Obama votes “present” on ISIS

By 28 Comments 1,522 views

image

Barack Obama voted “present” 129 times in the Illinois State Senate. He did it to preserve his political capital and dodge having to be visible in unpopular events. He’d wait for someone to take the bullets and then when the dust settled Obama would rise from the dust and assume the popular side. That is what is happening right now. Problem is, Obama is the President. There’s no one else to wait for here.

democrats are a disaster right now. They aren’t just not on the same page, they’re not in the same book. Mostly, they have their rudderless leader to thank.

It is a gross understatement to say Barack Obama is sending mixed signals. He’s been all over the map about ISIS. Right off the bat Obama admitted that he had no strategy to deal with ISIS. Following the Foley beheading Obama called ISIS a “cancer” in what was nothing less than a sophomoric response: He said ISIS “has no place in the 21st century” and that “People like [ISIS] ultimately fail. Because the future is won by those who build and not destroy,” Obama said. He also that ISIS has “already failed.” That’d be great as there would be nothing for anyone to do, right?

In his lethargic appearance, Obama promised that we “will not be intimidated.” Obama’s plans for ISIS devolved from “destroy” to “degrade” and finally to “manage.”

Cancer is something to be eradicated. It is “managed” only when it has become terminal and is incurable.

Charles Krauthammer wryly notes that Obama cannot muster the ability to call ISIS “Islamic” despite the name they have given themselves. Even liberals are demanding action against ISIS. Incredibly, Elizabeth Warren says ISIS needs to be destroyed. Al Franken chides Obama for his lack of a strategy.

Joe Biden gave a speech Obama should have

Biden’s ready to chase ISIS to the “Gates of Hell” but at least now we know that Hell ends on the Syrian border. The problem with Biden is that he probably thinks ISIS is a DC Comics superhero.

David Cameron showed that he, and not Obama, is now the leader of the free world. Obama is floundering. The arrogant peacock who was was overflowing with hubris as he insulted and threatened to act alone and bypass Congress has suddenly become a 90 pound weakling. The braggadocio of toppling Gaddafi alone is gone. It is replaced by doubt. You can see it on Obama’s face. He is afraid. He is voting present. He is looking for a safe place behind someone else, looking to “lead from behind”, which is say, let someone else take point.

That someone else is David Cameron. David Cameron has a spine. He sounds like a leader. He’s acting like a leader.

image

Obama does not want to act alone. He is afraid to act alone. He is being dragged back into Iraq because he was in such a hurry to declare the war over and the last thing he wants is to be remembered as having to go back alone. He’s working desperately to put together a coalition who could appear to drag Obama unwillingly back to do what we all know has to be done. I’ve said it before- hubris is a terrible foreign policy. This is the nadir of Barack Obama’s Presidency and his approval rating agrees.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

28 Responses to “Obama votes “present” on ISIS”

  1. 1

    kevino

    Actually, President Obama’s latest response to ISIS/ISIL is even worse:

    We know if we are joined by the international community we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem. And the question is going to be making sure we’ve got the right strategy, but also making sure we’ve got the international will to do it,” said Obama.

    By saying: “if we are joined by the international community” and “making sure we’ve got the international will to do it”, Obama is laying the ground-work for certain failure. If anyone attacks his policy, his response is, “Well, we didn’t get the support by the international community.” Our policy depends on the rest of the world, and if they don’t meet Obama’s expectations, too bad.

  2. 2

    ThisOne

    So funny to see the right acting like such babies on this after they helped create the mess in the first place. You think we should go into another war with ground troops without a plan or exit strategy again? Dream on.

  3. 3

    Allen Pouratian

    PRAISE THE LORD, we Christians don’t need to vote “present” on this ISIS situation. We can fight against ISIS, and decimate their ranks, without military training, from the comfort of our homes.

    Matthew 5:44 commands you to pray for and love your enemies, and since ISIS is your enemy, pray that they repent of Islam, and become born again Christians. Proverbs 21:1 shows us anyone can become a born again Christian, and Matthew 9:38 tells us to pray for laborers to be sent, and Luke 18:1 tells us not to give up praying.

    “The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.” – Abraham Lincoln

    For all Christians who never read the Old Testament: Jesus Christ has raised up ISIS, for the same reason Jesus Christ raised up the Babylonians to destroy Israel in 606 BC and the Romans to destroy Israel in 70 AD: to defend His holy name from being defiled by the sinful Jews who were living contrary to the LORD.

    Jesus Christ is now doing the same by raising up ISIS, because USA Christians are abominably evil. USA Christians fornicate, get drunk, do drugs and lust over “pictures or videos of women”, love money, and curse our leaders instead of praying for them. Instead, Jesus must curse and destroy the USA, because USA Christians are drowning in sin.

    But, instead of the USA being destroyed, GOD could fix the USA per 2 Chronicles 7:14 if we:

    1) repent of your sins, all of them
    2) earnestly pray with faith (not doubting God exists, and that God rewards sincere prayer) for other Christians to stop sinning. If I could quit lusting over “pictures or videos of women” by believing and saying Romans 6:2,3,4,18,21, Colossians 2:11, and 2 Corinthians 5:17 whenever I was tempted, then you can also. I haven’t lusted over “pictures or videos of women” since late 2009.
    3) hold meetings where you invite Christians to pray with faith with you for the USA, our leaders, and for a Christian revival to sweep the USA of sin and hate and disease.
    4) tell everyone, “A Christian revival has started, pray for it to grow.”

    If we don’t have a Christian revival, God will destroy the USA. Google “Dumitru Duduman” if you don’t believe me. Let’s not vote “present”. Let’s pray for God to rescue us. He won’t fail, IF we trust Him.

  4. 4

    kevino

    @ThisOne:
    Lefties in general, and President Obama in particular, are responsible for this mess.

    ISIS/ISIL grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that was growing just fine before the Iraq war. Saddam clearly wanted to develop it and use it for his own purposes — as a private terrorist group. This is similar to how Al Qaeda under bin Laden raised money through assassinations. As such, Al Qaeda was a serious threat. President G.W.Bush smashed it early in the Iraq war.

    ISIS/ISIL was “rebooted” in 2010, and developed steadily over the last four years. And Obama has helped it:
    1. By screwing up relations with Iraq, we were forced to leave. Obama was bragging about how he ended the war and left behind a stable Iraq. Now, he’s left a mess.
    2. He’s promoted weakness. In the power vacuum, evil men are stepping into the void. Obama is losing the Afghanistan. His idiotic policies for dealing with radical Islamic fundamentalism in Egypy and Libya have, literally, blown up in his face.
    3. Escalating drone warfare is making muslims angry and showing American weakness.
    4. His idiotic policies in Syria created more chaos and may have actually aided ISIS/ISIL. (Recent reports show that the allies that Obama wanted to help and apparently working directly with ISIS/ISIL.)
    5. His staff have been telling him for more than a year that ISIS/ISIL are a serious threat, and he’s ignored them. He’s had four years to prevent this, and he’s played golf.

    A wise man once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Obama has done nothing to hinder the development of ISIS/ISIL.

    RE: “You think we should go into another war with ground troops without a plan or exit strategy again?”
    We had a plan: (1) build a stable, secular country as a centrally-located base; (2) provide a positive example for what can be accomplished; (3) demonstrate American resolve; and (4) kill radicals. The Left blew it: they (1) lost the peace; (2) broke Iraq so it is not a positive example; (3) demonstrated American cowardice and aversion to casualties; and (4) supported and encouraged a brutal insurgency that gave rise to a criminal organization.

    Oh, and by the way, we had an exit strategy: once a government was created in Iraq, they have the right to ask us to leave. That happened.

    I don’t support a war at all. I think that the Left has taken a great opportunity to improve the quality of life for people across the world, and they have destroyed it. It’s gone, and the situation cannot be fixed by any means. What is left is for the West to withdrawn behind its borders and prepare itself for what follows. In doing so, it condemns the rest of the world to hundreds of years of rape, robbery, slavery, and pure homicidal mayhem.

    What I would like is for the Left to see the world as it really is, to stop blaming others, and to accept their responsibility for the damage that they have done. I’m not holding my breath: radical liberals are not capable of learning.

    There’s a difference between ignorance and stupidity: ignorance is curable.

  5. 6

    Greg

    @kevino, #4:

    ISIS/ISIL grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that was growing just fine before the Iraq war. Saddam clearly wanted to develop it and use it for his own purposes — as a private terrorist group….

    This is simply not true. Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda. Early claims that he did made by members of the Bush administration have since been totally discredited. The reasons for this conclusion were discussed in detail in the Senate’s Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, released on September 8, 2006. Refer to Part III, Iraqi Links to al-Qa’ida, page 105, Conclusions:

    Conclusion 1: The CIA’s assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were “two independent actors trying to exploit each other” was accurate only about al-Qaeda. “Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.”

    Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions “not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa’ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa’ida and Iraq.”

    Conclusion 3: “Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa’ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa’ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000…. No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.”

    The conclusions continue at some length.

    ISIL exists in Iraq because of the U.S. invasion and occupation. We removed the dictatorial regime that opposed al Qaeda and set up an unstable, militarily incapable government in its place. We created the vacuum that the extremists filled. We unleashed the sectarian conflicts Hussein had kept under control, creating an environment that al Qaeda could and did exploit.

  6. 7

    retire05

    @Greg:

    This is simply not true. Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda.

    Your link says that Saddam had no formal relationship with al Qaeda. But it is clear that Saddam was willing to turn a blind eye to al Qaeda as long as AQ did not threaten him or his regime.

    But then, after the report you link was written (and approved by some of the most political hacks in the Democrat party) came this:

    the Institute for Defense Analyses published a study of captured Iraqi regime documents in November 2007. The IDA report’s authors found that when it came to “attacking Western interests”:

    Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda – as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision.

    Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.

    We know that AQ operatives roamed freely in post war Iraq, even seeking medical treatment, and that Al Zawahiri was in Iraq for at least six months prior to leaving. Now, if we use your logic, Saddam Hussein, who knew everything that was going on in his nation, was just to ill informed to know that AQ’s second in command was roaming around Saddam’s country.

    There’s more:

    Documents cited in the IDA report show that Saddam had an agreement with Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman’s Islamic group to cooperate in attacks against Hosni Mubarak’s Egyptian regime in the early 1990s. Both of those terrorist groups have been core members of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist joint venture. Other documents show that Saddam financed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who counterterrorism analyst Peter Bergen has called Osama bin Laden’s “alter ego,” and was willing to work with Hekmatyar’s terrorists in attacking American forces in Somalia. Clearly, then, Saddam was willing at times to offer al Qaeda’s terrorists more than just safe haven.

  7. 8

    kevino

    @Greg:
    LOL I’m well aware of the Senate report. You’re confusing Al Qaeda in Iraq (and it’s early incarnation) with core Al Qaeda. That’s common. Iraqi Intelligence Service was working with groups not associated with core Al Qaeda (i.e. bin Laden). From Wikipedia:

    ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—later commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 1999, which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the 2003–2011 Iraq War, it combined with other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council and consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI /ˈaɪsɪ/). At its height it enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city. However, the Islamic State of Iraq’s violent attempts to govern its territory had led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups circa 2008, which helped to propel the Awakening movement and a temporary decline in the group.

    Formed in 1999. Hmmm. Who was President then?
    Like I said, I remember the photos after the bases in northern Iraq got flattened early in the war.
    Also note that the movement hit hard times in 2008. Prior to it’s reorganization in 2010, it was useless and disorganized. Certainly nothing like what we have today. No what President let them reform from 2010-present?

    (BTW. One reason Al Zarqawi isn’t linked with core Al Qaeda is that it was reported that he had a falling out with the Taliban.)

    RE: “ISIL exists in Iraq because of the U.S. invasion and occupation.”
    No, it exists because we let it grow and develop. (more below)

    RE: “We removed the dictatorial regime that opposed al Qaeda and set up an unstable, militarily incapable government in its place.”

    We removed a dictator that didn’t support core Al Qaeda but happily supported TERRORISTS. The goal was to fight Islamic fundamentalism and terrorists — not just bin Laden.

    “Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. … We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.”

    — President Obama (2011)

    ——–

    And I can’t help but notice that I hit you with five basic points, and your counterargument is to try to detour the conversation on one point. Here’s the basic problem: you’re going to ignore all of the stupid things Obama did and all of the laziness he’s shown by not lifting a finger. Instead, you blame his predecessor. How incredibly lame. The president you support bragged to the world how everything was fine in Iraq. Now it’s a mess because President Bush left him a bad situation?

    Also, it doesn’t begin to explain Obama’s incredibly stupid policy in Syria. As I stated above: “His idiotic policies in Syria created more chaos and may have actually aided ISIS/ISIL. (Recent reports show that the allies that Obama wanted to help and apparently working directly with ISIS/ISIL.)”

    You have demonstrated cowardice and weakness to an enemy who believes his principles are stronger and better because he is prepared to die for them (and you aren’t). He will take the fight to you. And even if you believe in “containment”, then you condemn the rest of the world to living by his rules. That’s pretty cold. You’re willing to live comfortably while others are murdered and enslaved because …

    So that’s what we’re left with, and there is no going back. We, as a country, don’t have the will to fight them, and no one is going to help us do it, either. So we’ll just sit back and watch the world burn.

  8. 9

    Greg

    @retire05, #7:

    But then, after the report you link was written (and approved by some of the most political hacks in the Democrat party)…

    The select committee investigation was completed and it’s report of findings came out on September 6, 2006. At that point in time republicans still controlled the Senate and the House of Representatives, and also had a republican president in the White House.

    So, how was it that “…the report was written and approved by some of the most political hacks in the Democrat(ic) Party?”

    Post-invasion, all of the intelligence that led up to it, classified and otherwise, was carefully gone through by investigative committees with a fine-tooth comb. You simply refuse to accept conclusions that the preponderance of evidence clearly supports. You’re sticking with the original distortions and faulty information that was used to justify the entire disastrous miscalculation to begin with. Not to mention pinning all the blame for the current consequences of that miscalculation to an administration that had little or nothing to do with the original decision, and nothing whatsoever to do with locking in the timetable for withdrawal. You’re blaming the Obama administration for failure to renegotiate a binding agreement after the fact. One that was hastily finalized less than a month before the administration that would have to deal with it was sworn in. When it’s all spelled out, it seems totally ridiculous.

  9. 10

    Common Sense

    @Greg: Kind of like blaming Bush for 9/11 when according to your logic it’s on Clinton!! Bush had to live with the failed international policies of Clinton eh?? This is your logic every time 0-blama fails as President you must say Bush started it!! Any proof yet on Reid’s accusation?? Still waiting.

  10. 11

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Sorry, Greggie, but President Bush’s prophetic words have come to fruition.

    “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

    The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that’s unfolding across the region. The same region in Iran — the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers. The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region.

    Nations throughout the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To protect our interests and to show our commitment to our friends in the region, we are enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral security ties, and supporting those fighting the extremists across the Middle East. We’re also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq’s democratic government.”

    President Bush, July 12, 2007

    The surge worked. When Obama “inherited” Iraq, he was so secure that it was “stable” (as Obama called it) that he felt good about removing all our troops. Have you forgotten that Joe Biden said that Iraq would be Obama’s greatest achievement? Unfortunately, we have a community organizer playing president, and he was wrong and now we have ” mass killings on a horrific scale, the terrorists establishing a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

    Bush was right, Obama was clueless and now proven to be wrong. Obama was more interested in getting the U.S. out of the Middle East than he was in securing the Middle East, which, BTW, is in our national interests.

    So, how was it that “…the report was written and approved by some of the most political hacks in the Democrat(ic) Party?”

    Did you even bother to read the names of the politicians on that report, Greggie? Or did you just take that information (link) from one of the far left wing sites that you seem to love to visit, and not bother to see who signed off on that report.

    Post-invasion, all of the intelligence that led up to it, classified and otherwise, was carefully gone through by investigative committees with a fine-tooth comb. You simply refuse to accept conclusions that preponderance of evidence clearly supports.

    Information released in 2007 was more current than what you linked to in 2006. The captured Iraqi documents were constantly being reviewed, even years after we went into Iraq. But you are unwilling to acknowledge anything that doesn’t met with your far left progressive (yeah, Marxist) views.

  11. 12

    John

    There never was a vote for “war” there was a vote yo authorize military action by the POTUS if all else failed
    In 2007 when some people thought we were doing just fine we lost damn near 1000 dead 5000 wounded including over 500 with uro genital wounds
    There never was mission accomplished . Never.
    The majority of Iraqis demanded that we leave they did not want us there
    The majority of Iraqis elected a Parliment that would never approve of American troops in Iraq that would not be subject to Iraqi law ” kill an Iraqi go to jail ”
    The USA elected a POTUS who said that after. 5000 dead 25000 wounded
    100s of thousands if soldiers returning home with PTSD that the USA had given enough to Iraq

    Anyone posting here want to go over and do themselves what they think Obama should order others to do. ???
    Send us back a post card.

  12. 13

    Common Sense

    @John: Hey Johnny boy, doing NOTHING is NOT an option!! We need a President and a leader and instead we got a loser!! As far as going somewhere, I did during Viet Nam, what did you do go to Canada??

  13. 14

    Randy

    @Greg:

    This is simply not true. Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda. Early claims that he did made by members of the Bush administration have since been totally discredited. The reasons for this conclusion were discussed in detail in the Senate’s Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, released on September 8, 2006. Refer to Part III, Iraqi Links to al-Qa’ida, page 105, Conclusions:

    Actually, that was not true. There were many documents that showed training sites in Iraq and funding for AQI prior to Feb 2003.

  14. 15

    Randy

    @Greg:

    Post-invasion, all of the intelligence that led up to it, classified and otherwise, was carefully gone through by investigative committees with a fine-tooth comb. You simply refuse to accept conclusions that the preponderance of evidence clearly supports.

    There was so many documents, that they are still going through them. You dog doesn’t hunt and likely will never get off of the porch!

  15. 16

    Bill

    @John:

    There never was a vote for “war” there was a vote yo authorize military action by the POTUS if all else failed

    So, you thought we were going to conduct military action but NOT call it a war? That sounds like something Obama would try.

    There never was mission accomplished . Never.

    Obama disagreed with your assessment. Are you calling him a liar?

    The USA elected a POTUS who said that after. 5000 dead 25000 wounded
    100s of thousands if soldiers returning home with PTSD that the USA had given enough to Iraq

    The liberals who never vet their candidates (but vote solely on celebrity + catch phrases) elected a POTUS that was anxious for a headline to divert attention away from scandals and failures and, instead of securing the victory Bush left him, created a breeding ground for ISIS. ISIS was in Syria, not Iraq. ISIS entered Iraq when the US military left Iraq. This is an Obama mess. What he does from here forward is critical and he should do everything he possibly can to fight the instinct to do what he THINKS he should do and do the exact opposite (like George Costanza when he did the opposite of what he was thinking and enjoyed success). For, only by being the anti-Obama can Obama do what is required to contain and destroy ISIS.

  16. 18

    marine72

    @Greg: It is so good to finally heat you say that we “We created the vacuum that the extremists filled”. After returning to active duty from retirement in 2005 and serving a year in Balad, Iraq, I saw first hand that we had turned the corner in Iraq. To argue whether or not we should be there is a moot point; we were there. Maybe we should just argue that the loss of less Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers at Pearl Harbor than innocent civilians lost on 9/11 wasn’t justification to Declare war on Japan.

    So where did Democrat President Truman derive the authority to drop the Atomic bomb on the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? By the way, three generations later (70+ years) we are still significantly engaged in several bases in Japan. Yet we pulled chocks and declared mission complete in 2011 in Iraq with nary another thought. So now we creep back in on the small/(cheap) and you can be sure the “One” will exhibit his signature “BergDogal” determination to retrieve any American military captured by ISIS. We can only assume he will dither for 30 days to ensure one less Soldier to become General and later to have to fire for following the Constitution.

    Censored “………………………..”. I certainly hope you have taken in an illegal alien or ten to do your part. It would be so uplifting to think that your incessant drivel actually helped someone in a physical way. When’s the last time you helped at a food pantry? Homeless shelter?

  17. 19

    Randy

    @John: Actually You have no idea what you are talking about. I spent over 3 years in Iraq and the people wanted us to stay. The Shia politicians wanted us to leave because they wanted to make the Sunni suffer for their years of domination. For those of us who know the truth, every time you post an ignorant statement like this, you just show the World how ignorant stupid the progressive movement is.

  18. 22

    Bill

    @Greg:

    This is simply not true. Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda. Early claims that he did made by members of the Bush administration have since been totally discredited.

    Well, yeah, Greg, it is true. Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war, had contacts with Hussein and the Iraqi military and had training camps. Of course there were quick suspicions the Hussien had cooperated in 9/11 but that was quickly discounted by the administration. HOWEVER, the connections with al Qaeda and the intelligence showing he had WMD’s made it necessary (as was supported by many a Democrat) to clean out that nest of vipers. Again, you leftists want to see conspiracies everywhere you look to the right, but can see none of the obvious scandals boiling over on the left. Or the incompetency.

  19. 23

    another vet

    @BillHave you read Both in One Trench, by Ray Robison? He delves into the captured documents from Afghanistan and Iraq and shows a clear connection between Saddam and Islamic terrorists, including AQ, and backs up his claims with copies of the documents. It’s kind of hard to argue with original source documents although the left will as they always argue with reality.

  20. 24

    Nanny G

    This is really lovely!
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/090514-716325-decoding-president-obama-isil-strategy.htm?p=full
    It collects all Obama’s policy statements on ISIS (IS, ISIL, so Obama doesn’t have to be reminded that Iraq is involved).
    There’s a little translation for each Obama-quote.
    Like this:

    IS is destined to die on its own.

    “People like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.” — Aug. 20

  21. 25

    George Wells

    @ Y’all:

    Retire05’s assessment in #11 is correct, as is the better part of what the rest of you on the “right” are saying about Islam and the conduct of the war in Iraq, INCLUDING Obama’s dreadful litany of miscalculations regarding our withdraw from that country. At this point, it really doesn’t matter if Bush was right or wrong for going into Iraq in the first place. We WENT. And similarly, it doesn’t matter if Obama was right or wrong for withdrawing from Iraq. We WITHDREW.

    It might be helpful to remember that Obama campaigned on the promise to withdraw from Iraq, and he DID win the election. He was a politician, and it was in his job description to get elected. He did. He then fulfilled the promise that he made to the constituency that elected him. Politicians do that. You champion the fulfillment of campaign promises when they are things that you want, and you cry whenever the promises that are fulfilled are things that you DON’T want. That’s just unprincipled “sour grapes.”

    The challenge before us now is NOT to figure out who started it or who screwed it up.
    The challenge before us now is NOT to weigh which side has made the costlier blunder.
    The challenge we face NOW is what to do about the CURRENT situation in the Middle East and how we deal with the continuing threat of Islam in the future. We can’t really begin to constructively respond to these challenges so long as we remain at each other’s throats over the details of what happened in the past.

    For logistical reasons, we cannot simultaneously start WW3 on an unlimited number of fronts. Obama has Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea to contend with, with a host of other malcontents waiting in the wings for their minute of fame. Any war investment we make in one place will encourage another smoldering hot spot to burst into flames. I’m not sure which direction to start off in, but Obama SHOULD start shooting somewhere, because if we don’t, EVERYWHERE will blow up. I’m just not ready to break out the nuclear launch codes…

  22. 26

    Nanny G

    Only a couple weeks ago oil was selling for $104. a barrel.
    Then ISIS started selling it’s oil (after capturing 7 oil fields and 2 oil refineries) at only $20/barrel on the black market.
    What is the LEGAL price of oil today?
    It is down to $92/barrel and dropping.
    When Osama took down the Twin Towers he hurt the US economy to the tune of $5 trillion dollars.
    ISIS is doing something along those same lines by its black market oil sales.
    The Occupy Wall Street sympathizers in our government are probably cheering.
    No wonder Obama is waiting to say what his ”strategy” is.
    Like Jack Benny when being robbed at gunpoint: Your money or your life!………I’m thinking.

  23. 27

    George Wells

    @Nanny G #26:

    The United States is a net importer of oil, as is China and virtually all of Europe – in short, almost ALL of the “first-world” economies import more oil than they export. When the price of oil falls, economies that net-import oil have more money for other things, and they expand. It should be noted that MOST oil purchases are priced by long term contract, and those contracts are not affected by “spot” prices or by “black-market” prices for oil. But even the psychological impact of rising oil prices has a chilling impact on world economies as major stock markets decline sharply in anticipation of rising future oil contract prices. Back when oil flirted briefly with $150/barrel, stock markets took it hard. At first, oil company stocks went up, as investors hoped that their profits would soar. But the oil company stock prices then fell, as it became clear that people would curtail driving to save money.
    To the extent that lower oil prices help the economies of developed nations and hurt the economies of countries that export large amounts of oil (Iran, Venezuela and Russia are among them…) I think that the argument could be made that if ISIS has done something to cause the price of oil to drop, it might be about the last thing we have to worry about.

    The net impact of falling oil prices will HELP the US economy, not hurt it. If you personally receive royalties from oil being pumped from your property, you will receive less money. But if the price of oil falls and STAYS down long enough for the lower prices to be communicated through the refinement process and arrive at the doorstep of the American public in the form of lower gasoline prices, our economy will surge. So will the stock market.

    No, I’m not defending ISIS, and I hope they get exactly what they deserve for what they’ve done. But your confused economic argument regarding oil doesn’t hold water.

  24. 28

    Nanny G

    @George Wells: The challenge before us now is NOT to figure out who started it or who screwed it up.
    The challenge before us now is NOT to weigh which side has made the costlier blunder.
    The challenge we face NOW is what to do about the CURRENT situation in the Middle East and how we deal with the continuing threat of Islam in the future.

    Good reminders for all, thanks.
    In light of this I’d point out who Obama/Kerry are using as an ”expert.”
    Martin S. Indyk.
    But the NYTimes noted that Martin S. Indyk is on Qatar’s payroll.
    He is at Brookings Institute which, in 2012, a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government. The Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.
    What else is on Qatar’s payroll?
    ISIS and Hamas.
    And the other extremists in Syria….
    Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen told the Center for New American Security on “Confronting New Threats in Terrorist Financing” in March. “Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria.”

    Can Kerry/Obama be honest brokers who really want to take out ISIS if they are stupid enough to hire an ISIS sympathizer as one of their key ”experts?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *