Obama press conference: Protect U.S. personnel


#1

Obama claimed his administration has created ten-million new jobs, which was John Kerry’s 2004 campaign promise. I dub thee PLAGIARIZED MOTTO MAN!

Syria…OK. Whassat Putin guy up to in Ukraine? >don’t-bogart-that-mike< “I consider the actions we have seen last week a continuation of what’s taken place for months now.”
“Hope.” “Change.” “Confidence.” “Trust.”
You had me at “Hope.”


#2

Per forum rules, here is the entire press conference:
c-span.org/video/?321181-2/president-obama-news-conference

He hit a number of points:

Immigration: administration will take some executive action; not defined yet what

Ukraine: not going to go to war with Russia, but stay away from NATO countries

ISIS: there will be a military component, don’t need Assad’s permission to act, we aren’t sure yet what we will do but we will do it with a coalition made up especially of Sunnis


#3

Very disappointing press conference.

He basically conceded that he will not act to destroy ISIS, rambling on about how Congress is on break and that he needs their authorization. Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but you launched a military action against Libya without Congress’s permission. Why so coy now? Then he claimed that - and I am paraphrasing here - that if we were to attack ISIS that they would just regroup later after we had left. Nonsense. Groups that are destroyed cannot regroup. Obama has been arming and funding the Syrian Rebels from day one, ISIS being just one affiliate of the Syrian Rebels. I guarantee that Western Intelligence knows exactly who ISIS is and where they are. You don’t give guns and money to an organization without knowing who they are. We have billion-dollar satellites in orbit that are dedicated to that theater of operations. ISIS could most definitely could be destroyed and must be destroyed following their demonic (and ongoing) genocide of Catholics and other minorities in the region, and the longer we stall the harder it will be to destroy them.

But Obama said something even more disturbing than just refusing to destroy ISIS. He gave them political legitimacy by stating that they have legitimate grievances and that somehow those grievances led to their rampage through Iraq. I almost choked when I heard that.


#4

Drudge Report has the headline “We don’t have a strategy yet” to fight ISIS.

I’ve heard Vets who served 3 tours in Iraq say they would go back there gladly to fight ISIS.

This leadership is disgraceful, we helped enable the Arab Spring linchpin of Egypt, would not speak up for Iranian protesters. America is being shameful from its leadership and from what I know, people die as we talk and die violently, beheaded and buried alive.

Very good analysis in your post.


#5

Just think. He was voted into office not once, but twice.


#6

I could not agree with this more.

It is hard to accept the idea that the president of the U.S. could be so foolish (or perhaps ideologically tainted) to believe that foreigners can’t come up with their own ambitions and evils, and depend on us to foment them.

It really does seem that his formative experience was in being a “community organizer”; basically one who facilitates actions for indigenous grievances, real or imagined. He tried to hand Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, a bullet Egypt fortunately dodged. He turned Libya over to Islamic radicals. He criticized Israel for self-defense against ISIS’ evil twin, Hamas. He handed Iraq over to Iran and ISIS. Hard to imagine a worse president. He has convinced the whole world that the U.S. is an irresponsible ally.

One thing he has succeeded in doing though; making Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.


#7

I think one of the things we have not mentioned is that this president has surrounded himself with people who totally agree with him and who do not hold this country in high esteem. How can a person sit in a “church” that preaches liberation theology for twenty years be expected to do other than what he is doing. He ran on a platform of “fundamentally changing America”, many bought that and now here we are. I fear for this country.


#8

The news is demanding a President. The desperate failures of this Administration has reached a level I have never learned of in our country’s history. Obama needs to resign immediately! Biden would be much better!


#9

So we should do what, go back to war in Iraq ?

Why can’t Irag fight ISIS?

After all, they have more money, training and weapons which we gave them.

Why is it rebels are more powerful than the governments like Syria and Iraq?

Jim


#10

Because it was not wise to overrule his Generals who said a contingent of troops should be left as well as releasing the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi from Guantanamo as well as funding the rebels in Syria and this most likely means the USA gave them weapons.

Iraq fighting Rebels we armed?


#11

“Iraq” can’t fight ISIS. That has already been proven. It is not yet certain whether ISIS can fight Iran, however, and it’s highly doubtful that it can. ISIS will definitely not take the Shiite part of Iraq, and might not even retain the Sunni part if Iran brings all its capabilities to bear. Iran’s armed forces of about a half million men could make short work of the 30,000 or so ISIS fighters. The fate of the region is actually in the hands of the Mullahs in Iran at present. The question really is whether we leave the Middle East to be a battleground between ISIS and Iran; both supremely cruel terrorist organizations bent on territorial aggrandizement.

Obama (or perhaps whoever directs him) decided “Yes. It is a matter of indifference to us whether ISIS and Iran divide the Middle East between them or whether one overcomes the other as well as all other states in the neighborhood.”

Now, was that a good decision or a foolish one? In my mind, it was a supremely foolish choice, and the facts on the ground seem entirely supportive of that view.

Should the U.S., then, re-engage in what is, after all, the center of the region? Let’s accept the obvious. If we don’t, then the region will be run by ISIS or by Iran, or partly by one and partly by the other. If we choose to do nothing, then one of those two outcomes is our choice and our preference. Yes, the murders, tortures and beheadings will eventually reach a more stable, less voracious state, as people like Yazidis, Christians and others are eliminated. To some, that might be entirely acceptable and, to date, it seems like it is to this administration. Once the Christians, for example, are gone, then there won’t be beheadings of Christians any longer. And perhaps what Arab Muslims do to each other is a matter of indifference to our leaders. Many on the left would reinstate Saddam Hussein (killer of a million people) if they could, just to reverse the actions of the hated George Bush. So, if ISIS ends up killing a million, do they really care?

Certainly, the (in)actions of this administration suggest that they don’t.

It does seem to me that the civilized part of the world (and some of the quasi-civilized) might just be ready to act in order to prevent that outcome. But without the U.S. doing the heavy lifting, they won’t because they don’t have the strength to do it.


#12

War On Terror: A new report from the West Point counterterrorism center says the administration ignored warning signs as the Islamic State grew and trained over a four-year period paralleling our withdrawal from Iraq.

As President Obama dithers about whether to strike the Islamic State’s sanctuary in Syria, a report by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point shows how we got to this point. Obama simply overlooked the “JV” team until it was ready for terrorism’s Pro Bowl.

Instead, he was focused on getting us out of Iraq and creating a power vacuum that the terrorist group was all too willing to fill.

“ISIL did not suddenly become effective in early June 2014,” the report states. “It has been steadily strengthening and actively shaping the future operating environment for four years.”

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082814-715226-islamic-state-crisis-four-years-in-making.htm#ixzz3BjmUlAW9
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook


#13

So you have no clue what you would do.

He did not over-rule his Generals, he tried to negotiate with the Maliki government to keep between 10,000 - 30,000 troops in Iraq. Maliki refused.

Also, US Generals should never be the one’s to determine US policy in foreign lands, nor when to go into war. They must always be under control of a civilian government, just as the founding father’s made it so.

Jim


#14

Ridgerunner

“Iraq” can’t fight ISIS

.

Why not ? ISIS isn’t a military, it’s a rag tag militia group without the support in weapons and training we’ve given to the Iraqi’s.

The Kurds are beating back ISIS from their borders, why not the Iraqi’s who will be slaughtered by ISIS.

That has already been proven.

Actually it wasn’t proven. The Iraqi forces who threw down their weapons and ran or, joined ISIS, were Sunni’s, who had been screwed by the Shiite Controlled Maliki government. The Shiite forces, are stopping ISIS and have taken back control of various parts. However, what’s left are the Sunni areas and without the local’s help, the Shiite controlled military will not even bother trying to push ISIS out.

It is not yet certain whether ISIS can fight Iran, however, and it’s highly doubtful that it can.

They can’t fight Iran, just as they can’t fight the Shiite Iraqi forces, who are defending their own territories.

ISIS can be defeated easily by those who have the will and US Support, which they are getting BTW.

ISIS will definitely not take the Shiite part of Iraq, and might not even retain the Sunni part if Iran brings all its capabilities to bear.

Iran won’t go into the Sunni areas. The Kurds will, just as they did and even Iraqi forces, when they regained control of the dam in Mosel.

But the question again is, if you were president, what would you do that Obama isn’t already doing ?

Would you send US Combat forces back into Iraq ? Would you tell the Iraqi government, they’re staying whether they want them there or not and for how long ?

In Syria, should Obama help the Syrian government by making air strikes against ISIS there ?

If not, what should he do to stop ISIS in Syria? Maybe we should do like the Russians and Iran. support the brutal dictator, Assad ?

You answer the question, so we can see how Obama is not providing leadership as you would.

Jim


#15

If, indeed (and as it seems) iraqi soldiers threw down their arms and fled from ISIS, no greater proof of the inability of the “Iraqi” army to stop ISIS could be imagined.

I agree entirely that ISIS will not take the Shiite areas of Iraq, and one doubts they think they can other than perhaps sometime in the indefinite future. The Iranian Republican Guard is there in addition to Shiite militias, and ISIS knows it. ISIS is nowhere near ready to challenge Iran and knows it.

No to supporting Assad. We should not turn the U.S. military into an arm of the terrorist regime in Iran. Assad is their sock puppet, and has probably killed more innocent people than ISIS has, at least to date.

You may recall that ISIS was threatening even Erbil until we started bombing their positions. Long term, Iraqi Kurdistan is no counter to ISIS.

I am not the president of the U.S. and, not being the president, I am not privy to the calculations and strategies of the military who can advise a president. But let me say this about it. Had I been president during Obama’s first term, I would have actually listened to my military advisors and not left Iraq at all. I would have accepted Maliki’s offer to enter into a presidential status of forces agreement. I would have agreed with Maliki to leave at least 10,000 troops there. More probably than not, i would have left the 27,000 that my generals advised.

But now? Unfortunately, the left has so propagandized the American public and the world about Iraq in order to condemn Bush that i question whether anybody can now save the situation in the Middle East. Obama had to know he was turning the region over to Iran and Sunni radicals as their battleground. Elections do have consequences, or so we are informed. And some of them are so bad they’re beyond remedy.

If I were president, I know exactly what I would do, or at least attempt to do. But I would need the Repubs behind me. I would need to get Harry Reid to allow Dems to vote in the Senate, and I would need to acknowledge to myself that I would never see another dime from George Soros or a great number of my other far left supporters.

Beyond that, it’s a state secret. :smiley:


#16

Get rid of stupid - there is nothing you can do about it (Obama Administration and all those who put him in office)! Pay attention to what is going on and render useless all Islamic terrorists. Stop all those with an American passport that have been in the mideast trying to get in the US. (This includes so-called Americans) They will have to be held for a thorough security investigation or get lost! Even though the horse is already out of the barn, lock the border DOWN! Also, if the terrorists light up the screen in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, wherever- its their bad luck. Take them out!


#17

I like to use analogies for difficult problems, but this president confounds me. Yesterday’s news conference was one of the few times I actually believed something that came out of Mr Obama’s mouth, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Can you imagine Churchill and FDR meeting in Quebec in August 1943 to announce that they were still without a strategy? This president is so afraid of making a mistake that will reflect badly on him that he chooses to do nothing on a regular basis. Mr President, this is not all about you. Previously I have said that President Obama combines the competence of Carter with the ethics of Nixon. I now have to apologize to both.

Neither Carter or Nixon were able to serve two full terms because even their own parties refused to continue to follow them. Despite being the worst president since the Articles of Confederation, this president still has admirers who want to amend the Constitution to allow him a third term. I am at a loss to explain how his approval rating can be in double digits. Is this a manifestation of “our brains on drugs”?

End of rant.


#18

Ridgerunner

I am not the president of the U.S. and, not being the president, I am not privy to the calculations and strategies of the military who can advise a president. But let me say this about it. Had I been president during Obama’s first term, I would have actually listened to my military advisors and not left Iraq at all. I would have accepted Maliki’s offer to enter into a presidential status of forces agreement. I would have agreed with Maliki to leave at least 10,000 troops there. More probably than not, i would have left the 27,000 that my generals advised.

You’re assuming he didn’t listen to his military brass, but you’re going by the brass who today are critics.

The president has to balance his decisions between advice from his joint chief of staff and the legality of the issue.

Maliki would not allow even 10,000 troops to stay in Iraq, unless they were under Iraqi laws. The president could not do this and he would’ve been impeached the first time a soldier was tried and convicted by an Iraqi court.

I respect the president. I don’t recall any president having deal with what he has had to deal with the exception of FDR, but that was long before my time.

If presidents allow the military brass to determine US Foreign Policies, we will be in a perpetual state of war ala Orwellian predictions.

The military is stronger financially when at war then when at peace.

We must always have civilian control over the military, via the president and congress.

Jim


#19

You admit the turmoil was caused by this Administration then.

Your assertions are not always proven facts. Could be from but one source.


#20

=Path_Finder;

You admit the turmoil was caused by this Administration then.

Nope never said that and how you come to this conclusion is your own doing.

Your assertions are not always proven facts. Could be from but one source.

I’m not making assertions other than going by what’s reported from mainstream news sources and commentary by experts in the various talk programs on mainstream television and radio.

FYI, I don’t use Rush or Hannity for my information.

Jim


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.