world

Obama says U.S. will overcome terror threat

69 Comments
By JULIE PACE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Obama will probably talk about tightening up tourist visas since the terrorists in Paris were mostly European which makes it very easy for them to come over on a plane. The White House started to look into this after the identity of the terrorists became available. Republicans were busy passing off-topic "ban refugees" laws for whatever reason but some of them have calmed down and are actually just beginning to look at the facts and are now working with the White House on this issue. Hopefully there will be some cooperation.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Americans are WAY past that point. There have been a few recent gatherings of openly armed Americans surrounding mosques.

There were no open threats and people could come and go freely, but this is beyond any civilized behavior.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

As a person unarmed, the only thing I avoid is standing next to anyone wearing an 'I'M PACKIN' tee shirt.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

In a rare Oval Office address, President Barack Obama on Sunday night will urge Americans not to give into fear following attacks in Paris and California, while trying to assure the public that he takes the threat of terrorism seriously.

As posters here know, I have more often tah not been a supporter of Obama. But as an excellent opinion piece stated here on Friday, he has totally lost his voice when it comes to foreign affairs in general, and terrorism/ISIS in particular. He has zero crediblity and I, fo one, am sick-and-tired of his "nuanced" approach. At some point you have to display some balls, not just brains. And he has failed miserably in that regard.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

The Obama Administration is exactly what one would expect of when one elects, twice, a facile dilettante pseudo academic as President of the United States.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

"facile dilettante pseudo academic" socialist as POTUS. What a waste of a few minutes. Jimmy Carter must be relieved that he is no longer the worst president in living memory.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

I hope Deadbeatles stays at "no gun safety zones" mandated in every state, and also the site of almost all recent mass shootings in the USA. After all, if you were planning to shoot people, you might choose somewhere with all the law abiding people unarmed. The everyday shootings that really drive the "gun violence" rates, are the black drug gangs wars over territory in the major cites (all ruled by Democrats and all with strict gun control). Without New York, Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans, the USA is very low on the list of gun violence countries.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

"facile dilettante pseudo academic" socialist as POTUS. What a waste of a few minutes. Jimmy Carter must be relieved that he is no longer the worst president in living memory.

I'm sure he is. He's probably breathing a huge sigh of relief.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Obama just puffed his chest and exhaled some hot air. Tough-sounding words from the Wuss.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

His address seemed to draw credit from French and Russian targeting. Finally he called Ft Hood terrorism.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

You reap what you sow Obama

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

America is not at war with Muslims as Obama seems so preoccupied over. America has been under attack by Islamic extremists - not regular Muslims. Big difference. Muslim leaders in Egypt and Jordan will tell you that - everyone knows that. In fact, neighbors of the San Bernadino terrorists were afraid to report the strange goings on because they were afraid to be called anti-Muslim bigots. That is the awful power that political correctness has over so many. American's are being bullied by the president himself into being passive about the safety of their own communities.

Obama is wrongly attacking American's as being somehow anti-Muslim just as they are witnessing yet another Islamic extremist attack. This is his usual straw man tactic to distract from his lack of success against ISIS. American's are getting frustrated because Obama's government is making them out to be the enemy and accusing them of undermining American values when they only seek to be protected from a global ideology that has proven it wants to kill them in their own country.

Obama has no strategy to fight ISIS and in his speech he actually doubled down on that. Zero plus zero still equals zero. The president has been talking a lot about doing something but has only achieved failure. ISIS is not the jayvee team, they are not contained, and despite his assurances the ISIS threat is in inside the US. Obama's knee-jerk ideological reaction is to infringe upon citizens Constitutional right to own a weapon for self protection. The ridiculous thing is that he knows that every time he talks about taking away the right to bear arms from law abiding citizens gun sales surge. What an idiot!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Talk is cheap. Obama's promises are even cheaper . . . .

2 ( +9 / -7 )

full text: http://nyti.ms/1QpVp4J

But he had to reach across 6 years to come up with three incidents.

It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wolfpack: America is not at war with Muslims as Obama seems so preoccupied over.

You have issues of Muslims being taken off of planes for not speaking English. People are openly talking about tracking them, tracking their Mosques, putting them on watch lists. An absurd ban of all Muslims is on the table. If you were a Muslim-American born here who preaches no violence whatsoever, I'd imagine it feels like people are after you.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Obama talks about it also being a national security problem, which I believe is exactly right. The incident in California could have prevented had they not allowed these people to legally purchase the two automatic rifles and enormous stockpile of ammunition. How could this possibly happen, why do people need to purchase automatic rifles, period!!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

When this guy speaks, it's not even worth watching. Besides, 99% of what comes out of his mouth is just pure garrulous babbling. Watching Homeland is definetly more entertaining than hearing another pile of excuses, apologies, denial and more bloviating.

No thank you!

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

JA_Cruise: ... The incident in California could have prevented had they not allowed these people to legally purchase the two automatic rifles and enormous stockpile of ammunition. How could this possibly happen, why do people need to purchase automatic rifles, period!!

They were semi-automatic, not automatic. They did have high-capacity magazines, illegal in California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting#Weapons_and_equipment_used

2 ( +4 / -2 )

No big news here. If you support the President's strategy of financial and territorial deprivation of extremist groups while preventing them from claiming the moral high ground, nothing changes; if you do not, nothing changes. For the latter, I'd like to remind you that George Bush didn't spout that phrase "radical Islam" for good reason and was one of the very few things that he did right: he wanted all non-terrorist Muslims in the world to be on our side. I'd also remind you that George Bush spent almost eight years fighting the Taliban and still had to hand the war over to Obama.

These things take time. What is important is to formulate and implement actions which make the situation better, not worse.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Obama is wrongly attacking American's (sic) as being somehow anti-Muslim

There's no islamophobia.

The colleague who harangued Sayed Farook about Islam was just being affectionate.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Obama says U.S. will overcome terror threat" And we will!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The colleague who harangued Sayed Farook about Islam was just being affectionate.

If you read the stories, I believe Farook gave as much as he took when he also discussed the merits of his religion to others.

Obama is wrong. There may be some people who have misgivings about Muslims and Islam, but then some Jews don't care for us Christians, etc. etc. I have not heard anyone say that Muslims should be rounded up and placed in interment camps. But what I have heard said was that before anyone can come into the USA (i.e. non US citizens) they need to have a background check and a real vetting that they are not being or associated with radical Islamists.

I think before groups like CAIR and Obama need to start with addressing the Muslims first. If this is not true Islam, then they need to be the ones who are brining it up in their mosques and exposing the radicals and putting them out. The Unibomber (Ted Kazinski) was turned in by his own brother after seeing his manifesto and realizing that was the ramblings of his own kin. That's what CAIR, and all of the rest of those who are telling us how we (non Muslims) should feel about the practitioners of their religion and letting them know that is not what is supposed to be about and turning them in, rather than asking me to accept the wrongs that they have done.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Kinda little late to address the former "JV team" as a serious threat. He is not known to listen to anyone but his close inner circle of bootlickers. Our military would have been a better resource to assess the terror threats and to help come up with an early solution to take out Asad, which is the root cause of our current dilemma.

Also, pretty sure Obama would have been singing a different tune tonight if it were his wife and daughters that were being buried instead of the people who were gunned down by Muslim shooters in San Bernadino. Oh, that's right: They have an army of Secret Service agents armed to the teeth protecting them, not like the rest of us.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I'd like to remind you that George Bush didn't spout that phrase "radical Islam" for good reason and was one of the very few things that he did right: he wanted all non-terrorist Muslims in the world to be on our side.

I will say this, Bush did indeed refuse to NOT use that phrase, I faulted him for that, but being pc about that, but I did think that his approach to radical Islam was stronger and more defiant. Bush did understand that there was a fundamental difference between radical terrorism and Islam, whereas Obama refuses to even acknowledge or engage in that debate. As careful as Obama has been during the last 7 years, the relationship with the Islamic world is no better as with the Bush administration with the exception that Bush would meet it head on and the people did feel more secure, but with Obama, people are completely confused as to what to believe.

I'd also remind you that George Bush spent almost eight years fighting the Taliban and still had to hand the war over to Obama.

And Obama will definitely turn and even more complex and violent radical Jihadist war over to the next president, so this is going to go on for a very long time.

These things take time. What is important is to formulate and implement actions which make the situation better, not worse.

Yes, they do take time. However, the Obama admin. has refused to even recognize the threat of radical terrorism. It's a tragic shame that up until now with what happened last week in San Bernardino to get the president out in the open to make this statement that EVERYONE already knows. The people want to hear a REAL STRATEGY and NOT listen to a lecture from him constantly, it's condescending as well as insulting.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

What a massive failure America foreign policy is, or is it? The US invades Iraq, Afghanistan , funds wars in Syria etc and yet still the attacks continue. Well, the US economy is also a war economy with massive private and public budgets so war is a necessary 'evil' for the American economy-no war means economic deprivation! The Russians have shown (as Obama also knows) vast numbers of oil is entering Turkey funding terrorism directly. Do we see the US bombing Turkey? Isn't funding terrorists a crime against us all? Also, the Saudi Arabian finance of terror (9/11) and their most extreme form of Islam with its beheadings,amputations and general antipathy and hatred of the west is kept well hidden. We never see condemnation of Saudi Arabia from Obama even though the Saudis have and are wrecking the American oil industry. What ever is going on it is tacit between those in power in the US and Saudi Arabia. Sigmar Gabriel, the German Vice Chancellor has said that the Saudi regime is funding extremist mosques and communities that pose a danger to public security. It's a cliche but it might be a fair assessment to say that President has lost his moral compass, did he one in the first place.....?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Tex,

Rest assured the NSA have your IP address for the comment about your president's family.

take out Asad (sic), which is the root cause of our current dilemma.

So he's the one responsible for the jihadis? What an utter cad.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@TexAg Obama would have been singing a different tune

I stopped that ugly quote short and will turn it around and say anyone who has had family members killed by a murderer, be it a gunman, whomever, would sing different tunes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So he's the one responsible for the jihadis? What an utter cad.

How so? Thinking he's not is utter cad, not to mention delusional. When he was advised to take action against ISIS 4 years ago, he did nothing. He refuses to identify or even quantify radical Islam, he makes excuses every time as to the crimes that they commit being anything and everything else OTHER than radical terrorism. Other organizations like the NSA or FBI have to define it for him where we all know he doesn't want to hear it. They probably had to drag him kicking and screaming to make him say the words he has been trying so hard NOT to say over the last 7 years. He is not sending the proper equipment to help protect our men and women overseas on the ground, his rules of engagement is slowing our troops and inhibiting them from taking out value targets, our planes are coming back with most of their bombs on them.

Yeah, he's definitely responsible.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

@He is not sending the proper equipment to help protect our men and women overseas on the ground, his rules of engagement is slowing our troops and inhibiting them from taking out value targets, our planes are coming back with most of their bombs on them.

Brave words from another chicken hawk willing to send someone else's sons and daughters to fight and die, maybe come back injured but then be ignored by the government that sent them. Is your war fever because the economy of southern California is partly based on the military-industrial complex? Bring all armies home to protect each nation's borders. If you want a war, go fight it yourself.

Moderator: You have been instructed before to stop being impolite to other contributors. We won't ask you again.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

bass4funk:

" He refuses to identify or even quantify radical Islam, he makes excuses every time as to the crimes that they commit being anything and everything else OTHER than radical terrorism "

Not only that, acting upon request from CAIR and other islamist groups, Obama has actively removed any discussion of islamist ideology from military and intelligence curriculae. Analysts and subject matter experts were blacklisted, and books and training materials were purged from official counter-terrorism training programs government-wide. Instead, they are now taught hare-brained themes such as that global warming causes terrorism.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

"They're the JV team," "they're on the run," "they're contained," Paris was "a setback," and now the latest - "we will overcome them."

For someone who likes to hear the sound of his voice, Obama missed his chance to have an FDR-like "Day of Infamy" speech (Google it for all the Millennials who post at this site to understand the reference).

Instead, Americans had to listen to more weakness and more gun control garbage from a guy who could only spare 15 minutes (standing behind a podium in the Oval Office no less) because addressing the nation was probably making him late to attend another party. Guess it was too cold to golf back there on the east coast.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

@TexAg Instead, Americans had to listen to more weakness and more gun control garbage from a guy who could only spare 15 minutes

Wow! They (they ubiquitous ones, I'm sure) MADE 320,000,000 people listen for 15 minutes! Are you complaining because it was too short? Are you actually saying you want a go-to-war speech? Are you willing to volunteer yourself and your family members for a war? If you want a war with ground forces and aren't willing to serve, why not? You've said you've got the guns, go use them!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

MADE 320,000,000

Not sure of the exact number of viewers, but I'm guessing many were already sitting on the couch passing the time between the football games that ended after 7, and the lone final Sunday game that started at 8:30.

"face palm" Our leaders are a joke. Have been for 35 years.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"When this guy speaks, it's not even worth watching." What are you going to do if another Dem. is elected?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Texas A&M,

Instead, Americans had to listen to more weakness and more gun control garbage from a guy who could only spare 15 minutes (standing behind a podium in the Oval Office no less) because addressing the nation was probably making him late to attend another party. Guess it was too cold to golf back there on the east coast.

In fact, he was "late" for a party as a result of the speech, as mentioned in the article.

After the speech, the president appeared as previously scheduled at the Kennedy Center Honors tribute in Washington.

And here is an article on him showing up.... just a little bit late.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3348874/Hollywood-heavyweights-turn-style-honor-five-world-s-accomplished-artists-time-including-George-Lucas-Carole-King.html

I will let the facts speak for themselves.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Brave words from another chicken hawk willing to send someone else's sons and daughters to fight and die, maybe come back injured but then be ignored by the government that sent them.

Question: How would you then fight a war? How do you fight an enemy that wants to kill you? Throw bouquet of roses or incense or how about throwing some peace and love signs? Personally, I would fight and die for my country, I can't and won't speak for anyone else, but I do care, so that argument doesn't fly with me.

Is your war fever because the economy of southern California is partly based on the military-industrial complex?

No, it's because two radical Jihadists shot 14 people to death and injured 17 and also for your information, California is also one other largest exporter of produce and the film and music industry, don't make it out as if California solely depends on the military industry to stay afloat and especially since the Democrats have run that state practically into the ground and over taxing everything they can, even the military industry won't be enough to finically bail that State out if it keeps throwing money out for unnecessary and out of control entitlements.

Bring all armies home to protect each nation's borders. If you want a war, go fight it yourself.

We can't even do that, since Obama refuses to give many PD the equipment they need to protect the homelands.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

How would you then fight a war? How do you fight an enemy that wants to kill you?

I will keep this simple. In my opinion, about the only time a nation should go to war is if it has been invaded by another nation. The nation would go to war to protect its citizens from foreign invaders. I think the current enemy, in this case Daesh and other forces, want to fight primarily because foreign armies have invaded their lands.

I think their lands were invaded by nations wanting to secure greater rights and access to resources, in this case lower cost petroleum. I think as a result of the invasions the war has grown from a war for resources to a war for resources plus a war over ideology. I think throughout history those are the two reasons nations go to war - resources and conflicting ideology.

I think this current mess has become even messier because of the ideological aspects of it. I think if the invading armies were to pack up and go home, leave the resources (and develop their own energy alternatives), the ideological war might fade away. Slowly, perhaps, but fade away nonetheless.

Again, if hawks want war, go fight it yourselves. Plenty of people on all sides are doing that.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Solution. Just stay clear out of the area. Easy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Shhhh...don't say the M word.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm not seeing much in terms of ideas from the Right here, mostly just retread points about the JV team and the ever famous "not listening to his advisers" which has obviously been beaten into their heads by the bubble. You guys do realize that's a fuzzy statement that you cannot confirm or deny either way, right? Pick any Republican and I'll say he doesn't listen to his advisers, just his inner circle. Then go ahead and prove me wrong.

There's no government on earth that anticipated what ISIS has become, especially since it happened so fast. Obama didn't rush to drop 100,000 American troops into a Syrian civil war, thankfully. Instead he built a coalition that looks like will soon include Russia. Had he rushed to war we'd be in a quagmire with countries taking a pass on participating in the quagmire.

On Thursday, the Senate rejected legislation barring people suspected by the government of being terrorists from purchasing firearms.

So a suspected terrorist can buy all the guns he wants, but go ahead and report your Muslim neighbor who works late nights in his garage.

Because we gotta be safe.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"many PD the equipment they need to protect the homelands." Like what?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

“I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure,” he said, speaking from a lectern in his West Wing office. “The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it.”

Yeah, he is at the center of the cancer. It is getting clearer every day that the West supports the terrorists, where the main immediate goal is to get rid of Assad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1JZeM1Waqs

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Thinking he's not is utter cad

I'm reminded of a friend's son, then in first grade, sharing what he knew about the (Dubya) Gulf War:

"They want to get Saddam, cause he's a Bad Dad."

Except this kid grew up into a lucid, intelligent adult.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, actually he is a CEO of a Global (not just American) Fortune 500 corporation that employs 100,000s of thouands of people around the world. But still haven't gotten the name of the corporation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion, about the only time a nation should go to war is if it has been invaded by another nation.

That's the only justifiable reason for fighting a war.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Personally, I would fight and die for my country"

The blood-freezing battle cry of the keyboard warrior.

You tend to find most of them passed on the army in favour of making more money elsewhere. The same selfless, self-sacrificing types then usually start complaining when they have to pay taxes if they can't find a way to avoid paying them in the first place.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I will keep this simple. In my opinion, about the only time a nation should go to war is if it has been invaded by another nation.

We've been invaded by a radical group that has hijacked a religion and in the name of that religion believe that everyone that doesn't fit or follow the exact scriptures of that religion, should be put to death.

Based on that, we are at war, therefore, it's necessary.

The nation would go to war to protect its citizens from foreign invaders.

If Obama would get out of the way, we could do it.

I think the current enemy, in this case Daesh and other forces, want to fight primarily because foreign armies have invaded their lands.

Obama pretty much withdrew all of our troops, so what's their excuse, besides us being infidels?

I think their lands were invaded by nations wanting to secure greater rights and access to resources, in this case lower cost petroleum. I think as a result of the invasions the war has grown from a war for resources to a war for resources plus a war over ideology. I think throughout history those are the two reasons nations go to war - resources and conflicting ideology.

So now we are making excuses for national interests and past colonialism and past mistakes. Seriously?

I think this current mess has become even messier because of the ideological aspects of it. I think if the invading armies were to pack up and go home, leave the resources (and develop their own energy alternatives),

the ideological war might fade away. Slowly, perhaps, but fade away nonetheless.

Tell the Christian and Yazidi minorities that? Nigeria doesn't have any troops in the Mideast, the Ethiopians, the Philippines aren't invading any countries, what about the Swedes, the Danes and the Germans? Bottom line, you can leave them alone all you want, as long as there is a west and as long as you have Israel and the US in existence, they will NEVER, EVER stop in the rabid dog and the Great Satan are obliterated.

Again, if hawks want war, go fight it yourselves. Plenty of people on all sides are doing that.

From the looks of it, Obama just Got Trump elected. Like he said, I'd bomb the *hit out of ISIS.

I'm not seeing much in terms of ideas from the Right here, mostly just retread points about the JV team and the ever famous "not listening to his advisers" which has obviously been beaten into their heads by the bubble.

So please tell us, besides rehashing the same boring talking points he's known for, what did Obama say that was different than anything else he lectures us mere mortals about.

You guys do realize that's a fuzzy statement that you cannot confirm or deny either way, right? Pick any Republican and I'll say he doesn't listen to his advisers, just his inner circle. Then go ahead and prove me wrong.

The problem, Obama doesn't listen to anyone...well, except for Michelle...

There's no government on earth that anticipated what ISIS has become, especially since it happened so fast.

Oh, stop with the BS! There were enough intelligence for years floating around about the rise of ISIS, Obama was warned and notified constantly and consistently and he didn't do anything about it, that's why he rambled that rhetoric that ISIS was a JV team and that they were contained. Who the heck does this guy think he is? We have adjunct professor lecturing some of the most knowledgeable military experts in the world that he's right and his knowledge is superior? He could see something these experts couldn't? I had NO idea, the powers of the great Obama were that vast.

Obama didn't rush to drop 100,000 American troops into a Syrian civil war, thankfully.

He didn't have to do that, there were better ways he could have done it, had he chosen to work closely with the Pentagon.

Instead he built a coalition that looks like will soon include Russia. Had he rushed to war we'd be in a quagmire with countries taking a pass on participating in the quagmire.

What coalition? You talking about the 8 countries that supposedly said are taking part, but this whole myth of a 60 coalition is absolute bogus.

On Thursday, the Senate rejected legislation barring people suspected by the government of being terrorists from purchasing firearms.

How about canceling the VISA Waiver program entirely and sealing off the border completely?

So a suspected terrorist can buy all the guns he wants, but go ahead and report your Muslim neighbor who works late nights in his garage.

If we had a leader that would actually do something and properly seal off the border, work closely with law officials and the military, really give people assurances that he is indeed doing something to protect the American people, maybe there wouldn't be a need to panic. But given this guys history in government, it's no wonder people trust themselves over the president.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

We've been invaded by a radical group

No you haven't.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Most US terrorists have been white Christian gun-obsessed males, according to history. Why don't you stop them? The US seems to be in some sort of uncivil war.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

waiting on resident internet warrior, bass4funk, to go fight for his country.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We've been invaded by a radical group that has hijacked a religion and in the name of that religion believe that everyone that doesn't fit or follow the exact scriptures of that religion, should be put to death.

I think that statement is so wrong. But just for the sake of argument, let's just assume you are correct. Then why would the US support, arm, and train such groups. Everything the US has done has strengthened these groups. And why is the US so intent on getting rid of Assad?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

PTownsend: I will keep this simple. In my opinion, about the only time a nation should go to war is if it has been invaded by another nation. The nation would go to war to protect its citizens from foreign invaders. I think the current enemy, in this case Daesh and other forces, want to fight primarily because foreign armies have invaded their lands.

Keep in mind that a vast majority of victims are other Muslims, primarily Shiites. I don't see how your narrative can reconcile that. They even execute other ISIS members when they believe they are not following the right path.

bass: The problem, Obama doesn't listen to anyone

He's much, much better than Ted Cruz. That guy ignores his advisers and does what his inner circle wants or just ignores them, too. Prove me wrong.

bass: He could see something these experts couldn't?

Keep in mind that Obama is much better than George Bush. Bush ignored all of his advisers and just did what he wanted. Prove me wrong.

had Obama chosen to work closely with the Pentagon.

But still he's better than Rubio, who doesn't work with the Pentagon at all. Prove me wrong.

If we had a leader that would actually do something and work closely with law officials and the military

Oh come on, you're saying Obama is worse than Huckabee? That guy has ignored every adviser he's ever had and just sat alone in his inner circle. Prove me wrong.

So how many people have they killed in massive numbers?

Guns have killed about 300,000 Americans in the last 10 years. So let's get more of them, and especially open the door to suspected terrorists.

Because we gotta be safe.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If Obama wants to overcome the terrorist threat, then he should stop his nation from terrorizing the world with all the weapons it uses and sells.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama is a great president

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I'm not seeing much in terms of ideas from the Right here…

Indeed. For all the bluster and infantile machismo-sans-follow-up being tossed around here, no critic here of the Obama Administration has presented a single, compelling suggestion for how to proceed with ISIS or terrorism in general in a way that will produce lasting and meaningful results.

Not. One. Suggestion.

Sure, we get the usual pissing and moaning. We get the typical Monday morning quarterbacking from the expected armchair generals with the same bombastic hot air we've come to know and love. And we get the tired and utterly predictable school-yard bravado calling the president of the United States a wimp, a coward, a wuss, despite the irrefutable truth that Obama, or anyone who has ever become the elected leader of the U.S., possesses more ability, courage, and strength of conviction than the lot of his critics put together.

But actual actionable suggestions that will produce positive results measurably better than the current approach? Nope. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not a peep. Complete and utter silence from the Peanut Gallery.

Well, except for the ad hominem attacks, of course.

Now, normally, I wouldn't care. After all, average people venting their spleen on the Internet is just a fact of life in the age we live in.

HOWEVER . . . When the same lack of genuine, well-considered, informed ideas seems to completely dominate the entire field of Republican would-be contenders for the Presidency, well, now, that is cause for profound concern.

Not a single one of these so-called leaders has proffered a real, comprehensive, achievable plan for dealing with ISIS. Nor have they offered up any suggestions that could generate the political will necessary from an American public already fatigued by the unending fallout from Bush’s misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, colossal missteps that the U.S. is still paying for, and will continue to pay for, not only in gold, but also in blood, well into our children’s retirement years.

But the criticisms, oh, the criticisms! They fly fast and furious from this bunch, don’t they?

Oddly, for all the knuckle-dragging tough talk here, I haven’t seen anyone take any sort of meaningful oath to join the U.S. military or National Guard to take up arms and defend Lady Liberty, God-fearing Christians, and apple pie from terrorists.

Hmm… Funny, that. All talk, it would seem. As usual.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@SuperLib

I'm not seeing much in terms of ideas from the Right here, mostly just retread points about the JV team and the ever famous "not listening to his advisers" which has obviously been beaten into their heads by the bubble. You guys do realize that's a fuzzy statement that you cannot confirm or deny either way, right? Pick any Republican and I'll say he doesn't listen to his advisers, just his inner circle. Then go ahead and prove me wrong.

Obama is the president. His ISIS strategy is failing. It isn't the job of Congress to run wars. As president that is Obama's job. Congress only needs to fund it. When the war in Iraq was going badly the Left jumped all over Bush for 'losing the war'. Their answer was to simply give up. Do you consider that a helpful idea? Bush went outside his "bubble" and implemented the surge. Obama later used the stability that ensued to declare Iraq a stable democracy and a justification for withdrawing all troops. Obama announced last night that he is going to double down on his current failures with more of the same. Oh and gun control and false claims of racial bigotry.

mostly just retread points about the JV team

You have to admit that was a bone-headed statement on Obama's part. Think of it like Bush's "mission accomplished" sign. As-long-as ISIS remains relevant you should prepare yourself to continue hearing about Obama's JV team comment :-)

There's no government on earth that anticipated what ISIS has become, especially since it happened so fast.

Not true. Republicans - especially John McCain - predicted that things would go to the dogs when Obama prematurely left Iraq. No one knew exactly who would fill the power vacuum that was created but that it would be filled by bad actors. ISIS spilled over from the Syrian civil war and seized the initiative from the weakened Iraqi government. Lately ISIS has been filling the vacuum in Libya following Obama's overthrow of Gaddafi. Obama's lack of seriousness and premature withdrawal from the region allowed ISIS to thrive. ISIS is all on Obama. They barely even existed in their current form when Bush was president.

So a suspected terrorist can buy all the guns he wants, but go ahead and report your Muslim neighbor who works late nights in his garage.

The late Senator Kennedy was on the no fly list. A conservative American journalist was placed on the no fly list. Anyone who purchases a one way ticket to a middle eastern country is put on the list. If the list was clean I would be for using it for background checks. But since it isn't, it would be wrong to deny someone their Constitutional rights without due process. I know the Left likes it when Obama is allowed to act unilaterally and with dictatorial powers but so far the Constitution still has some relevance even in Obama's fundamentally transformed version of America.

@plasticmonkey

Why? Is this the kind of discourse JT wants? Perhaps so.

I do not believe so but hey, they still let you post here!

I know it can be frustrating when your guy is President and the other side is just hammering on him 24/7. But that is free speech. Real free speech doesn't come with trigger warnings or safe rooms. Just be glad that you are still allowed to express your own point of view in a public forum. Who knows how much longer that will last? I much prefer battling here with you guys than venting my frustrations the way the two terrorists in San Bernadino did.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"His ISIS strategy is failing" Whose would be winning if they were in that position and how/why?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Senator Lindsey Graham (R): "Obama is overselling the successes we are having with ISIS on the battlefield. His strategy will not destroy ISIS and he knows it."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"when Obama prematurely left Iraq." George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement.

"His strategy will not destroy ISIS and he knows it" Whose will and how, exactly?

"Lately ISIS has been filling the vacuum in Libya following Obama's overthrow of Gaddafi. " What happened when GWB's overthrow of Saddam? Everyone knows by now that overthrowing something bad always leads to something worse in that part of the world. Carter knew it, Bush 1st knew it (he did NOT overthrow Saddam), and Obama knew it as Senator since he didn't vote for Iraq Part II. If Obama had been president with his constituents we would not have gone into Iraq and it would have saved the USA trillions (with a "T") and countless lives. The Republican party is admitting the Iraq war II (Hammered out by the GWB White house) was a big mistake.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@bass4funk

Personally, I would fight and die for my country.

Courageous and inspiring.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ISIS is all on Obama.

Bullcrap. ISIS is all on the jingoistic numbnuts who went through Iraq like bulls in a China shop. The Iraq debacle, the ensuing rise of ISIS and the current turmoil is all on the likes of George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, Hillary, and their low info cheerleaders. Thanks for that. And now, thanks for this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Iraq debacle, the ensuing rise of ISIS and the current turmoil is all on the likes of George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, Hillary, and their low info cheerleaders.

The Wolf recently told me he'd vote for George W Bush and argue for invading Iraq again despite what we know now.

What further evidence do you need that negotiation with extremists is futile?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

vote for George W Bush and argue for invading Iraq again despite what we know now.

Would he also vote for Reagan - Bush (aka Bush 41) again knowing they'd supported their friend-at-the-time Saddam in what some call the 'first Gulf war' between Iraq and Iran? How about vote for Bush 41 again knowing he sided against his old ex-friend Saddam and went to war for the Kuwaiti rulers, his family's friends? If he's heavily invested in oil stocks or an oil company exec, I could see why he'd continue to vote the way he had. No other reason, in my mind.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No you haven't.

Of course we have been.

He's much, much better than Ted Cruz. That guy ignores his advisers and does what his inner circle wants or just ignores them, too. Prove me wrong.

Cruz is not the president and Obama has never since he was president listened to anyone, NEVER.

Keep in mind that Obama is much better than George Bush. Bush ignored all of his advisers and just did what he wanted. Prove me wrong.

Bush did follow Gen. Keane and Petraeus the architects that initiated the surge against the advice of both parties and the surge was the turn around which won the war and which a new fresh Barack Hussein was handed and Biden sitting on Larry King and bragged that once the troops were pulled out Iraq will be the great success of his administration and against the advice of those generals, he pulled our troops out and the rest as they say is history.

But still he's better than Rubio, who doesn't work with the Pentagon at all. Prove me wrong.

Rubio is not the president

Oh come on, you're saying Obama is worse than Huckabee?

without a doubt. Even Huckabee can identify what ISIS is and I have no doubt he would bomb them to shreds.

Guns have killed about 300,000 Americans in the last 10 years.

The numbers don't add up. What the population of the States and you equate that to the gun deaths which most are gang related as in Chicago's situation. Why hasn't Obama spoken out about the out of control gun violence attributed through gang violence? The majority of Americans don not go around killing people, that is just a ludicrous and baseless argument.

So let's get more of them, and especially open the door to suspected terrorists.

After that pathetic speech Obama gave, he just sealed a Trump victory. People are tired of this guy.

Because we gotta be safe.

We can't trust the president, you can't trust the police since liberals have vilified them to the point where they are scared to do anything out of fear of losing their jobs, the military can't do their jobs effectively, they have begged and begged the president to send them better equipment fight the enemy better and all to no avail from this president, so yes, people are scared and gun sales are going up and Hillary didn't make it easier by saying she wouldn't do anything either.

How about vote for Bush 41 again knowing he sided against his old ex-friend Saddam and went to war for the Kuwaiti rulers, his family's friends? If he's heavily invested in oil stocks or an oil company exec, I could see why he'd continue to vote the way he had. No other reason, in my mind.

That old liberal argument. This is nothing new and has been done throughout history, it was never a secret and it was never denied from anyone. I would have done the same. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" it was seen as the best outlook at the time to back Saddam, there was NO way that the US was going to back Iran, especially after that blunder what Carter did. Saddam was shady, no doubt about it, but you give him what he wants backs him and the at that time didn't know that Saddam militarily was really no match for the Iranians. And this myth about Bush Kuwait rulers and being best friends with Saddam...please liberals need to stop reading the Daily Kos and Think Progress. When libs talk like that, it's time to stand up and leave the bar.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Bass How about vote for Bush 41 again knowing he sided against his old ex-friend Saddam and went to war for the Kuwaiti rulers, his family's friends? If he's heavily invested in oil stocks or an oil company exec, I could see why he'd continue to vote the way he had. No other reason, in my mind. That old liberal argument.

Thank you for once again cutting and pasting one of my posts. When they're copied and then followed by oblique (at best) responses, it only reinforces the point I was trying to make. Have a nice day in sunny LA, unless of course you have other plans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No you haven't.

Of course we have been.

No, you haven't. The only one who has done any invading is the US. Trying to twist that around to somehow mean that you've been invaded is just... ridiculous. And that's me using a nice word.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Madverts

The Wolf recently told me he'd vote for George W Bush and argue for invading Iraq again despite what we know now.

That's news to me.

@bass

After that pathetic speech Obama gave, he just sealed a Trump victory. People are tired of this guy.

I am not a Trump fan so I am doubly annoyed by Obama's tone deaf response to Islamic terrorism. The more incompetent Obama is the more likely that the person most opposite to him will get elected. That is Trump. I hate arrogance and political correctness but I also don't like arrogant blowhards either. Don't get me wrong, if forced to choose I would choose anyone over Hillary - but I would prefer not to have to pick between the lesser of two fatally flawed people.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, you haven't.

Of course, I have and we are, no doubt about it.

The only one who has done any invading is the US. Trying to twist that around to somehow mean that you've been invaded is just... ridiculous. And that's me using a nice word.

Ok, so that's your opinion, tell that to the people and tell that to the polls as both Cruz and Trump are leading by a landslide, again, if you can prove that everyone is wrong, all the analysts, the gun sales, everyone in the Penatagon, even Robert Engel on msnbc-Arab speaking journalist can admit that we are under attack and that the presidents strategy is a complete failure, I will eat crow and apologize to you. But I have a deep knowing feeling I won't need to, but nevertheless....

I am not a Trump fan so I am doubly annoyed by Obama's tone deaf response to Islamic terrorism. The more incompetent Obama is the more likely that the person most opposite to him will get elected. That is Trump. I hate arrogance and political correctness but I also don't like arrogant blowhards either. Don't get me wrong, if forced to choose I would choose anyone over Hillary - but I would prefer not to have to pick between the lesser of two fatally flawed people.

Yes, I totally agree.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No, you haven't.

Of course, I have and we are, no doubt about it.

No, you haven't.

If you keep repeating a lie, it doesn't become true. Although that doesn't stop people of a low intelligence from coming to believe it to be true.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites