Posted by DrJohn on 18 November, 2015 at 4:38 pm. 14 comments already!




He’s lying. Obama is lying. He’s lying about everything.

Obama says he can’t think of a more powerful recruiting tool for ISIS than worrying about American security:

“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate.”

Really? I thought that was Gitmo.

WASHINGTON—President Obama said Tuesday that his administration would re-engage Congress on closing the U.S. military-run detention center at Guantanamo Bay, calling the facility a “recruitment tool for extremists” and suggesting it is undermining U.S. security.

ISIS is really nothing more than a new appellation for Al Qaeda and I haven’t once heard ISIS mention Gitmo. Not once. It’s pretty obvious that opposing whatever it is Obama wants is a recruiting tool for ISIS. He is mocking the GOP for opposing his desire to flood the country with Muslims. One wonders how it is Obama is such an expert on ISIS all of sudden.

– Obama is the one who called ISIS the JV
– Obama is the one who set a red line only later to deny it
– Obama is the one who admitted he had no plan for ISIS
– Obama is the one who said he got “bad intel”
– Obama is the one who claims ISIS is “contained”

This ignorant boob now mocks others?

Obama’s rhetoric has gotten so bad that he’s coming under criticism from his own party.

“I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained, ISIL is expanding,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Monday, using an alternate acronym for the group.

Remember how Obama asserted that no one in the military disagrees with him? A lie. The ones not directly under Obama’s thumb couldn’t disagree more.

Can Obama Keep His Generals in Check in the War Against ISIS?

In his major address explaining America’s new war against ISIS, President Obama pledged that there would be no U.S. combat troops. On Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he may recommend ground forces in the future.

The White House is seeking to gloss over the rift between the president and his top general, but it is clear that just below the waterline Obama is not on the same page as the commanders who will be leading the new fight. U.S. military officials and members of Congress have complained privately for weeks that Obama appears unwilling to commit the resources necessary to achieve his aim of defeating ISIS.

Generals stand up against President Obama’s ISIS strategy

KELLY: It’s extraordinary to see all these generals come out, the ones who are working for the administration now saying as strongly as they can given their current positions that they are disagreeing with the commander in chief’s strategy here. Speak if you can to the president’s relationship with the military right now.

KEANE: The frustration level in the Pentagon among the military and in the central command headquarters who was overseeing the war with the president in the White House is as high as it has ever been. But this president has overruled our commanders time and time again from 2009 to the present, Megyn. And it’s been very frustrating for them. McChrystal and Petraeus wanted 40,000 troops to go into Afghanistan as part of the surge. The president gave them 25 percent less, 30,000. They wanted the force to stay there for a couple years. The president pulled it out after 11 months over the objections of General Petraeus.

Ex-NSA Chief: US strategy against ISIS isn’t ‘adequate to the objective’

While the current round of airstrikes will hurt ISIS’ operational capability, critics, including Hayden, point out that “to get the final objective to destroy ISIS, you can’t do it with what the president has committed and he has spent an awful lot of time explaining what we won’t do.”

And very recently

Former CIA Chief Morell: ‘Crystal Clear’ Obama’s ISIS Strategy Is Not Working

Morell said, “There is two major points here. The first is that ISIS for the last year has been trying to build an attack capability in Western Europe. I think this is the first manifestation of that effort and that success. And eventually they will try to build a similar attack capability in the United States. I think that is the first fundamental point. The second fundamental point is in the last two weeks, we’ve had an ISIS affiliate in Sinai apparently, we don’t know for sure, bring down an airliner, only the third airliner brought down by a bomb in last quarter century. We’ve had the second largest terrorist attack in Western Europe since 9/11, the largest since Madrid in 2004. I think When you put those two things together and you put together the attack capability in the West, I think it’s now crystal clear to us that our strategy, our policy, vis-à-vis ISIS is not working and is time to look at something else.”

Obama won’t change course and insists his plan will succeed.

Right. And you can keep your doctor and your plan, you’ll save $2500 per year, I am against the personal mandate, ISIS is the JV, I didn’t set the red line, Benghazi was caused by a video, yada yada yada.

Obama is a liar. Nothing he says today has any currency tomorrow. And he’s lying now about ISIS.

Obama’s denial of Islam’s shadow over world events is truly amazing:

But it also suggests we should change our actions just because ISIS may be able to use them to recruit more members. Should we stop educating girls because it offends ISIS and may help it with recruitment? Should we abandon Israel because it offends ISIS and may help it with recruitment? Should we shut down Hollywood because the movies it produces offends ISIS and may help it with recruitment?

Should we not stand up for the Christians ISIS is slaughtering or the Yazidi girls ISIS it is enslaving because those stands probably offend the terror group and may help it with recruitment?

Should we stop drone strikes against terrorists because it offends ISIS and may help it with recruitment?

Then Jamie Weinstein asks:

Are we now going to run our lives and control our debates over what may or may not theoretically help ISIS with recruitment?

The answer is yes. Anything that is in opposition to Obama’s demands will be dunned as a tool of recruitment for ISIS.

Don’t like my budget? You’re helping recruit for ISIS.

Don’t want forty million more illegals? You’re helping ISIS.

ISIS needs not to be contained. They need to be destroyed. Eliminated. They can’t win when they’re dead. They can’t recruit when they’re dead. They can’t boast when they’re dead. The more dead they are the less they can do.

It is that simple. And Obama won’t do it. He need not do it alone. The world is anxious to see some wisp of leadership from Obama but instead he’s shrinking away, content to go to war with Americans whom he does see as “enemies.”

ISIS is bolstered by its own success and by the weakness of an American President. Truth is, I can’t think of a more powerful ISIS recruitment tool than Barack Obama. When a Christian is beheaded Obama flits off to the golf course within ten minutes. He gets hot under the collar when Americans question the wisdom of flooding the country with Muslims of dubious backgrounds. Obama is such a little, petty, vindictive cur that I think if the right buttons were pushed at just the right time, Obama would blurt out

“Allahu Ackbar!”

Exit question: Does it seem to you that Obama is bitterly clinging to Islam?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x