Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Obama says U.S. will attack IS inside Syria for first time
By JULIE PACE WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
115 Comments
Login to comment
WilliB
This is so stupid, I want to scream. This is the failed policy that brought us ISIS in the first place, and Obama wants to double down on it.
Arming Sunni Jihadis to fight Sunni Jihadis... bizarre.
MarkG
Seems like the exit strategy was no strategy at all. In all fairness though these ruthless religious murderers need to be stopped.
Wolfpack
A few months ago Obama stated that it was a fantasy to think that there was a ready made force of moderate farmers and dentists that could go up against Assad with American arms. Tonight, Obama is to announce that he will arm the farmers and dentists. Confused and incompetent strategy of leading from behind isn't working even against the Jayvee team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BwgRgRT4MY
Droll Quarry
It is fantasy to think middle east fighting can be stopped at all. These folks have been fighting for 5000 years over the color of a prayer rug and have absolutely no desire to stop. These militant groups exist and reproduce because there are enough people who nothing more than to kill their neighbor.
sfjp330
The destabilization of the region led directly to the ISIS challenge that the U.S. and its allies now confront. What this very brief recounting of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and reveals is that U.S. seldom understands what it is doing there, and thus tends to make things worse for itself and the locals despite sacrificing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It often finds itself fighting adversaries who only recently were allies, and reversing course when the full implications of some ill-considered course of action become apparent. ISIS doesn’t appear to be an especially challenging enemy, but neither did Osama bin Laden, and he changed the American history in some very bad ways. Obama seems to be one of the few people in Washington who understands the need to make Middle East policy on the basis of something more substantive than a nut with a knife.
sangetsu03
Obama's commanders told him in 2008 that it would be necessary to leave 20,000 US troops in Iraq to prevent the problems we are now seeing. Obama overruled them, and removed all the troops. It appears the commanders were right, and Obama was wrong. Obama is a politician first, and a leader... somewhere around eighth, or ninth?...
MarkG
I would not call Obama a leader either. Just look at his relationship with congress. A leader, no. An alienator, yes. A politician, yes making fundraising for the party the priority over this severe oversight.
Wolfpack
475 more troops on the ground. But there will be no American military boots on the ground. There will soon be nearly 1,500 US military personnel in Iraq. Obama is an idiot. As if people cannot see the mission creep and ratcheting up of the new Obama War in the Middle East. He broke Libya and hasn't bothered to even try to fix it. Now his planning to break Syria too. What's the plan to stabilize the region? Oh yeah, he has no plan.
SimondB
And the creep goes on.......
Just how Vietnam started. So what's next? Establishing democracy in the ME? Probably not, tried that and failed badly. How about stopping the spread of Islamic radicals (which to be honest seem quite popular in that part of the world) who will destroy your freedoms? A threat to western civilisation perhaps? That worked well with big bad Saddam didn't it?
What we really need here is a Gulf of Tonkin incident. That would set everyone up for another decade of senseless and aimless war. As a bonus Iran can be our new friends. Until the war is over of course and then they once become "bad Iranians". Just like in WW2 where at the end our allies the Russians became bad people and our baby eating Huns became our friends - the Germans. Talk about history repeating itself.
nogardflow
SOFA, signed by George Bush 2008. I'm sure you 've already heard of this, but would like to blame everything on Obama. In actuality Obama tried to extend the US presence in Iraq, but the Iraqi government would have no part of it. Also the majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Although I have my own reservations about Obama, I think that any intelligent person will see that the relationship with Congress is due to the totally moralless republicans in congress, whose only concern is to increase the wealth of the already rich. And as far as Obama being an idiot, might I remind you who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq to begin with. Bush was warned and had recent history to draw from, (remember Russia in Afghanistan). Bush was told by his own advisors when going into Iraq, "you break it, you bought it." So please take off your right wing blinders and place the blame where it truly belongs.
ulysses
A quick take on this strategy
Obama arms and aids 'moderate rebels'(it looks likely that these same 'moderates sold off sotloff) Moderates fight ISIS, Moderates fight Assad
ISIS fights Moderates ISIS fights Assad
Assad fights Moderates Assad fights ISIS
Everybody fights and dies and we have a zero sum game.
Brilliant just brilliant.
John Galt
Welcome to 1984, now non-fiction.
SushiSake3
Would ANY of this be happening today if the extremist fundies in the GOP hadn't all jumped on the GWB bandwagon and voted to invade a country (Iraq) that never attacked them - and subsequently inflame the entire region?
And now the conservatives are blaming Obama for a dodgy-looking withdrawal from Iraq that their pal bush signed off on?
Before conservatives go any further in thinking what Fox News tells them to think wrt defeating IS, they need to look harder at what they think and say, and who they voted for.
"The White House wants Congress to include the authorization in a temporary funding measure they’re expected to vote on before adjourning later this month. Republicans made no commitment to support the request and the House GOP has so far not included the measure in the funding legislation."
No commitment?
Complete abdication of responsibility, more like - a core conservative trait.
Looks like the GOP can't even be bothered to support funding to address problem they played a significant part in creating.
No spines. No surprises.
WilliB
Obama, Cameron at all aided the "pro Western rebels in Libya" to oust Ghaddafi and his stable, relatively pro-Western dictatorship. The result? Al Quaeda is splashing in the swimming pool of the ex US embassy in Tripolis, the US consulate in Benghazi is in smoldering ruins, and the embassador.... well ask him in his grave. Great "pro Western rebels"!
And now Obama wants to do the same in Syria. (To be fair, with support from some Republican fools like bomberman MacCain)
Is one definition of insanity not to repeat the same thing, expecting different results?
Bgood41
Obama's failed policy comes to hound him. and he double talks against himself. U.S. should not waste anymore money to train a bunch of looser in Iraq. Obama demanded Assad to step down, he drew the red line, denied to support the moderate who fought against Assad (fantasy in his own words), and now indirectly aligning with Assad - the dictator. It started with his self-interest's politic of naivety to pack the tent in Iraq, thus allowing Al Qaeda to form a new identity as ISIS. Bush had over 30 countries with boot on the ground joining coalition. Obama's coalition against ISIS are bunch of looser who hiding behind U.S. back. The Arabs, Iranians and all their proxies should wage this war; and not this community organizer in chief. Why he is not going through congress? Because, the Dem.s are afraid to loose more seats in the house. The reality of the world is getting worse since Obama employs his short sighted's liberal view of the world. Shame.
sangetsu03
"Change we can believe in", was that how it went back in 2007? I said back then that change for the sake of change wasn't necessarily a good thing.
Everyone wanted a new kind of president, and it seems they didn't care who it was. So they picked a good-looking and good-speaking career academic who had no professional, economic, diplomatic, or military experience. Now we are suffering from a poor business environmment, a weak economy, relations with other countries are strained because of NSA spying activities, and violence is quickly spreading throughout the middle east.
The job of president is not to be given to an out-of-touch, inexperienced person.
I remember Obama's inaugeration, the music played by Yitzhak Perlman, and Yo Yo Ma, and the huge crowds who came to see the agent of "change" they had elected. They were all fooled. Few times in America will be remembered with as much regret.
WilliB
It is just bizarre that some partisans still want to blame the current mess on GWB. Yes, GWB made a lot of mistakes, but every president has to deal with the situation given to him. Obama has been in office for 7 years, and the current mess is of his own making.
I wonder if there were any party political hacks who blamed GWBs problems in his 7th year in office on the mistakes that Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter made. I think they would have been collectively laughed out of the room. Yet, here this goes on.
Obama wants to arm Sunni Jihadis in Syria? Blame Bush!
Simply ridiculous.
Serrano
"In all fairness though these ruthless religious murderers need to be stopped."
I think the Chinese should take care of the situation.
bass4funk
@nogard
Problem was, Obama didn't want to extend it, because Maliki asked for at 30,000 troops to remain with the agreement US soldiers if for any reason they were captured or found guilty of some crime, they would NOT be subjected to Iraqi justice system as chaotic as it is and when Maliki declined, that made it that much easier for Obama to start withdrawing the troops against the advice of many of his top military advisors and top generals.
->In actuality Obama tried to extend the US presence in Iraq, but the Iraqi government would have no part of it.
When he screws up, yes. Russia, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS, the border, Benghazi, the IRS scandal and that's just the tip of the iceberg
But now overwhelmingly, the people want the president to intervene. now having said that, a real leader is going to do what's the best for his country and that means sometimes to go against what the people want, that's called leadership. Something this guy just doesn't have. A partisan through and through.
What a bunch of BS! If anyone, the Democrats have been outspending Republicans, the Dems have been getting money and making cash with their powerful donors hands over fist. I'm from California, the richest people are mostly liberals. And talking about morals, if the Dems had morals,they would have followed Bush's advice and to have kept a residual force in Iraq then we wouldn't be in this mess, even Gen. Lloyd Austin told Obama the same thing, do NOT do a complete withdrawal and Obama did the exact opposite.
sigh! Ok, so who was the one that was warned 4 years in advance that ISIS was growing and evolving and finally morphed into what we have now. He was warned by people for years and people that know battle and what does Obama know besides being a Constitutional law professor and community organizer?
Bush stuck through it, even when people in his admin. In the first 8 months felt it wasn't working, shortly after that, the tide finally started to turn to the point where we killed most of their top senior commanders so bad to the point where even Al Qaeda admitted to being defeated on their website. Bush stuck to it, committed to winning and that is exactly what happened. Obama still doesn't want to use Radical Islamists, Jihadists, invasions. He doesn't even look like he wants the job anymore.he looks beat down and tired. He's more worried about being PC and hoping not to offend anyone. As if anyone really cares what these jihadist thinks.
@sushi
Because besides playing Golf, even now, I just heard some Golf resorts have revoked his card and don't want him to play. That's all Obama is really good for. To get Obama to this point, they had to drag him by his mug ears kicking and screaming to do this and it's apparent, you see it in his face. Even his tome and language is lukewarm at best.
Fox sadly didn't tell the president anything that his senior top advisors didn't already tell him, but thank God for Fox, if tiwernt for them, we wouldn't know how bad, stupid, put of touch this guy is with reality. Even Obama knows and found out 3 times, more people worldwide get to see and realize his BS through Fox, whereas the other networks will do whatever is in their power to protect this president and that is not the job of ANY journalist and news outlet to be in the cheering soapbox in lock step agreeing with the president.
Because they need to see how serious this guy is, he won't even call it a war. ISIS has a land mass about the size of Belgium and growing and this guy STILL won't call it for what it really is. A war!
Fininacially, depends on how serious he is. Which it looks like, he's not.
That's right, that is the reason why the Dems are about to lose the Senate and the Republicans are going to possibly gain seats in the House. That is great leadership, for that, I'm very thankful. The liberals and their radical agendas time and time again for the last 6 years have proven to show that they don't know how to govern and because of their constant bungling, they became the best gift for the Republicans.
Maybe and then once again, Obama in typical fashion as only he can do, has to quadruple everything to making it the biggest crap hole ever.
I agree! 861 more days until this idiot is out of office.
Jimizo
'more people worldwide get to see and realize his BS through Fox'
Bass, you can always be relied on to add a gem of comedy to a discussion on a serious topic. I hate to break it to you, but the majority of the world outside the US rightwing sees any Murdoch-inspired creation for the filth it is. You're not going to be taken seriously in decent company by praising this tabloid on air.
nath
Like a good Christian, Obama seems to be saying "Kill them all (actually let them all kill each other) and let God (actually Allah) sort them out. What an unholy mess, all started by the toppling of Saddam.
bass4funk
And Hillary will be in.
Oh, I don't think so. I think for the next 2 election cycles, Dems are virtually overlooked.
@jim
Sorry, I when I was with msnbc and did a year at Fox, they are everywhere, that doesn't mean every house has it, but they are expanding and good for them, but you don't have to watch, there is a reason why they are number 1 and throwing insults is NOT going to change that fact. After 20 years in the business, you tell me, who else is out there. There are a few more, but as far as representing both sides of the political spectrum, nope. But nice try though...
MarkG
Started by bolstering the "Arab Spring" Saddam was gone years ago. And if you think Saddam Hussein would be in power today you are sadly mistaken. Likely a son and likely overthrown or internal genocide.
These followers of Allah formed in the last few years. And to be clear, this is not about weapon sales or religion (outside the region). Its about a growing threat to the region and the through the world of an intolerant unaccepting group of men with a twisted mission from Allah. They won't stop.
nath
Arab Spring. support the "moderates". End up here. So good to see our leaders know what they are doing. where are the calls for the next Crusade?
nath
Started by the invasion of a sovereign country that was following all 'requests'.
WilliB
Ulysses:
Obama arms and aids 'moderate rebels'(it looks likely that these same 'moderates sold off sotloff) Moderates fight ISIS, Moderates fight Assad ISIS fights Moderates ISIS fights Assad Assad fights Moderates Assad fights ISIS Everybody fights and dies and we have a zero sum game. "
It is even crazier than that. Let me add a couple of factors you did not mention:
Moderates fight ISIS, Moderates fight Assad Assad fights Moderates Assad fights ISIS, Hizballah fights both ISIS and "Moderates" ISIS fights Moderates ISIS fights Assad Iran supports Hisballah. Puting supports Assad. Saudi and Qatar support ISIS. "Moderates" swap hostages and weapons with ISIS. ....and Europe can look forward to accepting millions of refugees from the smoldering rubble that once was Syria.
As you said: Brilliant, just brilliant.
nath
There's a reason alright - the American public as a group are complete idiots.
John Galt
"And Hillary will be in."
In what? A nursing home? Or how about an orange jumpsuit? Yeah, orange is the right color for her.
What if Syria, aided by Russia, shoots down some invading US jets? Is that what the nutjobs want?
FizzBit
This was also WELL predicted before Bush stepped into the country. So it only makes sense that this was their plan. Now, onto Ukraine for Plan F!, destabilize, kill some women and children, and keep the war pigs happy.
MarkG
Your right! The uninformed US public as a group of complete idiots. They voted for this administration.
jerseyboy
Bass -- thank you for a laugh out loud moment. FOX and its closeness to the GWB administration and its buying hook, line and sinker the rationale for the Iraq War are culpable for unleashing the forces that have gotten us to this point. Decades of religious and other frictions that old GWB and his neo-con buddies -- "They'll Welcome us with open Arms" -- were either too complex for them to understand, or they willingly ignored, were set free and this is the result. And the American people saw this and said "let's get the hell out, this is not our fight". A complete repudiation of GWB and his policies. In fact, in case you missed it, a recent poll found that the majority of Americans feel the Iraq War was a mistake. All FOX is doing is beating the same drum night-in and night-out to a smaller and smaller audience.
Serrano
Are the Chinese not doing anything to help the Iraqi government fight Islamic State?
"The uninformed US public as a group of complete idiots. They voted for this administration."
Hey, it was either this administration or Romney.
Jimizo
'There's a reason alright - the American public as a group are complete idiots.'
A bit unfair. I lived in Texas for almost a year and saw why people could come to that conclusion. Fox can rattle their cages with their idiotic paranoia about encroaching socialism, how their beloved firearms are in danger of being confiscated and how it is necessary for the US to spill more blood on lost causes such as this. Pictures of the awesome US military machine in action is right up their alleys. The war on Christmas is due for its annual dust off. I also had the pleasure of spending time in New York and California where guns, god and calamitous bloodbaths overseas are often treated with suitable suspicion.
gcbel
Exactly. No accountability.
And the worst hypocrites were the ones whining that "politics stops at the water's edge". Same idiots who supported the invasion. No credibility, no responsibility.
Thank God it's President Obama and not president McCain, the worst of the pack of idiots.
John Galt
While the majority of GOP indeed supported the misadventure of invading Iraq, it would be utterly dishonest to assert that the Democrats, and certain brass-ring members, don't have equally bloody hands, including key members of Obama's administration. Check the names for yourself:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war
yabits
Clarification: The majority of the GOP supported that which their leadership devised and authored. Yes, they were able to get a number of key Democrats to support their folly.
But the majority of those opposed to it -- who could see it for what it was -- were also Democrats.
gcbel
Absolutely right. Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden...
yabits
It takes an amazing amount of historical ignorance to pretend that historical events can be relegated to four and eight-year increments representing presidential terms.
OK, WilliB, you're up: What would or could any American president have done about Libya? Propped up Khadafi? LOL!
And what would any American president have done to have controlled events in Egypt? (You can't answer either of those questions, can you?) You seem to have this insane delusion that the world can bend to America's will. Remember the "cakewalk?" Being greeted with sweets and rose petals by everyone? That it would cost less than $300 million and would pay for itself? We're talking insanity-level self-delusion here.
Now, regarding the debacle in Iraq: the answer is easy: All GWB had to do was leave it contained. Not invade, (especially not on false pretenses). Just like his father so wisely did.
Wolfpack
Your side won that debate under the last president. Announcing that the commander in chief lost the war while the troops are still fighting on the battlefield is now considered patriotic. Why should Republican's hold back now that the shoes on the other foot. Had the Democrats thought about the country instead of their own political self interest I would be against attacks on the presidents handling of his second war (Libya was the first). Obama practically got elected president by attacking Bush whenever the going got tough in Iraq.
Isn't it great that both sides get equally bashed while their respective president is waging war in a foreign land. That's the way the Left wanted it so that's the way it's going to be. Get ready for a lot of attacks on the Nobel Peace Prize winners war mongering and ineptitude.
gcbel
My side is the troops you and yours flippantly sent to Iraq. No amount of attacks on Obama will whitewash that. Credibility you guys have on matters of foreign policy... None. Cheers.
bass4funk
Funny thing is when you talk about space aliens, the president is out of this stratosphere, he's never there, even when he is there. Shallow, empty-headed, confused and disoriented, self-absorbed. Yup, space alien all the way.
What good is it, if you can read and you don't know what you are doing. As a NY state Senator, Hilary's record is beyond shameful, what did she do for that city and what are her biggest memorable achievements? Hmmm, looks like we'll be contemplating that for the next 100 years.
@jerseyboy
So uh...if that were completely and totally true, why were they so hard on Bush, especially in the last 2 years of the war. He wouldn't go many of the shows, especially O'Reilly, Cheney it took a very, very long time for him to come on. Keep dreaming with the exception of Hannity, they wouldn't go near any prime time commentator shows. Now in contrast, let's look at msnbc, there is NOT one pundit that will ever criticize the President except Scarborough and Todd on occasion, everyone else worships the ground he walks. Obama could rob a farm and they would spin it as justifiable theft.
And when Obama and Biden trumpeted that Iraq is a shinning light of success and Obama saying to Romney that Europe wants their foreign policy back? Obama bragging the war is won, time for the troops to come home, declaring practically victory and look what happened to HIS mission accomplished BS talk. Now he's awfully silent nowadays about that so called win they supposedly had.
Until the surge was won and turned things around and kept things for the most part smooth, Al Qaeda was on the run, they admitted it on their website, life was slowly getting back to normal until Maliki and Obama had to screw everything up and now here we are.
True, but at the same time, most of the people are always happy that Saddam is gone as well as his butchering sons.
I think you need to take those rosy tinted glasses off. Small? More like a landslide.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/10/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-september-9-2014/301391/
After voting for a community organizer twice and seeing peoples portfolio shrink, median household incomes shrink, Black unemployment being one of the highest in 6 years, open borders, Putin taking over Crimea, Iran building a bomb, ISIS cutting off peoples heads, radical Islam spreading like wildfire, expanding the NSA spying program highest debt $17 Trillion, out of control massive borrowing, printing money, printing money, printing money, a botched healthcare plan that millions have a difficult time affording, corruption on a massive level. And the ONLY real accomplishment besides getting OBL is a prize from the Norwegians.
Yes, you are 110% the American public as group are completely stupid, twice over!
Yeah, I just outlined a smorgasbord of what's transpired over the last 6 years and you seriously call it paranoia???
If I have a gun in my house, how is that bothering you? If I love and want to collect them, how is that any persons business?
What's wrong with saying Merry Christmas, what's wrong with decorating a tree with ornaments and how is me putting up a tree in my house bothering you? When you have a store telling it's staff, have a happy Winter Solace is completely off their rocker.
And that's ok, people in Europe can think of what ever they want, because sooner or later, we'll just have to bail them out of some crisis one day, very soon.
@gcebel
Obama, yeeees! No arguments here!
And the worst hypocrites were the ones whining that "politics stops at the water's edge". Same idiots who supported the invasion. No credibility, no responsibility.
So what about the politicians that thought pulling the troops out was a good thing and for the last 4 years with Obama getting weekly briefs for those years and what did he do....better yet, what didn't he do? And what did we get? ISIS and a more radicalized Jihadist nation. This admin. No credibility, No responsibility.
Hmmm...at least McCain wouldn't sit on the golf course and putter all day. But for Obama that's work.
@JT Dan
I feel you, dude. I feel the exact opposite about the Democrats.
@yabits
And looks like the Dems just might have to do the same. I love it, bittersweet.
And NOW the chickens are coming home to roost. Obama's worst nightmare has come to fruition. He thought he was so slick that he could have an 8 year reign without being sucked into a war and guess what? He's got one now, and because of his indecisiveness and unwillingness to confront the radical Jihadists. Here we are now. Had Obama done something, taken the ISIS threat more seriously, we wouldn't be here, but the Sainted anointed one thought that he know more than everyone else, including God and this is the result.
861 days to go, until the madness of this admin is over.
jerseyboy
bass -- thanks again for the laugh -- because my glasses are not the ones that are "rpsy tinted". My exact comment was:
Wolfpack
And how are Obama's main man Al Sharpton's ratings over on the Messiah channel - MSNBC?
Obama is the worst president since WWII. He will likely be one of the worst in history before he is done in a few more years. That's not my opinion, it is American peoples opinion. He is beginning to make inspector Clouseau look competent. All I can say is that for a guy that swore he wouldn't put any boots on the ground in Iraq, there are an awful lot of boots on the ground in Iraq. There were 500 a couple of months ago. Then around 1,000 last month. It will be upwards of 1,600 later this month. Obama will lie to the media, Hispanics, to blacks, single women, and every other member of their electoral coalition about anything and everything and the gullible are there to lap it up.
Keep it up - Obama's approval ratings are not under 40% for nothing.
Wyandotte Nation
Heavy is the head that wear's the Crown...Hang in there Obama! Be strong like a Man.
bass4funk
@jerseyboy
I know and I know Ariana, nice lady, and it's mostly not even her, more or less or staff, but taking that poll seriously is like saying Rachel Maddow will be the next president. A bunch of bologna. If it were only half true. With NOT the greatest reputation for polling. But good one on them, even though April 1st already passed.
@Wolfpack
And once again, you bring wisdom, sanity and the harsh reality to the debate. The truth for liberals is equal to a person taking castor oil, so bad, but necessary to get you back on your feet and hopefully to think straight.
@gcbel
But you are OK with a president that has plunged the world into complete chaos and has the absolute worst foreign policy of ANY president in U.S. history. Even Jimmy Carter, who has the Gold medal for being the worst can now finally take that medal off and pass it to Obama. His policy failed, domestically and internationally. He is laughed at, disrespected by almost every leader around the world, from our enemies to our allies, NO ONE takes this guy seriously. You can harp on Bush all you want, the man wasn't perfect, I didn't think so, there were things I didn't like about him, but one thing for sure, you can never say, Bush was a wimp, he was indecisive, he was a coward, he respected our troops, he would have never bowed down to Putin, Iran or Assad. These situations that are rapidly spinning out of control is due in part, because you have a guy who thinks he's the smartest man in the world, doesn't listen to his advisors nor his top senior Generals, he is too full of himself, NEVER served or had a background governed a state. Our country is being destroyed by a community organizer and a progressive liberal, over puffed idiot that was hell bent of changing our country. I am just thankful the people are finally, finally waking up from this wretched dream and hopefully once the Senate goes Red and Harry Reid is retired and he desperately needs to. This president will have to get off his lazy butt and sit down with Republicans if he wants to get anything done. Dems are exactly where the Repubs were in 2007. They thought they had everything, they did and they blew it 100 times worse than the Repubs did 7 years ago. 860 more days until the madness is over!
habits
Let's also remember the Ambassador Stevens that died and that the Obama admin. didn't want to be bothered during the election, causing the death of 4 Americans.
And what was the deal with Bergdahl Obama bypassed congress, paid ransom money to get the exchange done, lying to the the American people at the same time.
He did and far worse.
nath
Being unfair doesn't make it untrue.
And they are idiots for believing it. We've all seen posters on this site who have fallen for Fox News lies - and do they strike you as being particularly intelligent?
bass4funk
@stranger
What lies? Everything they've said about Obama is true.
plasticmonkey
bass
I would like to see some empirical support for that assertion.
Here's something from the Pew Research Center. People in 43 countries were surveyed about their impressions of Obama. They are overwhelmingly positive, with the exception of a slightly less enthusiastic South America and a disapproving Middle East. However, in Israel 75% of respondents give Obama a thumbs up. Despite supposedly having been 'thrown under the bus' by Obama.
That seems at odds with your picture. Perhaps it is Pew's 'ultra liberal bias'?
Wow, he's both overzealous and lazy at the same time. Typical liberal character trait.
That's if you disregard the bipartisan Senate intelligence report on Benghazi which debunked this bunk.
plasticmonkey
And that Obamacare really does include 'death panels'.
nath
I think you could pull up pretty much any clip whatsoever of fox news and find at least one lie in it.
bass4funk
@plastic money
I would like to see some empirical support for that assertion.
Here's something from the Pew Research Center. People in 43 countries were surveyed about their impressions of Obama. They are overwhelmingly positive, with the exception of a slightly less enthusiastic South America and a disapproving Middle East. However, in Israel 75% of respondents give Obama a thumbs up. Despite supposedly having been 'thrown under the bus' by Obama.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100036389/barack-obama’s-top-ten-insults-against-israel/
No, but there are more polls to choose from. Pew is just one source, they are pretty good, not as good a Rasmussen, but pretty good, and there is a way to poll. It also depends on the demographics, age group, political affiliations. There are amny variables. That's why Rasmussen cover more of these points and people use them and rely on them more.
Yup!
Oh, please don't go there. Liberals are THE worst hypocrites around, they scream about the war, blame Bush and and can't seem to talk or do anything else. WMDs have completely taken over and permeated their cerebral cortex. But when it comes to 4 Americans being killed under Obama and there was a huge cover up, we know that now as a fact. The left thinks it's just an overkill story. So basically, liberals are saying 4 American lives killed under a liberal president have less value when you compare it to 4.500 lives under a Republican, that's basically what liberals are trying to sell you.
@strangerland
There's a huge difference reporting out right lies and exaggerating a story, Fox had some of the least retractions in Television, when comparing that to the other networks. All news outlets can sometimes exaggerate a bit too much, there is not one that hasn't done so. Also it depends on the viewer and their relationship towards a topic, they might think, too much or not enough, they might not like the anchor, these are all contributing factors that shape a lot of people's perception about news, the network and or their personal and political leanings.
plasticmonkey
That is not a fact. That is a supposition continued ad nauseum by the fringe right.
FYI: the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded there "were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes."
Last month, the House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and that news briefings given by the administration reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis.
As for Obama's popularity in Israel:
Your personal experience is far less convincing than a survey by a reputable and balanced polling organization.
bass4funk
Really, so then tell me, why were those 4 killed? And please don't start with the narrative that it was because of a stupid video, I know Obama and the ever looney left thinks everyone is dumb, but himself, but what do you think it is? I am itching to hear what you have to comment on this.
And which source said this? Maddow? Hayes or was it Media Matters or Think Progress?
Ok, which sources?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/30/israel_hamas_and_obamas_foreign_policy_123502.html
Here is another reliable polling source that most network news outlets use. Yes, convincing indeed.
plasticmonkey
Here are your sources. One is the US Government, which of course you don't trust as a source. And the other is according to the San Francisco Chronicle (yes, I know, U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public). Psst! It's all a big conspiracy! The truth will never come out! Obama meant to betray America and get people killed because he's a lying, lazy, zealous, communist, fascist, Muslim, apologist, non-American, anti-American, incompetent, community-organizing, scheming, obsequious, race-bating, wealth-redistributing mom jeans-wearing wimpy golf player guy who conned the American public into voting him into office twice! How'd it happen?
So much for American exceptionalism, I guess.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt134/pdf/CRPT-113srpt134.pdf
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php
bass4funk
@plastic
Anything out of SF is beyond left. I personally know of 1 Conservative and 2 Libertarians that work there. It's NOT even close to being balanced. Also, I don't believe in Gov. conspiracy theories, I'll leave that to Stone and Moore, that's more up their ally. I believe the people that were on the ground. I saw the special with Bret Baier the other day with the men that fought and tried to get Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 out and how they were told to stand down causing precious time which ultimately cost those 4 their lives 13 hours of course, I would take their word in a second because they saw and dealt with it first hand. Why would I read THE most partisan Leftist progressive print paper in all of California.
Wolfpack
Only the Democrats in the Senate are ignoring the stand down order. Not much bipartisan to be found there with Harry Reid running the show. Obama's light footprint stupidity and Hillary's indifference to the emergency phone call that came in from Benghazi at 3AM led directly to the four deaths at the Libyan consulate. The best that Obama has to defend his administration for their ineptitude is, "What difference does it make". He is more interested in CYA than being responsible.
Now that Obama has declared war on Syria and will begin bombing any day now, I'm wondering when he will be getting around to asking Congress for authority to wage war in a foreign country. He demanded one last year when Assad call his red-line bluff and began to chicken out from his promised consequences for the use of WMD against Syrian civilians. I think we all remember Obama and the rest of the Democrats demanding that Bush get authorization to attack Iran on the mere suggestion that he might.
And where is Obama's beloved UN? No UN authorization is anywhere to be found. Is what Obama doing even legal? If the president a Republican I'm guessing that Obama, Biden and company would say "No".
Obama continues to do the minimum to get him past the next election. Kicking the jihad can down the road to be left at the feet of the next president who will have to clean up Obama's terrorism mess.
bass4funk
@wolfpack
That's the reason they had hoped once they sent Rice on all the prime time shows and tells some exaggerated story of a video that was made by a Coptic Christian, that was basically the reason why the people rose up and were outraged and was the cause of the attacks.
The reason, had the Obama admin. responded and would have taken action and the people would have known there was a terror attack on a U.S. embassy on the anniversary of 9/11 the chances of Americans becoming outraged could've moved people away from Obama. The timing was couldn't have come at a more critical time for the Obama admin.
Problem is Obama doesn't want to use the words: "War, Radical Islamists, Terror, Jihadists" The Dems don't want a declaration of war, even though ISIS and radical Islam is at war at use, they are growing and once again this guy dithers and only wants to stick his big toe ONLY in the water. For some odd reason Obama is just hoping and praying that ISIS will go away and we don't have to continue this. He talks too, too much about what he doesn't want to do, instead of just doing something. Once you tell the enemy what your goals and timelines are, all the enemy has to do is wait you out. Obama with all his smarts and education is one of THE dumbest presidents to ever occupy the White House. Even Carter after his blunder with the Iranians learned a very valuable lesson. He found out you need a strong and powerful military and he felt that in the future we could possibility be at war with Iran or other extremists and to combat that, we need to increase our military. He started and Reagan expanded the increase which was good thing and now this joker neutered our military. We have out of the 40 so brigades 4 are combat ready. Are you serious?? What money and how are we going to pay for this? Obama had better take funding from some other program to give back and rebuild the military. This is NOT a bipartisan issue. Both parties need to come together and the Dems have to realize there are bad people in the world that want to harm, kill and destroy America and Americans.
The UN is a useless entity of unimportant nations that do well when it comes to Humanitarian aid and that's pretty much it and all they're good for.
Funny you say that. Obama DOES look tired, he looks like he doesn't want the job anymore. He looks old and just out of touch, when he talks, he's all over the place, sometimes incoherent and I think he knows that the Senate is lost and is thinking about how to keep the Democrats from losing more seats and contemplating if he should use his pen and phone, because the next two years as a lame duck president, he's going to be more scrutinized and his feet will be held to the fire and he won't (thankfully) have Reid to make excuses for him and get in everyone else's way.
plasticmonkey
Good for you. Fox News is the epitome of fair and balanced. And they really know how to beat a dead horse.
Can't you wait for the intelligence agencies to approve the release of the conclusions of the Republican led house committee on Benghazi? Or you don't trust the intelligence agencies either? Or the House GOP? Or anyone who doesn't conclude that Obama is a scheming evildoer?
As you have stated about Ferguson, it's better to hold off judgment until all the facts are in. You seem reluctant to trust those eyewitnesses, so better to exercise caution in judging Obama for a cover up.
Maybe Darrell 'Car Thief' Issa can set up yet another investigation.
bass4funk
Yeah, they did with James Foley and the other Journalist and all that beating led to nothing. How do you feel about that?
I never said, that is was Obama only. I know it wasn't, but for the people under him, most definitely and without a doubt.
This is different! The Obama admin and Hilary can spin any BS they want, I will go by the men that were THERE and on the ground and were in the firefight that took the bullets and told to stand down and not engage. These men have nothing to gain politically as most soldiers don't. They just do their job, but these politicians and the Dems during an election and we have another one on the way, Yeah, they have A LOT to lose.
Sure and that would put "pot smoking" Obama and "Money laundering" Hilary on their highest tippy toes.
SuperLib
Benghazi? I wasn't aware we were even investigating that anymore. Must be a Republican bubble thing.
bass4funk
Hmmm, if you say so. Then please you and the other libs from here on out, stop talking about 4700 soldiers that were killed in Iraq and also don't bring up the subject of WMDs or Bush, you do that, we're square.
nath
That's an understatement. It was a case of the republicans having nothing legitimate to whine about, so they picked something that they thought they could turn into an issue, and kept trying and trying, without ever managing to make it a real issue (since it never actually was).
bass4funk
I see, so the Obama admin. dodging and hiding from answering the parents as to what happened to their loved ones and instead, they get nothing, but obstacles, blocks and lies and to make matters worse, they try to blame it on a video that had nothing to do with the events. Strangerland, you and the other libs know exactly where it Bush or another Republican in the White House, you guys would be beside yourself talking about impeachment and everyone involved should be rounded out and sent to prison for a very long time, but when it's a Democrat in the White House, anything goes. You guys always, always get on Bush for the war and the thousands of lives that were lost WMDs, how is this different from Benghazi? 4 lives are less worth than 4700 lives? Also, the men that were on the ground trying to save the ambassador, the soldiers were lying now? They just woke up one morning and decided to write a book, go on TV and just talk BS about that night in order to make Obama and Hilary look bad for publicity gain, right?
Wolfpack
Obama ordered the Justice Department to "stand down".
bass4funk
Or Holder legally advised Obama would be better to "stand down."
WilliB
Strangerland:
I am not American, and I think that is a huge issue. Having your embassador murdered by thugs that you previously supported, claiming they were a democratic "spring" revolution against a dictator, ignoring emergency calls from help from the victims, and then making up a phantasy story about some Youtube video having caused the murders, framing some hapless Coptic amateur film maker in the process, that would be a scandal in any country.
That your government managed to shut down all investigations speaks to its power, it does not speak to its integrity.
SuperLib
Fascinating. I wasn't aware that this was still going on. I remember an investigation started but I just kind of lost track of it over the years.
So what's the final verdict? Or is it still ongoing?
bass4funk
Still going on and even if you've lost track, once Hilary starts to run officially, you'll probably hear a whole lot more about it for sure. Because unless Hilary starts to explain in detail about what really happened and why they the WH told help the rescue team to stand down, she won't even leave the starting gate.
nath
What you are saying makes no sense, as this wouldn't have been an issue without the hatred of a black president in office.
1) You answered your own question
2) Your question was actually kind of gibberish. "Lives that were lost WMDs"?
3) The US unilaterally attacked a sovereign nation that had not attacked the US, and was complying with all demands by the UN. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands died as a result of this immoral, warmongering action. With Benghazi, the embassy was attacked in the region, and four people died. What are the similarities in these situations that you are using as a comparison? Because I'm seeing nothing.
And yet, she'll still win, as the opposition will have shot itself in the foot during the primaries, before it even gets to the starting gate.
Wolfpack
The order was given to "stand down".
nath
By who?
plasticmonkey
Give it up already.
Even Republican members of various Senate and House investigations have found no evidence of any 'stand down' order by anyone. The only people still going on about this are suffering from chronic Obama Derangement Syndrome.
bass4funk
Nothing to give up, Hilary blew her chance, unless she answers questions and admits that the WH purposely lied to the families and to the troops that were told to stand down. She won't even get close to putting her derrière in the chair at the WH.
So what you are trying to say, the soldiers that were trying to get the ambassador out and the 4 that died in the attack. The soldiers got together and for some benevolent reason they decided out of an act of personal vendetta to create a story to make Obama look bad. Because Obama is the most honest President ever to occupy the oval office.
NewsFlash! Obama already looks bad, NO one has to help him achieve that goal.
I'm laughing so hard, it's difficult for me to type. Yeah, Plastic, you keep on believing that White House lie. ROFLMAO
I'm telling you again, please stop reading Move on and Think Progress, please!
plasticmonkey
Are there or are there not a host of Republicans in the House and Senate who believe this 'White House lie'? These GOP congresspeople must really make you roll on floor laugh your derriere off.
You inhabit a very weird universe, my friend.
SuperLib
Is this the "stand down" that everyone is talking about??
It's listed as a hoax.
bass4funk
What's really funny is, how every Dem and liberal are trying so hard to bury this story. The reason is quote simple: Hilary, if anything gets out that she was or had knowledge that the White House knew that there was a stand down order or the soldiers were being stalled for political reasons, Hilary will have to testify and if that happens, she's done or she just wants to plead the 5th which would really damage her more than she already is.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+Current/ID/2514592677/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/us/politics/boehner-appoints-7-republicans-to-benghazi-panel.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/us/politics/boehner-appoints-7-republicans-to-benghazi-panel.html
Yes, it's called, reality. I get that comment a lot from liberals.
nath
I remember eating LSD as a teenager and thinking how real everything seemed. Fortunately I woke up the next day and was able to see my delusions for what they were.
bass4funk
All the more reasons why so many libs have issues.
Geez, get off of it! No one hates Obama because he's Black, many of you libs don't hate Bush because he's White, right? People don't like Obama, because he lies, is extremely lazy, doesn't work with Republicans, is actually a first.
And this is the absolute reason why when Obama is out of office any politician with a D attached to their name will be out of a job and rightfully so. Never heard anything so ridiculous! Only 858 more days until the madness that is Obama will be a memory.
Check Syria
No, UN resolution article 1441, they were given more than 14 chances, they wouldn't comply, he was warned.
I'm going to take the same attitude, what difference does it make. I'm more concerned with the deaths of Americans by Jihadists.
They were Americans and our government didn't do anything to help them, even though they knew the video had nothing to do with the attack, trying to make the very soldiers that were on the ground as delusional and trying to discredit them. I have never, ever seen President and his staff so corrupt in all my life, the level of bold audacity and obstructionism is off the charts and the faster we can get this dirt out of office, the better the nation will become once again.
Hmmm, so far for the midterms that has NOT happened, which means there is a shot at 2016, but I will tell you again and this is a fact. If Hilary really wants to run, God is my witness, Hilary will be grilled about Benghazi and if she bops, weaves or dodges and tries to blow the hearings off, her goose will definitely be cooked and there is NO guarantee that she even has a chance. The Democrats are putting everything into Hilary and you know why? Because she is THE only serious candidate for the Dems, take her out and that's it, pretty much. The Dems put all their eggs in one basket.
nath
America Gov is going around this in the wrong way "maybe". They are only training them, and will slowly arm the rebels in Syria. That will take time, and time mean's they adapt to it/ the strategy's and the fighting. What are they going to do when they hit the city's and there fighters are in every house? America can't kill 100k civilians and blow up all houses, so Air support is only to stop an advance. After that, its cleaver strategy/tactics, to draw them "out".
Personally American troops need to go in hard and fast, surround there main city strong hold, and kill them off. This plan now........ Is the wrong way around. It's going in hard "as" your arming the rebels, then take out the trash. Once the trash is taken out, then rebels move in, to stop the trash from building back up.
For a start American troops need to kill as many as they can, so on an assault on the city needs to be clever to draw them out. I would look for a route that gives the IS some hiding areas "but" nothing we can't just drop some bomb on to kill them.... Trees rocks and so on. Ether way I would just draw them out into a trap. I would make the guided bombs miss all their targets and have the troops pull back "slowly" as if the IS is beating them back "there for" they will send large numbers forward "thinking" there repelling an attack, but in fact..........It's a trap. So now we will see all guided bombs, stopping them from going back into the city area "houses" for cover, and will see a swarm of troops dropped from the choppers and so on, surround them and breaking them up, into small groups "out" in the open. This way choppers can swarm in also.
Now we can move into the city. Mass fighters have been killed in a trap on different sides "not just 1 side" and they have significant casualty/losses. Now the troops need troop need to use the same smoke a guy told Israel to use, years ago. It burns hot and stops all inferred from working :). You can move tanks in and troops "without" inferred weapons working. It was very successful, "but" if it gets on civilians, it can badly burn them. Troops will pre plan the attack "Knowing" what areas to use it, and what areas not to. You can even use that Burning smoke to cover your sides. If its to the sides you can focus on a forward attack, and know attack can come "directly" from the sides. It's like being able to stop being "flanked" from the side/sides.
For a pre plan invasion, it will be looking at all the roads and what roads the civilians drive on. There can't be IED pressure plat bombs on the roads, as they use them. Jamming devices for the rest, then enter "only" at night time, to see any enemies hiding with wired IED bombs. Things like stun grenade's as you clear out the houses, even sound weapons and heat weapons to help.
I could be here for hours but f that. something like that would help. I don't get paid so they can think it up lol.
bass4funk
@scott
Excellent analysis. If the president for once will listen to the people that are trained and have expertise and knowledge in this area, they can do exactly that, but Obama wants to run things his way as if he knows from a military strategic POV as to how the mission should unfold and hitting the enemy lightly is not going to do anything, he can bomb all year, but if the mission isn't right and his heart isn't in it, then how can he expert his troops to perform well?
plasticmonkey
@bass
You're avoiding the question again. I'll repeat: Are there or are there not a host of Republicans in the House and Senate who believe this 'White House lie'?
Not one of the multiple investigations has come up with evidence for a 'stand down' order. End of story. Republicans are going to look stupid if they try to bring this against Hillary, and Tom Cole (GOP) said as much in the story you linked to.
@Scott
Sounds like a good idea for a screenplay. To be directed by Ridley Scott and starring Bruce Willis as a truly macho comic book president who (like Saint Ronnie, blessed be his name) strikes fear and respect into the hearts of evildoers everywhere. Unfortunately, your analysis ignores all the political fallout from the US taking a lead role in a sectarian conflict that has roots going back centuries. Look what Rumsfeld's 'shock and awe' did for Afghanistan and Iraq.
bass
Excellent analysis. Obama = bad.
bass4funk
@plastic
Are there or are there not a host of Republicans in the House and Senate who believe this 'White House lie'?
The vast majority of Republicans think that it was a lie, their only worry was to get them to this point in the midterm and to NOT jeopardize their chances in ANY way to hinder them from getting the Senate, but now that it looks a hole in one for the Republicans, they can now dig in their heels reopen and intensify and pursue tough questions for the Dems and hopefully get answers. I hate that they do it like this, but that's politics, you do what you need to do to get you to the finish line. That's sadly politics and both sides play it.
No, sorry. If you hear the story that was told by Mark Geist, Kris Paronto and JohnTiegen who were in the middle of it, fighting trying to save the Ambassador and the others. They were told to stand down, no questions about it. There is NO reason to fabricate the story, NONE whatsoever, now of course, it hurts Hilary more than anything and IF...IF the stand down order was given by Obama and again, IF you are looking at possible impeachment charges worse case scenario and the Dems and Holder (who advises Obama constantly what he can or cannot get away with legally) he will protect and keep the president insular.
Actually, the way things are heating up and especially after the interview, it's going to have the opposite outcome. Obama said, Obamacare would work and keep premiums down, it hasn't. He said Iraq war is over, it's not, he said, the economy is good and yet house hold median income is down from $49,022 to $46,688 down by 5%. He said, we will not go to war, but we are in a war. So if ANYONE looks stupid and fallible, it's the Democrats. Hilary is THE ONLY Democratic candidate and every Dem and liberal in the US is and will do everything to protect their ONLY investment, because if she doesn't run, you guys are toast. Straight up.
Yes, I think so. Only 858 more days until the madness of Obama comes to an end.
nath
And then we get Hillary!
bass4funk
More than likely not. Not a shoe-in, Benghazi, NOT popular with the umber left Progressive movement, she also needs to distance herself from Obama, she cannot run on his platform or anything related to him. Doesn't have a good record as a state Senator. She's got a lot of problems and an uphill climb, doesn't mean it's impossible, but probable is a different story. Doubt it though.
plasticmonkey
That's a big IF. Geist, Paronto, and Tiegen seem to be implicating the CIA base chief, not Obama. But IF you believe the culprit to be Obama, just clap your hands!
And then the GOP will get busy demonizing President Hillary Clinton.
nath
She doesn't have to do anything to win much more than keep her mouth shut. The Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot by trying to out-vitriol each other in their primaries. They will alienate the general public so much that the Democrats will win just because they aren't republicans. If you don't believe me, ask Mitt Romney.
The real question is whether they will hate a woman more or less than they hate a black man.
bass4funk
@plastic
Well and who does the base chief answer to? If it didn't come from Obama, then it came from someone from the admin. trying to pinpoint the exact source is a task and with Holder guiding and blocking the President from any legal trappings it is not that easy to get to the exact truth. I'm not saying, it came from Obama 100%, but if it did, if that's the case and it were known, that would be an impeachable offense.
If that were only true. it will be 8 years of the anointed ones rule and the country is already having Democratic involuntary protein spill heaves and in 2016 as things are now, the Democratic name will be a swear word. But hey, I remember a 2 years ago on JT how all the libs were boasting about Obama's victory and Democrats will rule forever and the Republican name is tarnished and obsolete and bla, bla, bla...Dems had all 3 branches of government when Obama took office, lost the House and NOW, you are about to lose the Senate. Obama is a lame duck and anything and everyone associated with Obama is a bag of washed up goods and you think Hilary is going to be the next president? I'll tell you this much, if the Dems keep on this crash course of Obama and Democratic skew ups in the next 2 remaining years, it's totally over for the Dems at least for the next 2 political cycles.
@stranger
Which she could do as a senator, that saved her, but running as a presidential candidate is an entirely different ball bark and when you weave and dodge from answering questions and appear shady.
If they did and that WERE true, the Dems would still hold on to the Senate without any competition, even Romney during the latest poll would beat Obama if the election were held today. The Democrats are losing and people are angry at them because they brag, thing they know everything better than anyone else, are spiteful to change, don't want or try to listen to the opposition party. When the country was founded, each party was given equal power to share and Democrats don't believe in that and all I can is thank God that the people are finally coming to their senses and are waking up to see the last 6 years of liberal looniness that has polarized and almost destroyed America.
That tactic just makes Dems look so, so bad. It doesn't work and NO one believes that, seriously, NO ONE.
nath
^fixed that for you.
bass4funk
@stranger
So will you admit, Blacks and other people were racist towards Bush because he was White. The outrage and racism that permeated all those years and now Obama. So I guess it doesn't matter your political affiliation or race or color, Obama, Bush both are excoriated because of their involvement with war but at least Bush was not indecisive unlike Obama that just seems lost and dithers all over the place.
bass4funk
Believe me, NO one hates the president because of his color, they don't like is inability do what is necessary to wage war against radical Islam, that is the problem!
nath
@plastic its not unrealistic trust me. The only thing i would change "maybe" would be using the Rebels to stage the first wave off the attack, and letting them pull back. This way the IS would probably take the bait more, as they have "over run" everyone to date ijn the same way. So U.S troops ready to swoop in, and Guided bombs and jet fighters ready to kill and stop them from getting back into the city. So 2 stop them from getting back into the city, they need to use that smoke that burns "white hot" as they can not walk into it, or they will burn hard / 2 death. Guided bombs and choppers target tanks and cars only "Unto" only IS men left.
@plastic The Iraq war was 100% won. In the end the Intel was running them out of the city and the countryside, so much so the raids were taking place deep out in the desert at the end of the Iraq war. Iraq Gov got told "once troops goes" so does Intel.... as we can see it was Iraq's gov biggest mistake, as Iraq troop attacks were becoming less and less, and U.S troop deaths were staying at 0 deaths a week "nothing at all". Despite what you here about the Afghan war, its going very well. Just going to take time to kill them off. Even a U.S Gen come out saying that war was going good a year ago. That's because of there id cards that stop a endless supply of men.
JTDanMan
Republic.., er., 'independent conservatives" taking their talking points from Kristol and McCain, the first terminably wrong about, well, everything.
And the other who chose this women as his running mate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/09/14/palin-source-she-was-in-full-mama-grizzly-mode-during-brawl/
Wolfpack
By the CIA station chief "Bob". Who told Bob to stand down is likely someone in the State Department. The State Department suggests through their spokes babe that they were told to stand down to wait for more assistance. That assistance was not forthcoming so they defied orders and went anyway. By then it was too late. The ambassador was dead.
WilliB
Scott Ryan:
If you think Sunni jihadist "rebels" like Al Nusra or the FSA would "run an attack" against other Sunni jihadists aka ISIS, you are dreaming. You really should read up on the sectarian background of this conflict.
The only party who would seriously deal with ISIS is Assad.... but Obama is fighting him, not using him.
nath
@WilliB First do you know the ISIS just killed their mates and some of there top leaders? They're not mates and now hate each other. So "yes" I 100% know they will fight them self's and AMERICA.
I take it you are joking right? Clearly there going to target them with massive help, after being targeted a week ago killing many leaders?
Assad is a clown, and this time once it happens, he will be taken out. This time they can make a real constitution that will force democracy on them. I CANT BE BOTHERED CHANGING OR RE-WRITING THIS. its ABOUT CHANGING THE Iraq constitution. JUST READ IT AS IN SYRIA MAKING THERE LIKE THIS.
America needs to go back in there and kick the government out, forming a new government with a new constitution. Overall America should of changed Iraq's Constitution. They should have made it 2 terms at most, a freeze on changing the Constitution for 30 years. Iraqi FBI can not be shut down, and all evidence put forward to gov, media & courts, will be done instantly. All army chiefs must be rotated yearly, each year a different type Kurd, Sunni, Shiite will be the number 1. Well much more than that, but that's the start. The people America hand picked to start the new gov in the first place, would have been forced to sign it, or, America kicks them all out, before they even start. It's simple, sign it or you lose $200k a year. Well, just change it anyway, before the gov is made. There is lots of changes that could of been done.
If they had changed the Iraqi constitution, they would of seen that war won. Iraq Shiite Gov only forced them out to take over, something I stated before, and 100% we seen what they did, and why this has now happened in Iraq. If you look back before they left, 1 year before they left, almost every week, there was no U.S troop deaths. After the strategy crushed them, the Intel was set up. We have seen the raids kick them all out of the city's, then seen the raids taking place outside of the city's. In the end, the Raids were going out in the sticks to get them. America made it clear, the troops go the Intel goes, and as they can see, each month less and less attacks on Iraqi troops took place, as the raids were making them flee. If they changed their Constitution and is stated all that, and that U.S troops can stay, then this war was 100% won.
America will not do it, so in the long run this will all just fail anyway, unless they do it properly. The constitution and rotating or different religions and terms in office, and will 100% stop any take over. That includes giving an FBI body the power to arrest people in the party's that gets busted, unlike before, the Gov just shut them down.
If they go into Syria, they better do it properly and do all that + more, in their new Constitution that will 100% have a 30 year freeze on changing it. They really need to step into Iraq, and replace the government, by making a new con. The resistance would be countered within 1 week and would only be Shiite resistance. Then it would only be starting up U.S intelligence agency, that crushed the terrorist last time, and it will see next to 0 attacks on Iraqi troops within 2 years.
If they did that, i would say U.S troops would be in and out fast. But leaving a base behind of 15,000 troops. If not the Intel will stay with very small troops.
plasticmonkey
Scott Ryan
Sounds like a beautiful kind of democracy.
@Wolfpack
Classy. No doubt you've been listening to Limbaugh. You've given your conspiracy theory extra weight.
nath
Sup @plastic G. Force it on them G? Re-wright it and then put them in government G. Democracy is stopping people from taking over G, and in that area it happens all the time G. Iraq is proof of that with the Shiites clinging to power & shutting down the Iraqi FBI G, that busted them. Iraqi gov was shutting down Iraqi FBI units, and also replacing all top Gen with the Shiites only Gen...... to cling to power. How dumb that you even say / think that its forcing democracy on them. This is something that must be done 2 make democracy work. Without that, its pointless. Any constitution forces law on them, and every country has 1 G.
Are well all sweet G? cool G? GGGG lol G
nath
Can someone translate this to English please?
nath
@Strangerland.................Mission impossible G
nath
The end of your post appears to have been cut off.
turbotsat
Doesn't G = gangsta? It's the new/improved way to say "homeboy".
SR accepts you as an equal, Strangerland. Except that he's appending it to every sentence so maybe he's initializing hostilities and indicating that with sarcasm.
So it's like pig latin. Just delete all the extraneous G's. Need any more help?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=G
Definition Three: a title of endearment.
Example Three: What up, G?
Moderator
Back on topic please.
nath
@turbotsat If only i could do the thumbs up (y).
Back on topic now.....sorry :G :)
WilliB
Scott Ryan:
You can not force democracy on people who don´t want it. That has been tried before, and it always ended in disaster.
What do you call repeating the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?
nath
@WilliB Incorrect mate. There constitution has never been changed, and "every time" the same result happens. Clearly, if there is a freeze on changing their Constitution, and it has 2 terms at most, it means any 1 person can't what? If the constitution now says the Iraqi FBI can't be shut down, it means what? What happened last time in Afghanistan and Iraqi when they busted the people in Gov? They had the powers to shut them down.
Rotating top army Generals and so on, must be done. We have seen in Iraq how Nouri al-Maliki was clinging to power..... By having his weak Henchmen in charge of the top army jobs and keeping the Shiites at the top of all departments.
You have got to be kidding "yourself" if you think this will have no affect at all?
:)
WilliB
Scott Ryan:
Both Syria and Iraq are secterian conflicts. Without a strongman, the dominan t sect will rule. A Western democratic system will NOT work in either country, no matter what constitution you invent.
You are demonstrating the same wishful thinking as the Obama administration.
nath
Yes they are, and if you look back at Iraq before America left, it was dropping off consistently by a % every month.....Unto Intel got the kick = the troops leave they leave. Once that happened did attack's go up or down?
It was a constitution that allowed Nouri al-Maliki to cling to power, because a judge "that can be get blackmailed or paid off" had the power 2 change it. It was 2 terms at most, but he had it changed. Once he had it changed and kicked the other groups out of top gobs and so on................ That's when things got bad "jump in attack" and 2 year on........this
WilliB
Scott Ryan:
You belief in the power of a "constitution" is touching. But the most wonderful constitution is meaningless, if people don´t observe it. And a constitution imposed by a foreign occupying power is a non-starter anyway. (With Japan perhaps being the sole exception.)
nath
@WilliB You need to take a look at Afghanistan war and how that war is "really" going. If I was you I would be thinking about full proof ID cards.
If Iraq and Syria had them id cards, within 10 - 15 years, they would be killed off. The first ID cards were made in 1 area in Iraq, then used in Afghan to stop an endless supply of men. If the terrorist attack, then some of them will be killed everyday. Once 10 terrorists are dead, then that's 10 less men allowed in that area. Id cards 24/7......... when you pull cars over check pints, troops out in the hills coming across people and so on.
What you say is they will always fight " the terrorist groups" but yet there is away 2 kill them off, and stop a endless supply. 10 years time 10,000++++ dead and not in the area, attacks at 0% or so on.
Mate just trust me..................... You have know idea what i know :)
WilliB
Scott Ryan:
Yes, lets look at Afghanistan and the endless disaster there. As soon as Nato pulls out, the Jihadis will take over.
The idea to solve the problems of Jihadism and Sunni/Shia hostility with a techno-fix like "ID cards" is laughable.
nath
@WilliB Nope............... but another reason Y they need a new and a freeze on there constitution. You silly boy.....Did you say pullout? Where do they get every last cent of there money from?
Even if we did, they attack, they will be killed. If you look in the helmand offensive , you would know 2,000 IED planters where killed off within 2 months in 1 area alone in 2 months. Its not going to matter because if the Taliban attack, that's 1 less guy living in there * 2,000 within 2 month. 10 years time??
Its so laughable that you here next to nothing about attacks anymore. Small attacks only, that is slowly killing them off making less and less attacks, like we have seen "big time" over the last 4 years :). Look back 4 years ago , then 2 years ago, and now. Laughable....I THINK NOT. Massive numbers have been wiped out, and they don't even attack anymore.
That was the whole idea of the strategy, to stop them attacking, if not they get wiped out. The sheer fact you don't even get it, makes it pointless as its beyond clear over the years, this is 100% going to work, and have "big time" already.
Ps WilliB, that's 1 strategy from 40 good strategy, that you have know idea about, or how they work :).
Will they be killed off in a area?
Does this stop a endless supply?
Tell he why ?....................i have told you how :)
How not?