Ladies and gentlemen, the most dishonest political hack in the United States Congress
Harry Reid going all Harry Reid is legendary. Whether he’s lying about Mitt Romney’s taxes, ObamaCare, or the (evil) Koch brothers, Harry is Harry. (Whether or not he’s in the early stages of dementia is another topic for another time.)
Anyway, in anticipation of Barack Obama’s “grand reveal” on prime-time TV tonight of his hastily-crafted (not to mention politically-motivated) strategery on confronting ISIS, Harry dropped a beaut:
“The president knows how to destroy terrorists.”
He does? Harry, dude, he knows how to lie about destroying terrorists: “Al Qaeda is on the run.” “Al Qaeda has been decimated.” “The war on terror is over.”
So, Harry wasn’t finished opening his mouth to change feet:
“Airstrikes and strategic use of drones and, of course, covert action are the most effective way to take out [Islamic State] without committing troops — American troops — troops in harms way.”
Of course, no war has ever been won by airstrikes alone. But Harry, like I said, is Harry:
Sure Obama knows how to destroy terrorists….. all he has to do is do to them what he’s been doing to us for the past 6 years. 🙁
@Jim S: Baloney — he may knock off a few in order to get the headlines and ‘credit’ for ‘knocking down terrorism’ but they will just be sacrifices toward the goal of the caliphate and world wide islam. Just kicking the can down the road until the next president
Perhaps if he had captured a few, he could have prevented Benghazi or been convinced ISIS was a serious threat before someone mentioned it on the 15th tee.
One way to not have to destroy terrorists is not to label terrorists terrorists. Nidal Hassan is still alive, even after he committed such heinous “workplace violence.” I’m sure those who were shot dead by him never equated terror with him as he was shouting “Allah Akbar.”
House Republicans getting advice from Cheney is ‘terrifying,’ Reid says
That doesn’t sound particularly insane to me. What would be insane would be to allow ourselves to get suckered into another U.S. boots-on-the-ground war in the region, which is precisely what al Qaeda did previously, and precisely what ISIL would like to happen again. That’s how so much damage was inflicted on us the first time around. At the end of it all 4,486 American troops were dead, two trillion dollars were gone, and the situation quickly deteriorated into what we now see.
The GOP should forget about any repetition of that approach.
Greggie, there are already over 1,100 military personnel, including Marines, deployed by Obama to Iraq. I guess you think they are not wearing boots or standing on the ground.
They are. And there is no such thing as a “non-combatant” Marine.
And maybe you can tell us when the terms of a SoFA that Obama demanded have been met by the Iraqis?
Apparently you don’t grasp the fact that there actually is a very real difference between taking a combatant versus an advisory role in a conflict. The number itself should provide some clue about that.
@Greg: Greggie, 0-blama says he has a coalition. Bush had a coalition of 37 countries and support of 70 Democrats. Now tell me what countries 0-blama has.
@Greg: Greggie, did 0-blama indicate that he was sending troops?? Also, 0-blama once again refused best military advice. He is a liberal wacho just like Slick and therefore he has failed. Slick’s failure to led created 9/11, 0-blama’s failure led to 9/11. Republicans will regain leadership and once again try and clean up these failures!!
That’s what al Qaeda wanted and what ISIL wants? Al Qaeda was wiped out of Afghanistan and when they came to Iraq and carried out the insurgency, they were wiped out there, too. No, Greg, they do not want to confrontation with our military; they want to show the world how weak and cowardly American resolve is. Obama gave them that.
And what do you think these “advisers” do? They are not advising anything; they are up front and lighting up targets for weapons guidance. They ARE boots on the ground and the only people fooled about that is, apparently, you.
People should carefully consider what republicans led us into the last time.
Yep, that’s exactly what al Qaeda wanted, and exactly what ISIL wants. What do you think the public beheadings of American citizens were calculated to do? To keep the United States out of things? They can occasionally attack us at home, but if they really want to inflict damage on a grand scale—both economically and militarily—they have to draw us into their territory, where they can wear us down and bleed us dry. They know that eventually we’ll have to leave, and they’ll still be there, recruiting and exploiting a new generation filled with anger and hostility. That’s how extremists work, and that’s how asymmetrical warfare works. And don’t forget, these lunatics want to be martyred in the process.
@Greg: Yep those lives don’t count eh?? I hope the few that get hit include idiots like you!! You deserve it!!
@Greg: With the support of Democrats in congress. Why do you fail to acknowledge the truth?? How are you coming with proof on Reid’s accusation against Romney?? Still waiting on that one.
@Greg: Like 9/11 thanks to Slick’s failure as President!! You whine about what Bush left 0-blama but 0-blama took credit for this being over and done with. 0-blama lied on that one didn’t he.
Slimy Harry will figure a way to blame the Koch brothers before it’s over. He uses the floor of the Senate to slander these guys who have done tons more for Humanity than he has!! He would be in court if he made those accusations anywhere besides the floor of the Senate. I will be glad when this election cycle is over and Republicans put Slimy Harry back in his place!!
@Greg: They have Greggie and polls show they feel we are less safe NOW!! Even 0-blama knows it and that’s why he went to the podium kicking and screaming last night!! He has NO clue.
@Greg: Are they less human, and are they less in harms way?? Has it succeeded yet?? Any coalition to support your boy??
The undercover Muslim living in our White House has shown no stomach for fighting that which he cannot even name. He has assisted the Muslim Brotherhood, I believe the upper levels of this administration are filled with members of the Brotherhood. He sides with them. Look in his book “the audacity of hope” Somewhere around page 260-261 he clearly states he will side with the Muslims should the politics turn ugly. Everything he has done in foreign policy has opened the door for radical islam. I think not by accident.
Yeah, that’s what we were told about Vietnam; hey, they’re just advisors. Except they carried M-16s and came back in body bags.
So what is your point, assuming that you even have one? Do you want no military advisors to be there at all? Do you want U.S. troops to be sent back to directly engage ISIL and reoccupy Iraq in force? Or do you just what to whine and complain about Obama, without suggesting any alternative at all?
The latter seems to be what’s mostly heard from the GOP. Obama is a wimp because of his inadequate, indecisive response, but they don’t seem to want to go public with any specific alternatives that they’ll clearly state and then stand behind themselves. Not with elections coming up.
Republicans Mum on ISIL Until They Can Attack Obama’s Plan
Oh, a little testy today are you?
My point, which obviously you don’t have the intellect to grasp, is that our troops are ALL combat ready, no matter how Obama wants to spin it. Unlike Obama, our troops are capable of doing the jobs they are assigned.
What would I do? The same thing that we did in Berlin, and Dresden and the rest of Germany. I would bomb ISIS until there wasn’t a man left in it to be able to pick up a weapon. Total war. Total destruction. Dead terrorists can’t come back and bite us.
And unlike Democrats who whine about “collateral” damage, I would do exactly what Democrats did in WWII, back when Democrats still had stones.
What I lack is the misconception that war against a radical ideology having no fixed address can somehow be won in the same fashion as a war against a conventional nation state.
@Greg: Here again you provide the perfect illustration of the mental defective liberal. Some points:
1) Wasn’t Naziism a “radical ideology”? Where were the fixed addresses? Let’s see here – Poland, Belgium, Holland, France, Italy, everything from Greece to Poland, Ukraine — Stalingrad, Leningrad, outskirts of Moscow — North Africa – from Morocco to Egypt
2) Wasn’t Mussolini’s fascism “a radical ideology” — Libya, Ethiopia, Greece — ?
3) Wasn’t Japanese Imperialism a “radical ideology” Manchuria, large areas of China — (read up on the rape of Nanking), Southeast Asia all the way to Burma, every Island from Indonesia to New Guinea and North to Okinawa and Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians
Please strain real hard and point out all the “FIXED” addresses
In this case your “radical ideology” is the whole damn islam false ‘religion’ political enslavement scam — not to worry – we will not have to kill them all — just enough that they go back in their holes for a few more hundred years — remember that we did not have to kill all the Germans, Italians and Japanese! Of course they all had established cultures that had actually been positive contributors to the world’s music, art, and technical and medical developments and therefore had inherent redeeming qualities allowing them to rejoin the community of mankind!
Currently, Greg, ISIS is massed to launch attacks. They travel in convoys up and down roads. If we would quit screwing around and hit them before they disperse, we could inflict some real damage upon them. And, why are we NOT hitting their two refineries, which is financing their war effort?
However, it appears to be Obama’s intention to give them days or weeks of warning, then start looking for targets. Do you recall the announcements of the beginnings of the 1st Gulf War, hostilities in Afghanistan and operations in Iraq? When Bush I and Bush II made the announcements to the American people, we were already hitting targets. Right now, ISIS is dispersing and hiding, making finding their leaders and units more difficult.
I want to support this President in this effort; I really do. But, he and his idiotic methods makes it very difficult.
Yeah, that worked out great for them in Afghanistan and Iraq, didn’t it? The LAST thing they want is to face off with an Army or Marine company; they get their towel-head assess kicked every time. What they WANT is to influence domestic resolve, which in many cases they do. They can inflict FAR greater damage, both psychologically and financially, with an attack on the homeland. In confronting our military, they are doing what WE want; having them involved with those trained to deal with them.
On the one hand, with their propaganda beheadings, they cause consternation, hand-wringing and fear in those who are afraid to confront their barbarism and look for excuses not to; you know…. liberals. This is what got us to leave Iraq and leave the gate wide open for them to invade. On the other hand, they enrage and motivate many into demanding action against them; you know… Americans. Right now there are a LOT of the latter and Obama, slave to the polls that he is, has reacted (unfortunate that he could not have seen the dangers a year ago and acted… or even before he pulled all our troops out of Iraq and avoided all this altogether) in what appears now to be a rather half-hearted way.
We WILL lose lives, Greg; that is the nature of war. However, we were attacked. It isn’t something we can now avoid.
You have been shown the facts that prove it was Clinton and many Democrats that “led” us into this.
Of course, Obama won’t; he can’t lead anything.
Greggie wants to look only at the “last” time, while he ignores all the other times. Let’s take a look at history, shall we?
Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) campaign on keeping the U.S. out of World War 1. Within a year after his election, American soldiers were dying in World War 1.
Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) campaigned in 1940 as an isolationist although he was illegally supplying Great Britain in his Lend Lease Program. In December, 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked and we went to war on Roosevelt’s request. Fewer Americans died at Pearl Harbor than died in the attack on the World Trade Center.
Harry Truman (Democrat) not only continued to wage war until the surrender of Germany and Japan, but took the United States to war in Korea.
John Kennedy (Democrat) initially sent advisors to South Vietnam. Those advisors were actually combat troops. When Kennedy was assassinated, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) took over the hostilities in South Vietnam, escalating the number of troops we had there. The war continued to rage even after Johnson refused to run for POTUS again and Nixon (Republican) was the one that ended the American involvement in Southeast Asia.
Some of the historical facts that Greggie will NEVER point out is that under Democrat presidents, we lost more American military lives in one year (11,363 in 1967 alone) than we did in the entire Bush Administration in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And while Greggie, and his like minded lemmings will whine how Obama inherited the war in Iraq, he will never mention how Richard Nixon inherited the disaster of the war in Vietnam due to Lyndon Johnson’s criminal mismanagement of that war.
@retire05: A week before the 1964 election that SOB Johnson was on teevee – exclaiming: “Ah will not send American boys to SE Asia to do what SE Asian boys should be doing for themselves.”
A month later I saw a fully loaded troop ship sailing north out of Puget Sound on its way past Seattle.
Sound familiar ? every DAMN demo-commie-cRAT Presidential candidate since Wilson has spewed that lie —
More than 150 U.S. airstrikes have been conducted since late August. They haven’t been directed at nothing.
They aren’t actually ISIL’s refineries, and their grip on them is slipping. They could become a major asset to ISIL’s opponents. If they can’t be reclaimed quickly, maybe it makes more sense to cut the pipelines and leave the facilities intact.
That was the theory previously. Total up the costs and consider the results. The problem is that our own ground forces cannot be sustained indefinitely as occupying armies halfway around the world, but opponents like ISIL can be beaten, disappear into the woodwork, and then reappear as a new infestation somewhere else indefinitely. I don’t know the answer, but it seems clear this isn’t the sort of conflict where you defeat a nation state and hostilities then end with a formal surrender.
Interesting. I hadn’t realized that you were such a hard-line pacifist.
That’s about 4 or 5 a day. We could be carrying out 50 to a 100 A DAY. Obama is carrying out just enough sorties to be able to say (and for his apologists to say) that he is doing something.
“They aren’t actually ISIL’s refineries, and their grip on them is slipping. They could become a major asset to ISIL’s opponents. If they can’t be reclaimed quickly, maybe it makes more sense to cut the pipelines and leave the facilities intact.” Meanwhile, ISIL is making $3 – $4 million a day, which they are turning into terror. Screwing around is a poor option.
“Total up the costs and consider the results. ” You liberals had better learn to “total up the costs” of pretending threats are over when you decide they are convenient for you and you have the luxury of just paying attention to the things you want to pay attention to. Look how much money Clinton saved by not launching an operation to kill or capture bin Laden. In the long run, however, how much did THAT cost?
This is the stupidity of liberals today; Obamacare, letting illegal immigrants vote, banning guns, gay marriage; all of that would seem pretty trite compared to a dirty bomb detonated in LA or some sort of chemical weapon unleashed in Houston, wouldn’t it?
@Greg: That is funny Greg. Obama is following the same strategy as Bush devised because that is the effective path. The difficulty is that few country will volunteer troops to support a lying president who leads according to the latest poll.
The Bush administration’s strategy involved a massive bombing campaign, followed by a full scale military invasion and a military occupation that lasted the better part of a decade. I fail to see how the Obama administration’s proposed strategy against ISIL much resembles that. Hopefully the outcome won’t much resemble the results of the Bush approach, either.
“Admittedly, the idea that Bush finished strong in office is not part of the common narrative of a presidency much more defined by its actions in the wake of 9/11, the errors associated with the Iraq invasion, the rendition and torture of prisoners, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and the related alienation of important allies worldwide. But during his second term, Bush and his team produced another, underappreciated story. On the national security and foreign policy side, this included the stabilization of Iraq via the surge, the introduction of the “light footprint” approaches to combating terrorism that were ultimately adopted by Obama (including the use of drones and special operations), the ramping-up of America’s cyber-capabilities and cyber-defenses, and the advancement of the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s work in Africa and of PEPFAR. There was also an important nuclear deal with India and stronger relations with Brazil, European allies, and moderate Arab states, among others. What’s more, Bush’s response to the financial crisis was courageous and made an enormous contribution to the speed with which the United States recovered, a speed much greater than in most other impacted countries, such as those of the European Union. ”
An interesting read that doesn’t discount the mistakes made by the Bush Administration but hammers the ineptness of the current administration. Foreign policy that is a disaster conducted by a president who seems to be little interested in it.
Admit it, Greggie, even the left wing media, such as The Atlantic, is beginning to wake up to the disaster that is Obama’s foreign policy and the harm we are all facing because of it. Now Obama is saying that the tactics he is taking will take three years. Basically, he is trying to kick the can down the road to the next administration.
But you are so blind to Obama’s faults that you seem more than willing to go over the cliff with him.
And the sooner the better!