Posted by Tina
The French government has wasted no time in showing ISIS that their evil murderous destructive acts will not go unanswered (video):
French fighter jets launched their biggest raids in Syria to date targeting the Islamic State’s stronghold in Raqqa just two days after the group claimed coordinated attacks in Paris that killed more than 130 people, the defense ministry said.
“The raid … including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped,” the statement said, adding that the mission had taken place this evening.
The operation, carried out in coordination with U.S. forces, struck a command center, recruitment center for jihadists, a munitions depot and a training camp for fighters, it said.
Good for the French!
Obama’s weak leadership is recognized as part of the ongoing problem. Even the media is frustrated!
In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple. It is the ultimate zero-sum contest — you win or you lose.
That eternal truth is so obvious that it should not need to be said. Yet even after the horrific slaughter in Paris, there remains a distressing doubt about whether America’s commander in chief gets it.
President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.
Michael Goodwin is exactly right. Obama was unprepared to lead this nation in the war that was ongoing when he took office. He arrogantly believed he had a better way. His opening salvo was an apology to the world for America’s perceived past deeds. He followed up by an extended hand to the sponsors of these murderous fanatical thugs. In war it is impossible to straddle the fence. Thank God for our military remains prepared.
My full support goes out to France. Let’s hope the western nations will pull together to defeat this scourge once and for all. Such an effort will require staying the course and never letting up until they lose. We abandoned this fight before and now we are seeing the price.
“Pre-emptive Capitulation” is the only description I can come up with to actually describe Obumble’s so-called foreign policy.
OMG
Why do you fail to recognize the war powers act has limited actions as Congress has not declared war.
Furthermore there is the quagmire that declaring war against the IS gives them the recognition of being a State?
Also one thinks that after they are bombed they will disappear? No we are in a proxy war. WW3.
They are training citizens from the western countries. That is where we need to get them. Over 5000 IS websites and social media accounts are taken down so far today.
Stop buying Chinese goods. They are our biggest enemy.
While they are about to get the crap bombed out of them, the more the west bombs the ore they recruit. The decades of profit wars has caught up with us.
Shall we raise taxes to pay for this new 30 year war to be?
I am not a huge fan of Obama that said your hate for him is silly. A few months ago Putin was your hero! We are in a proxy war folks wake up
I can’t decide, is Dewey a complete ignoramus, a fool or a compulsive liar? Well, he is probably both.
“Why do you fail to recognize the war powers act has limited actions as Congress has not declared war.” Fool’s lie.
“Furthermore there is the quagmire that declaring war against the IS gives them the recognition of being a State?” Fool’s lie.
“Also one thinks that after they are bombed they will disappear? No we are in a proxy war. WW3.” Ignoramus lie. Of course bombing is only one tactic, who said it was the end all? ISIS is at war with civilization you moron. Get a clue.
“Over 5000 IS websites and social media accounts are taken down so far today.” Bald faced lie.
“Stop buying Chinese goods. They are our biggest enemy. ” Jackass lie. No, the Chinese have not declared war on civilization. Under Mao they did, however.
“While they are about to get the crap bombed out of them, the more the west bombs the ore [sic] they recruit. The decades of profit wars has caught up with us.” This is such insane nonsense that it can only be describe as pure lunacy from a goose stepping left-wing fool. This jackass thinks that defending ourselves and civilization is self destructive. All lie down and die to the GREAT ISIS! (Someone, please bitch slap this moron.)
“Shall we raise taxes to pay for this new 30 year war to be?” Idiotic lie bait. Shall we surrender to those who wish to destroy us? I am all for destroying ISIS, evidently Dewey is not.
“I am not a huge fan of Obama that said your hate for him is silly. A few months ago Putin was your hero! We are in a proxy war folks wake up”. Bald faced lies.
If there ever was an ISIS operative, Dewey is it.
Excerpts from Wikipedia on the War Powers Resolution:
The language allows for fairly broad interpretation, which is why there is so much controversy. It wouldn’t be that difficult to make the legal case that after 911, “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States…or it’s armed forces.” The enemy we face has not relented since the Iraq Resolution,” gave GWB authorization to use military force in Iraq which cited many factors, including:
Since 911 we have continued to see al Qaida affiliated terror attacks on our nation, it’s citizens, and military. Fort Hood here at home and Benghazi in Libya are two examples. We have seen attacks on our NATO allies. ISIS has in the recent past declared itself a “state” but it has not been recognized by the international community and so remains a non-state enemy combatant, now considered a world wide force. 2014 McCain attempted to repeal the War Powers Resolution and replace it with an authorization resolution that is more in tune with the unconventional wars that now threaten our nation. It apparently went nowhere. Given that France is a NATO ally, today Texas Congressman Ted Poe introduced a resolution “calling on President Barack Obama to invoke Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty”:
Back to The War Powers resolution at Wikipedia. The President informed Congress of a new “leading from behind” policy:
Turns out that was another one of Obama’s lies that spring from his idea that he can do whatever he wants:
So Dewey if you want to complain about this you really should take it to the President.
I’m confused. Are you under the impression that France has led more air strikes on ISIS than the U.S.? Because that would be wrong. Did you know you posted this the day after we killed an ISIS leader in Libya?
Re Chris : “I’m confused.”
No surprises there. You are also a niggling little brat with far too much time on his hands.
No Chris, I don’t believe I said that. If you can show me where you thunk I did I’ll take a look.
Yes I was aware that we killed an ISIS leader when it was first reported. So what? Do you think a president that is sloppy in his approach to this problem deserves a gold star for something that our military and intelligence people did? I’d give him bad marks for freeing Iranian billions which will be spent supporting terror and developing a brand new shiny weapon for these insane killers.
Or did I misunderstand the question.
You praised the French for simply leading a few airstrikes on ISIS, then criticized Obama’s leadership. Your title flat out says he could learn from the French.’s example, but the only evidence you offer for that is airstrikes. Literally nothing in this post makes sense unless you either didn’t know Obama has also ordered plenty of airstrikes, or you were deliberately obscuring that fact. Why does Obama need to learn from the Feench example of airstrikes if he’s ordered way more airstrikes than they have?
Chris the President is more worried about hurting feelings than he is about the threat this enemy poses to the world. He has conducted this war in a half-assed, hit and miss fashion, failing to take seriously real threats, refusing to adamantly differentiate and NAME the enemy, and lecturing Americans against being bigoted when there is no evidence of widespread hatred for or attacks on Muslims. He breeds chaos with his lack of clarity and his mushy approach. Here’s the point I made clearly in the first sentence: “The French government has wasted no time in showing ISIS that their evil murderous destructive acts will not go unanswered”
Obama began his presidency calling Iraq a stupid war and apologizing for America to the world. He constantly lectures the free world to refrain from criticizing Islam but has no problem criticizing anyone who points out that radical Islamist are the scourge he will not name. He refuses to clearly describe terror attacks in America in terms of those who are responsible and instead uses innocuous generalized terminology like “workplace violence.”
This post has little to do with air strikes. It has to do with attitudes and posturing, rhetoric and example. Quote: “President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.”
“refusing to adamantly differentiate and NAME the enemy,”
We’ve been over this. “Islamic” is what the terrorists want to be called. It’s a compliment to them. They also want war between Islam and the West. Refusing to call them Islamic is a valid strategy in delegitimizing them. The Bush administration understood this; why can’t you?
Many have recently discussed not even recognizing ISIS by it’s chosen name, but by the name Daesh, which has a negative meaning in Arabic. I think I might take this suggestion–whatever insults these degenerate terrorist a-holes is good in my book.
“and lecturing Americans against being bigoted when there is no evidence of widespread hatred for or attacks on Muslims.”
Several of your party’s presidential candidates have suggested only allowing Christian refugees and keeping out Muslims. Of course that’s evidence of bigotry.
“He breeds chaos with his lack of clarity and his mushy approach. Here’s the point I made clearly in the first sentence: “The French government has wasted no time in showing ISIS that their evil murderous destructive acts will not go unanswered”
…And you continued by pointing to their airstrikes, and nothing else, as evidence of that fact, while ignoring the US’s many airstrikes. I thought that was ignorant, but since you’ve now said you knew about those airstrikes, it’s been upgraded to “fundamentally dishonest.”
“Obama began his presidency calling Iraq a stupid war”
He was right, it was.
“and apologizing for America to the world.”
Please don’t lie.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/
“He constantly lectures the free world to refrain from criticizing Islam”
Also a lie. He has never told anyone to not criticize Islam. You made that up.
“but has no problem criticizing anyone who points out that radical Islamist are the scourge he will not name.”
Please show me an instance where Obama criticized someone for pointing out radical Islam.
“He refuses to clearly describe terror attacks in America in terms of those who are responsible and instead uses innocuous generalized terminology like “workplace violence.”
You are describing one single event. I don’t understand the reasoning for not labeling that event terrorism, and I won’t defend it, but this is clearly not a broad pattern, as he has called many other terrorist acts “terrorism” when committed by radical Islamists.
“This post has little to do with air strikes.”
You are hilarious. Literally the only evidence you provided to support the title of this post was information about France’s air raids. There was nothing else given in this post to support your argument that Obama needs to learn from the French. The fact that under Obama the US has conducted far more air raids than the French is of course a valid counter-argument to your post.
I know your other beliefs about Obama, but a reader shouldn’t have to in order to understand this post. I stand by what I said: The post in and of itself makes no sense and is based on false premises.
Oh I see. You get to count an ongoing, but largely failed, effort by Obama over several years to do something about this against a response that is less than a week old.
Makes perfect sense, I’m sure, in your narrowly focused world view.
I give our readers more credit than that. They have seen Obama perform in similar circumstances. His apologetic, blame America first style is no secret. If Obama does one thing I can’t fault him for it’s that he does tell us exactly who he is and what he’s up to.
Obama’s tepid response, following the Boston Marathon attack is an example. Lots of expected kind words but absolutely nothing about being tough and defeating those who indoctrinate, fund, and perpetrate such murders No warnings of American strength and resolve. The message was we are weak, come get us, we will cower before you.
Hollande’s response was a swift kick that took out a training camp, a command center, a recruitment center, and a munitions depot.
Will there be follow through? I don’t know, but I do know the immediate message was clear!
Tina: “You get to count an ongoing, but largely failed, effort by Obama over several years to do something about this against a response that is less than a week old.”
No, that’s what you did. You brought up France’s air raids as a comparison with Obama’s response (without even mentioning his air raids). You have no idea if France’s air campaign will be any more successful in the long run than America’s, yet you praised them for the air raids regardless while ignoring the U.S.’s.
Your double standards are amazing.
“Obama’s tepid response, following the Boston Marathon attack is an example. Lots of expected kind words but absolutely nothing about being tough and defeating those who indoctrinate, fund, and perpetrate such murders”
You are factually wrong, again. Either you didn’t actually read the speech you linked to, or your bias has so clouded your reading comprehension that it has rendered you functionally illiterate. Here is an excerpt from the speech you linked to:
“That’s the message we send to those who carried this out and anyone who would do harm to our people. Yes, we will find you. And yes, you will face justice. We will find you. We will hold you accountable.”
Do you still want to claim that the speech contained “absolutely nothing about being tough and defeating those who indoctrinate, fund, and perpetrate such murders,” or will you at least admit that you got the facts wrong on this matter?
“No warnings of American strength and resolve. The message was we are weak, come get us, we will cower before you.”
Again, wrong. Read:
“Your resolve is the greatest rebuke to whoever committed this heinous act.
If they sought to intimidate us, to terrorise us, to shake us from those values that Deval described, the values that make us who we are as Americans, well, it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong city to do it. Not here in Boston. Not here in Boston.
You showed us, Boston, that in the face of evil, Americans will lift up what’s good. ”
There is no possible interpretation of that passage that indicates a message that “we are weak, come get us, we will cower before you,” other than an interpretation irrepably skewed by prejudice.
There are plenty of legitimate critiques to make about President Obama. It would behoove you to stick to those, instead of making up critiques that are based on lies.
Well here Chris, let me grovel at your feet while I flagellate myself so I can apologize for not putting this in terms you can approve.
“You have no idea if France’s air campaign will be any more successful in the long run than America’s…”
No I don’t.
If I was trying to compare air campaigns, rather than immediate response, policy, and attitude I would have written about that in my comments.
President Francois Hollande: France will wage “merciless” war on the “Islamic” State” group.”
Obama: “Yes, we will find you. And yes, you will face justice. We will find you. We will hold you accountable.”…scary stuff. I’m sure the “Islamic State” group was shaking in their boots!
“Do you still want to claim that the speech contained “absolutely nothing about being tough and defeating those who indoctrinate, fund, and perpetrate such murders,””
Damn straight! It’s not a claim it is quite evident. The contrast is stark.
Sorry Chris but the bulk of Obama’s speech in Boston was soft. As I said, appropriately so. But the four sentences he devoted to the terrorists were judicious, as if these two were criminals rather than radicalized Islamic warriors.
His Fort Hood remarks are even more incredible…he begins with “Hello everybody” as if he is speaking to a group of teenagers at a meeting for the prom decorations and then he says:
Another opportunity was blown and is described here.
Glenn Beck recalls Obama’s lecturing the American people at the National Prayer Breakfast. His remarks followed reports of ISIS, “executing, crucifying, and setting people (Christians) on fire:
This is a professor delivering a speech he’s repeated a hundred times. This is a man who is cold and calculating. This is a man who is not at all serious about defeating ISIS. He is a pretender, in place for a larger purpose.
“It would behoove you to stick to those, instead of making up critiques that are based on lies.”
I see you also enjoy lecturing, as if you had the superior view. I’m not impressed or intimidated by your critique. It’s based on nit picking and is accompanied by your always present dismissal of the point.