Obama on ISIS "We have no strategy"

[paulitician]

The threat of ISIS is being greatly exaggerated. But why such exaggeration? I'll have to let people figure that out for themselves.

 

[Synthaholic]

One year ago the administration was touting Assad as a modern day Hitler and needed to be bombed.

Yet, today we are helping Assad by conducting air strikes on his rebel enemies.

Go figure...........

False. He is not bombing Syria. Which is why he said there was no strategy yet. They do not want to help Assad by attacking ISIS in Syria.

Well NotFooledByW seems to believe Obama is acting decisivly by bombing. Both of you are Obama knee padders. So which is it?

He is bombing in Iraq but not in Syria because he doesn't want to help Assad.

Got it now, dope, or do you need pictures in crayon?

Hmm loks like it's not going over well with his liberal wing:
Tell President Obama Don t Bomb Iraq CREDO Action

Correct. We Liberals want the ME countries to deal with their own problems.

You wingnuts want to explode our debt again with another war.

So why are you supporting Obama's bombing campaign?
Geez you're all over the map here. No consistency at all. Just like Obama.

Where have I supported the U.S. bombing ISIS, dope?

 

[alan1]

He has no strategy because he is utterly and completely lost. One of the main purposes of the President is to act on foreign affairs (Congress is supposed to handle most domestic affairs). Barack Obama is clueless when it comes to foreign affairs. I know it, you know it, and the media knew it years ago. The same media that touted him as "revolutionary", "amazing", "intelligent", etc. also failed to ask him about foreign policy, then they probably voted for him.

Here is Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose admitting how they (as supposed journalists) failed to ask Mr Obama the important questions about a Presidents responsibility for foreign affairs. They actually admit that they don't know his thoughts or policies on foreign affairs.


The above is a perfect example of journalistic malpractice. They got so caught up in their own hype of "The First Black President" that they failed to actually question and learn his foreign policy during the first campaign. They did it again during the second campaign.
And the result is that we now have a President that has no idea of what to do concerning ISIS, the Ukraine/Russia situation, China or North Korea.. He is a buffoon when it comes to foreign affairs.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[House]

So you are arguing that ISIS should not be attacked because it would help Assad?

Correct .....

I'm shocked that a guy who calls himself Sunni Man supports a group of radical Sunni terrorists!

Sarcastic sarcasm is sarcastic?

 

[paulitician]

So you are arguing that ISIS should not be attacked because it would help Assad?

Correct .....

I'm shocked that a guy who calls himself Sunni Man supports a group of radical Sunni terrorists!

Assad is the mad dog terrorist who needs to be put down. .....

Yeah, so ISIS can take Syria.

The West and several Sunni Muslim Nations in the region are to blame for ISIS. They funded & armed them. Putin warned that Assad was the safer play. But the West and especially Saudi Arabia, didn't listen. Just more tragic Blow Back.

 

[Sunni Man]

So you are arguing that ISIS should not be attacked because it would help Assad?

Correct .....

I'm shocked that a guy who calls himself Sunni Man supports a group of radical Sunni terrorists!

Assad is the mad dog terrorist who needs to be put down. .....

You just don't like him because he's a Shiite.

Actually. he is an Alawite.......which aren't even muslims.

Assad is for more brutal and blood thirsty than ISIS. .....

 

[TEA Party Patriot]

So you are arguing that ISIS should not be attacked because it would help Assad?

Correct .....

I'm shocked that a guy who calls himself Sunni Man supports a group of radical Sunni terrorists!

Assad is the mad dog terrorist who needs to be put down. .....

You just don't like him because he's a Shiite.

Actually. he is an Alawite.......which aren't even muslims.

Assad is for more brutal and blood thirsty than ISIS. .....

Nice try with the taqiyya, but I'm not falling for it. Alawites are mudslimes.

As for Assad being more brutal, all the more reason to just start dropping the bombs over that whole area. Take out all of the non-Christians and non-Jews and let God's People have the whole thing.

 

[HenryBHough]

Given Obama's track record with strategy it might be just as well that He has none just now.

 

[TEA Party Patriot]

So you are arguing that ISIS should not be attacked because it would help Assad?

Correct .....

I'm shocked that a guy who calls himself Sunni Man supports a group of radical Sunni terrorists!

Assad is the mad dog terrorist who needs to be put down. .....

Yeah, so ISIS can take Syria.

The West and several Sunni Muslim Nations in the region are to blame for ISIS. They funded & armed them. Putin warned that Assad was the safer play. But the West and especially Saudi Arabia, didn't listen. Just more tragic Blow Back.

The choice between one mudslime and another is like the choice between being in the frying pan or in the fire. We just need to get rid of Isis and Assad, and Putin too while we're at it.

 

[paulitician]

One year ago the administration was touting Assad as a modern day Hitler and needed to be bombed.

Yet, today we are helping Assad by conducting air strikes on his rebel enemies.

Go figure...........

False. He is not bombing Syria. Which is why he said there was no strategy yet. They do not want to help Assad by attacking ISIS in Syria.

Well NotFooledByW seems to believe Obama is acting decisivly by bombing. Both of you are Obama knee padders. So which is it?

He is bombing in Iraq but not in Syria because he doesn't want to help Assad.

Got it now, dope, or do you need pictures in crayon?

Hmm loks like it's not going over well with his liberal wing:
Tell President Obama Don t Bomb Iraq CREDO Action

Correct. We Liberals want the ME countries to deal with their own problems.

You wingnuts want to explode our debt again with another war.

You may want that personally, but most in your Party want more interventions and war. And they certainly don't care about the Debt. So you might not be a 'Liberal/Progressive' after all. Think about it a bit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. First, just because a pol doesnt use the word clueless doesnt mean that's not what he's saying.

And conversely it does not mean it is what he or she is saying. So you lied and are now trying to hide behind semantics.

. You can play semantic games all day long but when Democrats are criticizing the president for being too cautious, you know he's not doing the right thing.

No. You are flat out wrong. We don't 'know' that Obama is not doing the right thing. That is a very stupid argument. The critics (McCain) here have demonstrated that they can be horribly wrong on military and intelligence matters very often in the past.

And further against your argument there, you have cited a report about too much caution on the part of the president. You failed to point out that your report also cited political support for the Commander in Chief's cautious approach.


So basically you are showing that you have no ability to objectively read a non-partisan balanced report and use what you read in your arguments.

You are a political hack working overtime to undermine US foreign and military policy solely for domestic tribal advances.

 

[Synthaholic]

Actually. he is an Alawite.......which aren't even muslims.

You are correct. But he aligns himself with Shiite, not Sunni.

Assad is for more brutal and blood thirsty than ISIS. .....

No he isn't. Assad isn't trying to conquer land he does not already rule over. Assad isn't beheading journalists on the internet. Assad isn't proudly slaughtering women and children, promising more to come. Assad is doing what his father always did, and what the Kim boys did in North Korea, and what every other dictator does: squash dissent, in order to stay in power.

ISIS are just radical murders, defaming the Quran and further disgracing Islam.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Second, Obama knew all along about ISIS. You morphed the statement "We didnt know" into "The CIA didn't know." No evidence for that.

When Feinstein said 'we' she was speaking for the Senate Intelligence Committee. The 'we' includes the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community. Your suggestion that the CIA knew about ISiL's plans to invade Iraq in June but kept what they knew from Feinstein's committee is absolutely absurd.

Feinstein does not see the President's Daily Briefing, where that information would have come out.

If POTUS knew about it so did the Senate Intelligence Committee. Your grasp for a straw doesn't fool me.

And if the CIA didn't know, why is that? Why are they so incompetent as to have missed a major movement?

If you paid attention ISIL fighters did not 'invade' Iraq in December under the ISIL flag or as an independents
powerful and separate terrorist organization. They went into Fallujah and a few other Iraqi areas under the guise of being foreign fighters just coming to assist the Sunni resistance against the Maliki Shiite dominated government. ISIL did not begin flying the ISIL flag until February after capturing some military vehicles from the Iraqi Army. iSIS was in transition from February to June as far as strength. The al Baghdadi split from AQ came after February also.

The CIA had no reason to be able to forecast that ISIS split from al Qaeda and grow into something worse than Al Qaeda. Some things are somewhat difficult to predict.

 

[The Rabbi]

. First, just because a pol doesnt use the word clueless doesnt mean that's not what he's saying.

And conversely it does not mean it is what he or she is saying. So you lied and are now trying to hide behind semantics.

. You can play semantic games all day long but when Democrats are criticizing the president for being too cautious, you know he's not doing the right thing.

No. You are flat out wrong. We don't 'know' that Obama is not doing the right thing. That is a very stupid argument. The critics (McCain) here have demonstrated that they can be horribly wrong on military and intelligence matters very often in the past.

And further against your argument there, you have cited a report about too much caution on the part of the president. You failed to point out that your report also cited political support for the Commander in Chief's cautious approach.


So basically you are showing that you have no ability to objectively read a non-partisan balanced report and use what you read in your arguments.

You are a political hack working overtime to undermine US foreign and military policy solely for domestic tribal advances.

You are a moron, like thats news.
When Diane Feinstein, who has been on the intelligence committee for years, complains, the lesson is pretty clear. And we can add this to the enormous list of foreign policy fuckups of Obama. The reset with Russia. The Syrian red line. The Bergdahl swindle. etc etc. He has a history of fucking up.

 

[paulitician]

So what does everyone want him to do? What strategy would satisfy? I'm all ears.

 

[HenryBHough]

Want Him to do?

Resign.

What strategy would satisfy?

Perhaps return to Kenya and proclaim Himself president-for-life of the homeland.

Sorry, meanwhile, about that Marfan's. Is it sorta like Lincoln endured? Perhaps ear surgery like breast reduction only on a more grand scale?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

One year ago the administration was touting Assad as a modern day Hitler and needed to be bombed.

Yet, today we are helping Assad by conducting air strikes on his rebel enemies.

Go figure...........

False. He is not bombing Syria. Which is why he said there was no strategy yet. They do not want to help Assad by attacking ISIS in Syria.

Well NotFooledByW seems to believe Obama is acting decisivly by bombing. Both of you are Obama knee padders. So which is it?

You are missing my point Rabbi. I don't believe Obama is acting decisively because the situation requires a more cautious and calculated response.

The deliberate action by Obama thus far has been focused on the situation in Iraq. That is because there are local ground forces there that will complement the air strikes that are been delivered there.

For now Obama will focus air strikes on IS terrorist targets in Iraq and their supply network coming from Syria into Iraq.

It is the correct immediate policy that is combined with pressure on the Sunni leaders in the region to get their shit together on committing their ground troops to destroying ISIS in Syria and wherever else they go.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We just need to get rid of Isis and Assad, and Putin too while we're at it.

Who exactly are the 'we' in your 'we need to...' admonition on Isis and Assad?

You don't present options for those two? But your ambitions for 'we' that casually tossed in getting rid of Putin too, shows that you are nothing but a typical Tea Party non-thinking political extremist and hack.

It cost us a couple trillion of borrowed dollars to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Now we have a Tea Partier insanely calling for toppling the popular elected leader of the Russian Federation.

The Tea Party has gone nuts.

 

[TEA Party Patriot]

We just need to get rid of Isis and Assad, and Putin too while we're at it.

Who exactly are the 'we' in your 'we need to...' admonition on Isis and Assad?

You don't present options for those two? But your ambitions for 'we' that casually tossed in getting rid of Putin too, shows that you are nothing but a typical Tea Party non-thinking political extremist and hack.

It cost us a couple trillion of borrowed dollars to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Now we have a Tea Partier insanely calling for toppling the popular elected leader of the Russian Federation.

The Tea Party has gone nuts.

We is We the People. We is the United States of America. We is Christians worldwide standing up for our ally Israel.

Removing Hussein didn't cost trillions, nationbuilding did. A covert ops team could've removed Hussein easily and for a lot less than a trillion dollars.

Putin won in Russia by vote fraud and voter suppression. He's a dictator who kills his own people. Just ask that Litvinenko guy. Oh wait you can't, because he was assassinated by Putin for daring to speak out against his brutal regime.