Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Sep 2, 2014.
This part in the piece sort of says it all about Obama's real...."concern":
"But after suggestions that the administration may have been blindsided by the rise of ISIS, and that poor intelligence was to blame, the former Pentagon official said some of the intelligence was so good in the region, that when the president drew a red line on chemical weapons use in Syria in 2012, the information was "exquisite."
The source said "[we] were ready to fire, on a moment's notice, on a couple hundred targets," but no order was given. In some cases, targets were tracked for a "long period of time" but then slipped away."
Sounds like Obama did his usual "lead by waiting" while this thing festered and grew into what it is.
Gracious....I'm having flashbacks! When I hear Obama is going to read "my pet goat" to a kindergarten class, then I'll worry.
so tell me what you would have done if you were reading My pet goat to a kindergarten class and an aid whispers in your ear that terrorists had just flown a plane into the World Trade Centers
My point here is you claim Obama didn't pay any attention to the daily briefs......but close your mind to Bush doing exactly what you accuse Obama of.
And as usual, the Fox source remains unnamed.
(i would have)gotten up immediately, smiled and told the kids, 'i'm sorry kids, but the president has special president stuff to attend to right now. i've enjoyed having you as an audience. perhaps your teacher can finish reading this book to you'
and then got my ass out of there, focusing on the current REAL problem that consisted of us being attacked by airplanes.
Umm not exactly the same. Obama is one of few Presidents to actually read the daily reports. Bush like almost ever President since Eisenhower had someone else debrief him.
Keep in mind every President since Bush is going to take terrorists more seriously due to hindsight. At least until enough time passes when nothing else occurs. Obama is picking his battles; until the hornets sting, leave the nest alone.
It appears the Iraq War began in 2008 according to faux news....and Bill............LOL....you can't make this stuff up....
I cannot change what W did or did not do- he is no longer pres and what he did matters little now-obama is pres-he was getting briefings for a year and yet still called ISIS the jayvees - y'all can harp all day long about W- again the pres is your wonderful all knowing all seeing obama-and the issue we face today is ISIS and he knew all along and yet he still has NO strategy- and that is a severe LACK OF LEADERSHIP
yet y'all still carry his water-when it became obvious that W was over his head we atleast were smart enough to quit carrying water for him and just stayed quiet
and unnamed sources only seem to bother you when it is contained in a fox story
from the very conservative publication, 'washington times' comes this fairly decent accurate opinion on the entire series of events from syria to iraq regarding the obama administration, past administrations, and ISIS.
"In the wake of the televised beheading of American journalist James Foley, there have been urgent calls among some in the media for an intensified U.S. military response to the Islamic State group — also known as ISIL — responsible for Foley’s gruesome murder and a host of other barbaric atrocities across northern Iraq and Syria. There is also, understandably, some alarm, because ISIL has racked up a string of tactical victories in the Sunni-dominated regions of Iraq, culminating in the taking of the giant hydroelectric dam near Mosul.
The principal complaint among the armchair quarterbacks is that the U.S. failed to neutralize the growing threat of Islamic extremism in Syria before it spilled over into neighboring Iraq. But let’s step back for a moment and consider the situation in Syria a year ago. The U.S. publicly supported the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Assad and the holding of free democratic elections in a country that has long been ruled by multigenerational socialist autocracy. The Obama administration became especially alarmed after reports that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons was being used to exterminate large groups of civilians in anti-Assad regions of Syria. Calls were made for the U.S. to supply arms to the anti-Assad forces and tip the scales in what was essentially a stalemate in the country’s civil war.
However, the Obama administration was wary of arming the anti-Assad forces for several reasons. First, remember that the Assad regime, like Saddam Hussein’s in Iraq and Hosni Mubarak’s in Egypt, had at one time been a strategic partner of the U.S. Many of the alleged atrocities and strong-arm tactics they employed over the previous decades were done with the tacit acceptance of Washington. And so, in many cases, the rebel forces were as likely to be anti-American as they were to be anti-Assad. Our experiences in Iraq and Egypt were quite illustrative of that fact. In Iraq after the invasion, Sunni tribes aligned with al Qaeda against U.S. forces and led to a protracted and bloody war that lasted almost a decade. In Egypt, elections in the wake of Mr. Mubarak’s ouster installed an Islamic fundamentalist government — the Muslim Brotherhood— which quickly allied with the terrorist group Hamas and other extremist groups to wreak havoc in the region.
What would have been the outcome had the U.S. decided to arm Syria’s anti-Assad forces? Well, there’s no need to conjecture, because they were instead secretly armed by the Saudis — who viewed the Assad regime as a regional rival. In fact, the Saudis were so upset about President Obama’s refusal to arm Syrian rebels that they made a big public stink about it — even rejecting a coveted two-year appointment to the U.N. Security Council in protest. But those very fighters, and the weapons and tactical support they were given, are now responsible for the atrocities in Iraq being committed against ethnic Kurds, Yazidis and Christians.
But the story does not end there. It strains credulity that in Iraq an Islamic State force of less than 5,000 fighters managed to overrun a significant swath of the country in a little under a month. Upon closer inspection, it has become apparent that they had not won any significant battles against the Iraqi military. Instead, the U.S.-trained and -armed Iraqi army commanders in the Sunni regions of Northern Iraq simply abandoned their posts — leaving all of their U.S.-supplied weapons behind for the Islamist forces to pick up and use.
**This was largely seen as a political decision, as the Shiite-dominated al-Maliki government in Baghdad was seen as increasingly corrupt and insular. It appears that, while some local Sunni leaders were willing to concede Iraqi government control to ISIL, they were not joining ISIL in large numbers in the hopes of forming an alternative government. In fact, as the British-accented voice of Foley’s executioner demonstrates, the most ardent ISIL fighters seem to be foreign imports — from Britain and Australia — who are willing to earn their street cred with acts of depraved barbarity.
The question many have raised is whether the U.S. has an articulable strategy in the region, and whether that strategy can work. That’s a fair question, as the Obama administration has mainly relied upon doing as little as possible in the region. However, given the political and ideological cesspool into which the region has recently sunk, one wonders whether more aggressive direct American action would clean up the situation or merely end up getting our own hands dirty as well.
There is also the question of whether Islamic extremists are a threat to the West. The answer is that of course they are. Their actions demonstrate extreme barbarity and wanton disregard for the sanctity of life. But the distinction here may be that ISIS is not yet an imminent threat. If the U.S. can help to foster a more unified government in Iraq, it may be able to stem and reverse some of the gains extremists have made in the country. If Iraqis learn to respect and tolerate one another and share their abundant resources equitably, it will be difficult for outside groups to divide them. In the abundance of water, only the fool is thirsty. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction would be to go in and escalate the bombing of ISIL (which is really just bombing Iraq) and/or risk American boots on the ground. We’ve tried that in the past and just ended up wasting money and blood with little to show for it. At this point, instead of trying to lay down the roach powder, it may be more appropriate to clean house."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...gerent-isis-is-not-a-us-crisis/#ixzz3CFSrvZaW
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
you folks that are criticizing this admin over various middle eastern policies, especially regarding ISIS, should read this article. and hey, it is from a conservative source.
I have read that article verti and it makes some valid points-however for a sitting pres to draw red lines in the sand and then when they are stepped over he does nothing-and it is on and on and on-now he says they have no strategy as yet-I am looking for Leadership-it has been awhile since we have had a pres who exudes that quality
bush had no exit strategy planned for iraq
obama spoke too soon regarding a line in the sand, because congress needed to vote on it. turns out to be the best idea.
the country didn't want war. so when they let him know that, of course he had to back up a bit. aside from that, what's he done wrong. at last he ended iraq,which with no exit strategery (hehheh) was gonna last awhile. and now we're looking to drop afghanistan. none of these countries really wants us there, and obama knows this a little better than his predecessor did.
The frustration with seeming inaction and lack of direction of US policy in the ME is understandable, and it certainly was not a bright move for Obama to "draw a line in the sand" when we weren't prepared to respond when the line was crossed.
Having said that, as the article points out the ME is rife with various brutal, barbaric groups - had we done what many wanted and assisted the anti-Assad forces, we would have been providing even more support to the ISIS group which is now terrorizing the area. Had we supported Assad, we would have been supporting a brutal regime willing to use chemical weapons on its own people to maintain power. We faced similar problems in Egypt (and Iraq).
The ME is a quagmire, and while "no policy" does not seem to be a good strategy, there is no readily apparent rational policy that would serve American interests and not support one group or another that engages in barbaric acts.
All hatred for the sitting president aside, what course of action do you suggest the US undertake in the area?
Croc I have no hatred for obama- how can I hate someone I do not even know- I have intent dislike for his policies and his inability to lead- the ME is a quagmire and while I do not advocate us going back into there on a major scale, but I do think we have to make some decisive moves to show we will not be bullied before ISIS decides to try and do so on our own soil- the problem as I see it is that obama has this idea he can be nice and talk to them and because they will like him we will be safe-these people over there doing the beheadings and the killings of innocents are barbarians and would spit in obama's face and they just view his inaction as weakness - we have to strike hard and fast and it has to be a decisive blow (yes unfortunately the cowards that ISIS are will cause the deaths of many innocents) and that is unfortunate but sometimes a necessity to keep those barbarians from our own shores
so we did go on bombing raids against isis...
So you said Bush was a loser ... are you now admitting obama is a (lying liberal lawyer) loser ... for whom you lefties voted twice??!!
You guys said obama was going to be different ... better than bush. he's been far worse ... an absolute miserable failure, causing problems for our nation from which it may never recover. Did you guys fall for his lies ... or did you knowingly and intentionally spread those factual misrepresentations? Don't bother answering as we already know the truth.
Sure ... easy to say now, 13 years after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20 especially for the leftie internet keyboard jockey.
Fair enough (and I don't mean to attribute feelings to you that you don't hold).
I agree with the sentiment that we want to strike hard and fast against ISIS, but am not sure of our capability to strike decisive blows against them, at least at present. It seems that the most decisive blows we can strike would involve airstrikes on ISIS within Syria - and as the NYT article linked below cautions, that may be viewed as intervention on behalf of Assad.
"Some current and former counterterrorism officials said that although Mr. Obama would be under extraordinary pressure to retaliate, there were arguments against striking back.
“That pressure is often the enemy of good policy,” said Daniel Benjamin, a former State Department counterterrorism coordinator and now a scholar at Dartmouth College. “There will be a clamor for the president to take military action, which may not be effective. If he conducts airstrikes and does not get the desired effect, there’ll be pressure for more airstrikes, and then to put boots on the ground.”"
Contrary to your impression, however, I don't think Obama is under any illusion that "he can be nice and talk to them and because they will like him we will be safe". That is certainly belied by the airstrikes he has already authorized - the ISIS executioner if fact claimed that the most recent execution was in response to the military action we've taken against them.
The question is how and where can we most effectively respond militarily without committing ground troops (which very few seem to have the stomach for at this point)? I suggest the answer is neither to do nothing (which we are not doing), nor to jump in headlong without giving significant thought to what our goal is, how we can best accomplish that goal, how we extricate ourselves after having done so, and what do we leave behind when we finish our intervention (in the way of devastation, power vacuum, future prospects for the region, etc.).
In my opinion, virtually the only certainty is that whatever action we take will exacerbate rather than diminish the factors that give rise to the formation of terrorist groups and recruitment to their cause. Although I favor some sort of military response to ISIS, I don't see anything we can do in the area militarily that will make us safer from terrorists or terrorism going forward.
I cant help but wonder when folks will stop bringing up Bush. Its been 6 years. Obama is a poor president. That makes two in a row for our nation. (3 if you count morals and blue dresses)
My childhood president was a pillar of strength and respect in the white house. We may never see that again.
He followed the worst POTUS in history, and didnt spend two terms casting blame.
Sorry tilly....had to make it a bit more accurate with the correction.