S. troops, they were looking for help and the Syria civil war started with the most noblest of causes.”
Clinton suggested in an interview with The Atlantic published Sunday that the administration might have been able to stop ISIS’s rise if the U.S. had more aggressively armed Syrian rebels in 2012.
Over the last year, the CIA reportedly began to arm the moderate opposition groups in Syria. In June, Obama proposed a $500 million package to train and equip them.
Obama told The New York Times in an interview published Friday that the idea that arming Syrian rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy.”
“This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”
The most thin-skinned person ever....
>> He’s going to have a melt down one of these days.
Can’t come to soon to suit me. It won’t be pretty for many of us... but once it’s over we’ll be rid of the satanic bastard.
He dodges responsibility because he is terrified at the thought of being held accountable for anything that would make him look bad. IMO this deep seated insecurity essentially paralyzes him. His failures are progressively snowballing into an avalanche. He’s really starting to feel the pressure.
Putin on the other hand makes more sense than the whole bunch. He must have Obama's ear on the issue.
The Dems are in full panic mode. They will be calling for his impeachment Labor Day. By then rev al will have the cities in full riot mode.
I really need to let it all out.
Since I don’t think arming ANY Islamic ‘rebel’ is a good idea, then the Syrian policy isn’t bad because it didn’t arm good jihadists before arming bad jihadists.
Arming them at all was stupid. Pretending they were better than Assad was stupid. Every single step of this president’s policy toward the middle east has been calculated to get muslim brotherhood type factions or sympathizers into power.
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
Occam’s Razor: Obama wants radical islamists in charge of middle eastern governments.
20 bucks cash money says no way.
He will nuke a major American city.
Probably a liberal cess-pit.
The betrayal when they wake up will be too much for him to bear.
The thought that we should've given MORE weapons to rebels who couldn't keep the first time....doesn't that meet the definition of insanity?
Make it Thanksgiving and I’m in for $20.
Hillary Clinton ranks right up there with the Nazi Germans when, towards the end of the war, tried to assassinate Hitler to avoid war crimes.
The only difference is she’s using verbal assassination to avoid being tied to 0 before ‘16 elections.
All good points.
But 0bama wanted to bomb assad on the behalf of isis anyway.
Think about this- how many times was either presidents bush or Ronald Reagan “visibly angry” at criticism over their policy? They weren’t narcissists like the current child in the white house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.