How did we go from this
“We know that 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.”
— Barack Hussein Obama
I wonder, how many beheadings a month are “manageable?”
Maybe Obama can ask the international community to come up with a consensus on that. You know, just so we don’t offend anyone.
It shouldn’t be surprising he would say something like that. We know he’s weak and indecisive when it comes to acting in the best interests of the nation. We know he’s petulant and feckless when he doesn’t get his way. We know he’s not that smart as he claims to be. And, we know he’s beyond caring.
Unfortunately, the next man up is just as bad. Notice how Biden became invisible, only to reappear today?
I just used my remote to cut Neil Cavuto off in mid-bloviation, knowing exactly where he was going with this halfway through his opening sentence. It gets tiresome watching propagandists like Cavuto routinely twisting simple phrases to give them politically useful meanings. Nor does the fact that the right-wing echo chamber takes up the same mantra almost simultaneously surprise me any longer. What does surprise me is that so many people seem to have become incapable of understanding the actual meaning of such a statement.
Shrinking Axis military capabilities to the point where they were “a manageable problem” was what most of World War II was all about, wasn’t it? In fact, no formidable enemy has ever been ultimately defeated in any military conflict without first engaging in the difficult business of reducing them to the status of “a manageable problem.”
Actually, that isn’t a strategy. A strategy is a plan of action, not a simple intention. A simple intention falls into the category covered by the old saying, If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
So you think FDR really just wanted to defeat the Nazis until they were “manageable?” Yeah, I seem to remember FDR saying something like “Well, if we can just get Hitler to the point where we can manage him, all will be well.”
Again, you fail majorly while trying to make excuses for Obama and his failures. FDR had no intention of “managing” Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. He intended to pound them, and pound them again, and again, and again, until there were not enough of them left to ever threaten us again. And that is just what we did. We pounded Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan into the dirt, bombing them back to the stone age where they had nothing left to fight for.
We won. They lost. And they lost big enough that they will never come back to bite us again.
What do you think the word “manageable” actually means? Why on earth would anyone think reducing a serious threat to the point of manageability is the end point in the process? Do you think firemen stop putting out a fire as soon as their efforts have reduced it to a manageable level? Or that they can somehow skip over that initial step of gaining control before they finally extinguish it?
@Greg: Yep, Greg, you always leave room to wiggle out of your ignorant statements. We win, they lose is a strategic statement that allows planners to develop tactical plans to implement the strategy. Did you spend you military years as a deck swabber or a permanent KP? The strategy for the Normandy Landing was written very briefly on the back of an envelope. Then the tactical planners developed the detailed plans.
You really should write about things for which you have knowledge, but then we may not hear from you again.
Something that can be managed.
Now, which of these does Obama have in mind?
1man·age verb ˈma-nij
: to have control of (something, such as a business, department, sports team, etc.)
Does he intend to take control of ISIS instead of destroying it?
: to take care of and make decisions about (someone’s time, money, etc.)
Is Obama going to make decisions for ISIS, and take care of it?
: to direct the professional career of (someone, such as an entertainer or athlete)
Is Obama going to direct the career of the ISIS members?
To say that we (the U.S.) is going to “manage” ISIS shows that a) Obama doesn’t have a clue what the word manage means or b) he intends to allow it to exist with him as its manager.
I’m not attempting to wiggle out out of a damn thing. People are exhibiting a willfulness to misunderstand the meaning of a perfectly straightforward statement. Either that, or they have genuine verbal comprehension problems, which I suppose might explain why Obama often seems to be talking over so many people’s heads.
What do you think an ER doctor means if he assures a person who’s been seriously hurt in an auto accident that their injuries are entirely manageable?
Poor analogies, both the firemen and the ER doctor, in trying to compare them to the democrat method of.dealing with jihadists.
Firemen putting out a fire have the primary goal of extinguishing the fire, not just shrinking it down.
An ER doctor discussing the treatment of a trauma victim is not typically worried about his patient attempting to behead him once his injuries have been stabilized.
The attempts via sanctions and/or air interdiction to contain and manage Iran, or the 17 year attempt to contain Saddam, or the international efforts to quarantine the Taliban era Afghanistan all failed miserably. Hamstringing the US military, as the left worked furiously to do during Bush II’s terms, compounded with the Obama administration’s refusal to negotiate a new SOFA agreement in Iraq in the ideological insistence of pulling out before the country was stabilized, further (allegedly) compounded by the decision to arm Syrian opposition to Assad (which ended up in the hands of ISIS) – all of these leftist policies have served to weaken the US while emboldening these viscious jihadist animals. When even wahhabi Saudi Arabia is warning the west that ISIS is dangerous and must be stopped, the feckless, incompetent and woefully inadequate response of the Obama administration is absolute dereliction of duty.
January 2016 cannot come fast enough. God help us if another clueless democrat (but I repeat myself) gets elected to replace the craven, community (dis) organizing demagogue currently befouling the Oval Office.
Sure you are. It’s what you do best.
No one misunderstands the meaning of manage, Greggie. You cannot manage a thing that doesn’t exist and for Obama to manage ISIS, it has to continue to exist.
No comprehension problem. I even provided the definition of manage taken straight from Merriam-Webster on line.
You can cover the horseshit with all the chocolate you want, but it is still horseshit.
You might want to refresh your memory concerning the difference between verbs and adjectives. Manageable belongs to the second category.
man·age·a·ble (adjective) Able to be managed, controlled, or accomplished without great difficulty.
That’s actually a sensible and comprehensible statement—assuming that you’re a sensible and comprehending listener—even taken out of its full context. If you’re not clear on the meaning, you might also want to consider the rest of what he said:
That seems entirely clear and unambiguous to me.
@Greg: The only time Obama is talking over peoples head is when he stands on a podium! He has no idea what he is talking about when he goes off the teleprompter instead of speaking words others have prepared for him.
Greggie, you are the most dishonest person here. The rest of what he said? Problem is you have it exactly backwards. Obama first said:
It wasn’t until later in his speech in Estonia that he said:
Nice attempt at spin, Greggie, but again, a major fail on your part.
If an entity no longer exists, it doesn’t require managing. We no longer “manage” the Nazi regime, do we?
Yes, the rest of what he said. The rest, as in the part that was omitted because including it would have revealed the right wing media’s assertions about it to be intentionally deceptive.
It’s probably a waste of time to argue with people who are either unwilling or incapable of understanding a simple truth that is staring them straight in the face. Examples of right wing media duplicity are seldom more obvious.
Actually, it was the right wing media where I heard both statements, not just the one you accuse them of only informing on. So your attempt to claim that “the right wing media” didn’t report both statements is blatantly false, like most of your claims.
Well, if you are talking about yourself as being the one who is either unwilling or incapable of understand a simple truth, it would be the first time that you were actually honest. You refuse to answer questions even when you encourage them; you obfuscate, twist, fabricate and blatantly lie about things on a regular basis. And then, when caught in the trap like a rat, you obfuscate, twist, fabricate and blatantly lie some more.
You can manage your budget, you can manage your dandruff, you can manage a band, but you can’t manage an enemy. You decimate them. Totally, without prejudice, until they cease to exist.
Were this guy not born outside of the United States, the right’s search for a 2016 presidential candidate might be over:
@Greg: Greggie do you mean like the meaning of “is” by Clinton or “period” by 0-blama. Come on Greggie, you can’t even understand these words!! Still waiting on proof relevant to Romney’s taxes.
@Greg: and what does obama want to manage? how often they cut off the heads of ‘infidels’.