Obama on ISIS "We have no strategy"

[Malamute]

[QUOTE="The Rabbi, post: 9720332, member: 20947
The administration has known about ISIS for some time. They ignored all of that.[/QUOTE]

They should know -- this was what Obama and Hillary promoted with their "Arab Spring" meddling. They encouraged these radical Islamic groups to overthrow their more secular governments. Hillary in particular had a whole lot to do with it, just go back to her applauding the overthrowing of the Egyptian government and her speech about Arab Spring.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many ISIS dupes were killed there? How many Iraqis were killed? What form did the attack take? A couple of strafing runs and a couple of bombs were all it took.....maybe. I'll find out and get back to you.

I don't need your detailed crap. The final results are being reported that IS terrorists are dying and retreating from the only world leader that is bombing them.

So if you want to make yourself useful how about you find out why Cameron does not have the balls to begin bombing IS terrorists as Obama has been doing for a while now.

Translation: Dont bother me with the facts.
The fact is Obama is clueless. His own party is saying so.
Too Cautious Obama Pressed to Take Action on ISIL - Yahoo News

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Translation: Dont bother me with the facts.
The fact is Obama is clueless. His own party is saying so.
Too Cautious Obama Pressed to Take Action on ISIL - Yahoo News

The only FACT here is that you are making things up.

No one, not even John McCain in this report says Obama is 'clueless'. They are saying he is being too cautious.

From your link is the third opinion from a US Politician that appears to support Obama's 'cautious' approach. Opinions are not facts by the way.

"Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger struck a more cautious tone on CNN’s “State of the Union,” saying, “We don’t have intelligence at this point that an attack on the United States is imminent. If we need to protect ourselves from ISIS, we will….You don’t tell an enemy you’re coming in to attack them. I think you will see action within the next week or so."

My view is that not jumping out in front on this is what is needed to get the Arab Sunni leaders in the region to step up.

And thanks for the link to Senator Feinstein Rabbi. She shoots 1776 & EconChick's bs about early warnings from the CIA completely down. Feinstein is on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

She says:

“This is a vicious, vicious movement, and it has to be confronted,” she said. “I mean, [ISIL] crossed the border into Iraq before we even knew it happened. So this is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous. And they'll kill with abandon.”

So if [ISIL] crossed the border into Iraq before the CIA even knew it happened that means EconChick and 17 76. were feeding us a line of bull here:

See, here's the thing. I'm used to debating liberals who are much more intelligent than most found on this Board. Some on this Board (not all, and you are so so) say things that defy what is well known by people in BOTH parties who really understand foreign policy and economics.
Some of the things you say...like this statement about intel community not warning about ISIS.....is SO egregiously false.....and so well known....that it's hard to take the people making the statements seriously.
I will debate smart liberals who make good arguments. But it's hard not to be dismissive of the egregiously false posts like yours.

Translation: Dont bother me with the facts.
The fact is Obama is clueless. His own party is saying so.
Too Cautious Obama Pressed to Take Action on ISIL - Yahoo News

 

[The Rabbi]

Translation: Dont bother me with the facts.
The fact is Obama is clueless. His own party is saying so.
Too Cautious Obama Pressed to Take Action on ISIL - Yahoo News

The only FACT here is that you are making things up.

No one, not even John McCain in this report says Obama is 'clueless'. They are saying he is being too cautious.

From your link is the third opinion from a US Politician that appears to support Obama's 'cautious' approach. Opinions are not facts by the way.

"Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger struck a more cautious tone on CNN’s “State of the Union,” saying, “We don’t have intelligence at this point that an attack on the United States is imminent. If we need to protect ourselves from ISIS, we will….You don’t tell an enemy you’re coming in to attack them. I think you will see action within the next week or so."

My view is that not jumping out in front on this is what is needed to get the Arab Sunni leaders in the region to step up.

And thanks for the link to Senator Feinstein Rabbi. She shoots 1776 & EconChick's bs about early warnings from the CIA completely down. Feinstein is on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

She says:

“This is a vicious, vicious movement, and it has to be confronted,” she said. “I mean, [ISIL] crossed the border into Iraq before we even knew it happened. So this is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous. And they'll kill with abandon.”

So if [ISIL] crossed the border into Iraq before the CIA even knew it happened that means EconChick and 17 76. were feeding us a line of bull here:

See, here's the thing. I'm used to debating liberals who are much more intelligent than most found on this Board. Some on this Board (not all, and you are so so) say things that defy what is well known by people in BOTH parties who really understand foreign policy and economics.
Some of the things you say...like this statement about intel community not warning about ISIS.....is SO egregiously false.....and so well known....that it's hard to take the people making the statements seriously.
I will debate smart liberals who make good arguments. But it's hard not to be dismissive of the egregiously false posts like yours.

Translation: Dont bother me with the facts.
The fact is Obama is clueless. His own party is saying so.
Too Cautious Obama Pressed to Take Action on ISIL - Yahoo News

Wow, stupid even for you.
First, just because a pol doesnt use the word clueless doesnt mean that's not what he's saying. You can play semantic games all day long but when Democrats are criticisizing the president for being too cautious, you know he's not doing the right thing.
Second, Obama knew all along about ISIS. You morphed the statement "We didnt knwo" into "The CIA didnt know." No evidence for that. Feinstein does not see the President's Daily Briefing, where that information would have come out. And if the CIA didnt know, why is that? Why are they so incompetent as to have missed a major movement?

 

[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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

Re-read my post.........where did I mention Syria? .....

 

[Synthaholic]

I had a dream last night. Obabble standing on a fire truck at ground zero...fire captain standing beside him...bull horn in his hand...and with excellent elocution he says! " we don't have a strategy to respond to this attack yet".

Stop getting drunk before bed.

 

[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.

Re-read my post.........where did I mention Syria? .....

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

That's crazy.

 

[House]

I had a dream last night. Obabble standing on a fire truck at ground zero...fire captain standing beside him...bull horn in his hand...and with excellent elocution he says! " we don't have a strategy to respond to this attack yet".

Stop getting drunk before bed.

Do tell, when is a better time?

 

[Silhouette]

I still would sure like to know what there are so many American and British 1st language people in the outfit. And American weapons. And ?? money. You know what they say..."follow the money"... I'm surpised a journalist isn't picking up on this and really diving in. Maybe they're afraid of being beheadded?

Hey, it worked!

Another thing that's confusing is that usually islamic terrorists want journalists to spread their message of fear. It's all so confusing really. I do like that all their faces are covered with those black veils. It makes it really hard though to determine the well-groomed men's nationality.

 

[Sunni Man]

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

Correct .....

 

[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?

 

[Synthaholic]

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!

 

[The Rabbi]

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

 

[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. .....

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.