Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimsouth

7 Times Obama Showed He Doesn't 'Get' The War On Terror

Recommended Posts

Youre just mad. Awwww the poor baby. :)

When did you ever hear Obama use the term - say the words: Islamic - Muslim Radicals --- Islamic - Muslim Terrorists?

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

“man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence.”

What I said, a fucing "MOOK"

  1. It appears the entire rational thinking world is aware of Islamic Terrorism, except for Barry & Company.

Every time he speaks, he spews insults to every human being who is aware of the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah right. Jim don't buy into this guy because Obama is breaking terrorist's backs and the unknowing just can't see it. He's expanded operations on a global level with minimal troops on the ground so in spite of his other failings he's actually doing a pretty great job fighting and winning the war on terrorism.

 

ISIS a terrorist "dream team?" Sure. Uh huh. Right up to the point that they've come into the open, revealed themselves and have lost tactical momentum due to a lack of any air cover and sustained logical support. Welcome to a current battle of the bulge where terrorists got suckered into main force operations and they're now paying dearly. Real dream stuff. Yeah right.

 

At absolute best a drone can pull a grid that's 30 meters off the actual target, and bombing runs, to include laser guided weapons, are incredibly ineffective in urban terrain. Boots on the ground put a missile into your bedroom but spares your wife and child in the next room, but war from afar results in incredible civilian casualties with very little results. If we had dropped the same amount of bombs on Japan that we dropped on Vietnam WW2 would have been over in a month, yet somehow the Vietnamese just kept coming.

 

Yes, when they try to fight at our level they certainly lose, but the path Obama has chosen to take leaves our best attack aircraft on the sidelines and is EXTREMELY expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At absolute best a drone can pull a grid that's 30 meters off the actual target, and bombing runs, to include laser guided weapons, are incredibly ineffective in urban terrain. Boots on the ground put a missile into your bedroom but spares your wife and child in the next room, but war from afar results in incredible civilian casualties with very little results. If we had dropped the same amount of bombs on Japan that we dropped on Vietnam WW2 would have been over in a month, yet somehow the Vietnamese just kept coming.

 

Yes, when they try to fight at our level they certainly lose, but the path Obama has chosen to take leaves our best attack aircraft on the sidelines and is EXTREMELY expensive.

 

Spot on as they're very expensive to say the least. Obama has drones flying everywhere now and he's using a lot of fleet air because carriers are like operating from our own airfields so there's less conflict of our interests because we have absolute control on board ship whereas we don't on ground airfields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spot on as they're very expensive to say the least. Obama has drones flying everywhere now and he's using a lot of fleet air because carriers are like operating from our own airfields so there's less conflict of our interests because we have absolute control on board ship whereas we don't on ground airfields.

 

A whole lot can change in the hours it takes to fly across Iraq, and typically reengagement of targets won't happen due to the fuel restrictions of flying that far out to a target. It also entirely rules out the economical aircraft designed to engage the targets we're dealing with. Believe it or not, but unless it's a direct hit a 500lb bomb probably won't destroy a tank, even if it's an outdated Soviet model(although the crew might be bleeding from their ears and eyes and/or dead, but they were designed to be operated by conscripts to begin with).

 

The Iraqi Government created ISIS, and to a great degree so did Obama by removing our oversight of their government. All we are doing without direct military intervention is propping up the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really? Where is the evidence of that, Gator?

 

Because what I see is that when Bush left office, al-Qaeda was on the ropes.

 

And hundreds of very hardcore terrorists were in custody.

 

And ISIS didn't exist.

 

And the world was pretty much quiet and stable.

 

And terrorism was no longer most people's top concern.

 

NOW, since Obama took over ...

 

Egypt has been destabilized with terrorist supporters being put into power, in large part due to Obama's actions.

 

We've lost Libya to terrorists, in large part due to Obama's actions.

 

We've lost a large part of Iraq to terrorists, in large part due to Obama cutting and running.

 

Syria has been destabilized and we've lost large sections of Syria to terrorists, in large part due to Obama's actions.

 

The terrorists are even fielding standing armies.

 

The situation in Afghanistan is now looking tenuous too, again due to Obama cutting and running.

 

Africa is being overrun by terrorists with little action by Obama.

 

And we've got major terrorist attacks occurring in western countries ... attacks tied to the areas where terrorists have now taken hold since Obama took over.

 

We've got terrorists now in control of locations where WMD was being stored.

 

Terrorists are using WMD materials on the battlefield against their opponents.

 

Seriously, Gator ... what world do you live in to make such a claim?

 

Where are you getting all this???

 

We never had Syria, they've been Russian since the cold war. ISIS started from Assad's shi'ite rebels who became disenfranchised because Assad wouldn't share the wealth with them after they fought so hard on his behalf. They in turn linked up with the Iraqi minority shi'ites who had become equally disinfranchised with Iraq's sunni majority who also refused to share the wealth with them as well. The over powered Syrian and Iraqi military formations, captured their gear and exploited it to seize oil rich areas and refineries to fund themselves. How in the world are you putting any of that on Obama when he tried everything to get Iraq's sunnis to include their shi'ites and Assad was with Russia against the United States???

 

Russian and Chinese deep pockets funded ISIS in order to destabilize American regional influence so they could gain control of the shia oilfields in their bid to monopolize the world's oil supply and ultimately dictate world order. Both have been buying up oil reserves and refining facilities world wide and they're illegally claiming areas like the Spratleys and Sekakus which they have no claim too and they know it. Why do you honestly believe Obama kicked open the doors to domestic oil production the way he has when he's a known liberal tree hugger type? Come on Bro, connect the dots rather than listening to all that opposition nonsense trying to smear the man over every little thing just so they can sell more expensive advertising time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Where are you getting all this???

 

We never had Syria

 

I never said "we had" Syria.

 

I said Syria was destabilized thanks to Obama's actions.

 

And that's true.

 

ISIS started from Assad's shi'ite rebels who became disenfranchised because Assad wouldn't share the wealth with them after they fought so hard on his behalf. They in turn linked up with the Iraqi minority shi'ites who had become equally disinfranchised with Iraq's sunni majority who also refused to share the wealth with them as well.

 

So you're claiming they're socialists at heart? Like you?

 

Why of course you'd see that as the honorable motive for what they do. :rolleyes:

 

Never mind all the rest we know about them. Right?

 

The over powered Syrian and Iraqi military formations, captured their gear and exploited it to seize oil rich areas and refineries to fund themselves. How in the world are you putting any of that on Obama when he tried everything to get Iraq's sunnis to include their shi'ites and Assad was with Russia against the United States???

 

Well, for one thing, Assad was keeping al-Qaeda (funny how you forgot to mention them in your description of ISIS) contained. And Syria at least was relatively stable under Bush. It even supported the Coalition in the first war against Saddam. Obama destabilized Assad, supplying arms and support to his opponents (Islamists that we knew were connected to terrorists). Called for his overthrow. Obama upset the cart and you think he deserves no blame for the result?

 

And, no, Obama did not try "everything" to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along. In fact, he hardly tried *anything*. In fact for years he paid next to no attention to Iraq as things fell apart ... all the time supporting the leader of Iraq as he undercut what Bush's administration had accomplished in Sunni/Shiite relations. And not bothering to renegotiate the SOFA until it was too late ... and then sabotaging any chance of that negotiation when it finally began.

 

Russian and Chinese deep pockets funded ISIS in order to destabilize American regional influence so they could gain control of the shia oilfields in their bid to monopolize the world's oil supply and ultimately dictate world order.

 

:rolleyes: And of course Obama was helpless against their might influence. Funny, though, that might didn't seem to work when Bush was President. You don't suppose ...

 

Why do you honestly believe Obama kicked open the doors to domestic oil production the way he has when he's a known liberal tree hugger type?

 

LOL! Obama did no such thing. It was Bush who kicked open those doors. Obama fought domestic oil production and oil drilling leases:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/08/obama-admin-leases-the-lowest-amount-of-federal-land-in-25-years/

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/oil-and-gas-leases-acres-and-permits-all-down-under-obama/article/2510988

 

Even leftist FACTCHECK admits this (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-drilling-denials/ ). Also, for much of his time in office, his administration has been negative about fracking and it's waged a constant war of rhetoric against oil (under the bogus excuse that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming). The simple truth, Gator, is that the federal government owns almost 30 percent of the land in the United States but 98.5 percent of gas production since 2007 has come from non-federal lands ... solely because the Obama regime could not impede development of it.

 

Funny how you socialists always think you can get away with rewriting history. Maybe you can when the only thing people listen to is the leftist mainstream media, but that won't work on an Internet forum where conservatives can set the record straight. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where are you getting all this???

 

We never had Syria, they've been Russian since the cold war. ISIS started from Assad's shi'ite rebels who became disenfranchised because Assad wouldn't share the wealth with them after they fought so hard on his behalf. They in turn linked up with the Iraqi minority shi'ites who had become equally disinfranchised with Iraq's sunni majority who also refused to share the wealth with them as well. The over powered Syrian and Iraqi military formations, captured their gear and exploited it to seize oil rich areas and refineries to fund themselves. How in the world are you putting any of that on Obama when he tried everything to get Iraq's sunnis to include their shi'ites and Assad was with Russia against the United States???

 

Russian and Chinese deep pockets funded ISIS in order to destabilize American regional influence so they could gain control of the shia oilfields in their bid to monopolize the world's oil supply and ultimately dictate world order. Both have been buying up oil reserves and refining facilities world wide and they're illegally claiming areas like the Spratleys and Sekakus which they have no claim too and they know it. Why do you honestly believe Obama kicked open the doors to domestic oil production the way he has when he's a known liberal tree hugger type? Come on Bro, connect the dots rather than listening to all that opposition nonsense trying to smear the man over every little thing just so they can sell more expensive advertising time.

 

Bush placed multiple guarantees to the Sunni minority that has provided the manpower to ISIS(you had it backwards). Sunnis in Iraq were terrified of democracy and the moment we withdrew completely exactly what they feared happened. While Obama is not responsible for Syria, Iraq is almost entirely on him. Oversight in Iraq should have continued for at least another decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said "we had" Syria.

 

I said Syria was destabilized thanks to Obama's actions.

 

And that's true.

 

 

So you're claiming they're socialists at heart? Like you?

 

Why of course you'd see that as the honorable motive for what they do. :rolleyes:

 

Never mind all the rest we know about them. Right?

 

 

Well, for one thing, Assad was keeping al-Qaeda (funny how you forgot to mention them in your description of ISIS) contained. And Syria at least was relatively stable under Bush. It even supported the Coalition in the first war against Saddam. Obama destabilized Assad, supplying arms and support to his opponents (Islamists that we knew were connected to terrorists). Called for his overthrow. Obama upset the cart and you think he deserves no blame for the result?

 

And, no, Obama did not try "everything" to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along. In fact, he hardly tried *anything*. In fact for years he paid next to no attention to Iraq as things fell apart ... all the time supporting the leader of Iraq as he undercut what Bush's administration had accomplished in Sunni/Shiite relations. And not bothering to renegotiate the SOFA until it was too late ... and then sabotaging any chance of that negotiation when it finally began.

 

 

:rolleyes: And of course Obama was helpless against their might influence. Funny, though, that might didn't seem to work when Bush was President. You don't suppose ...

 

 

LOL! Obama did no such thing. It was Bush who kicked open those doors. Obama fought domestic oil production and oil drilling leases:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/08/obama-admin-leases-the-lowest-amount-of-federal-land-in-25-years/

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/oil-and-gas-leases-acres-and-permits-all-down-under-obama/article/2510988

 

Even leftist FACTCHECK admits this (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-drilling-denials/ ). Also, for much of his time in office, his administration has been negative about fracking and it's waged a constant war of rhetoric against oil (under the bogus excuse that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming). The simple truth, Gator, is that the federal government owns almost 30 percent of the land in the United States but 98.5 percent of gas production since 2007 has come from non-federal lands ... solely because the Obama regime could not impede development of it.

 

Funny how you socialists always think you can get away with rewriting history. Maybe you can when the only thing people listen to is the leftist mainstream media, but that won't work on an Internet forum where conservatives can set the record straight. :D

 

If I were you I would learn how to connect the dots because your right leaning "facts" merely echo conservative views with no regard for the realities of what really happened as well as what's going on now. If I were you I would begin by checking US oil production under Bush's era and advancing that forward to Obama's. Then I would cross reference Russian and Chinese "business development" where they've been buying up oil and mineral rights worldwide. Next I would check the ground situation in the region as it developed from Russian and Chinese investments and you'll see what really happened and why.

 

As for Obama, he is the energy lobby which is evidenced by his lifting the 20 year moratorium of nuclear power plant production when he announced the building of two new units a mere 30 days before he magically got the numbers for congress to vote in ACA. He's been playing to his base verbally while very quietly opening up US petrochemical production in order to say ahead of the Russian-Chinese coalition that's been trying to knock off us "arrogant Americans" since around 1998. China has been equally quietly buying their way into our political arena and has been caught several times since Clinton was forced to return 2.5 million of their contributions during his 1996 campaign.

 

How does all this relate to Syria? Because Russia still needs a deep water port in the west Med so they can exert their national will in the oil rich middle east. To this end they're using a leased facility in Tartus and Putin is very well aware that if they lose Assad they lose that Syrian sea base so vital to their interests. That's why Putin immediately jumped into the middle of the Syrian forces gas attack against their civilians because he knew world opinion would support a coalition to oust Assad so Putin put it on the Saudis which the American conservatives immediately bought into as another way to further discredit Obama.

 

Look at Wesley Clark's video where he details how US planners decided to destabilize the region, starting back in 1991 and again after 9/11 and you'll begin to see why Russia and China panicked when they realized we ourselves were going after the world's oil supply. Our actions and their's are what brought us to where we are today. The Americans who tried to pull this off were none other than Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other staunch conservatives within GOP. They couldn't let the American People know what they were really up to because taking over other countries is not our way so they've waged a war of misinformation to cover their tracks ever since General Clark blew the whistle on the actions they claimed they were trying to take in the name of the American People. Interestingly enough Mr. Wolfowitz is former president of the world bank and Mr. Cheney the head of Halliburton so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots to see what their actions were truly about ... oil and the money they and the big corporations would make for us controlling most of the middle east's oil.

 

If you're going to come at me then come correct because your misinformation is as one sided as the people who designed it and those who presented it to you as your own thoughts.

 

As for the childish name calling, that's an arrogant tactic that only serves to make the user look foolish which holds especially true given the very flawed argument you just tried to present here. Learn something for yourself before you try to present other's views because people like me will take you to task and show you what really going on. What you do with the real information from there is on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bush placed multiple guarantees to the Sunni minority that has provided the manpower to ISIS(you had it backwards). Sunnis in Iraq were terrified of democracy and the moment we withdrew completely exactly what they feared happened. While Obama is not responsible for Syria, Iraq is almost entirely on him. Oversight in Iraq should have continued for at least another decade.

 

Sunnis are the majority which is estimated to be around 85% of Muslims while the shi'ites are the minority with around 15%.

 

The sunnis took over Iraq with Talabani at their helm in 2005 and while Bush Administration officials tried to convince him to include shi'ites, the Iraqi's resisted which began creating big troubles within their shi'ite communities as they felt left out of the new Iraq. Obama stepped in and took it way further because he wanted a more stable Iraq given he was pulling American Forces out and didn't want to return. Talabani's government was primarily sunni like Saddam's so they simply reverted back to the old status quo which the shi'ites strongly objected to and many ultimately took to arms out of grievance which we now know as the Iraq part of ISIS.

 

Iraq's problems were on sunni Talabani and his government not sharing the new Iraq with their shi'ite minority, not Obama, Bush or their Administrations. We need to see this otherwise we're blaming ourselves for things that aren't our's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama lauded Ebay for creating jobs during his speech...then the next day Ebay laid off 2600 people LOL

 

Totally sux for those Workers. Prayers out for them and their families during this tough time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were you

Then you'd be a clear thinking conservative instead of a muddle headed socialist.

 

If I were you I would begin by checking US oil production under Bush's era and advancing that forward to Obama's.

LOL! You do understand, don't you, that Obama benefited from the drilling that Bush allowed? If you leftists are going to insist that Obama inherited a recession, why couldn't he also inherit the benefit of the drilling program that Bush greatly expanded but that Obama then reduced? Hmmmmmmm? It's a clear fact that under Obama the number of permits granted was severely curtailed. It's also a clear fact that it takes time to do the exploration, drilling and get wells producing. I provided source after source … even a leftist source … that proved that. Your ignoring those sources doesn't invalidate them. It just makes you look petty. And it's a fact that Obama constantly railed against oil. Against fossil fuels in general. You do see the clear logic in that, don't you? Or are you beyond the ability to grasp logic? Have you been totally *progressivised*?

 

As for Obama, he is the energy lobby which is evidenced by his lifting the 20 year moratorium of nuclear power plant production when he announced the building of two new units a mere 30 days before he magically got the numbers for congress to vote in ACA.

LOL! Again, you are trying to rewrite history. Yes, Obama approved construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia and authorized $8 billion in loan guarantees to make it happen, but the process to get approval for those two new units started under BUSH. Obama may have just simply been trapped by events with no way to stop what his constituency STILL does not like. You see, Gator, shortly after Bush was elected, a new National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by none other than *evil* Vice President Cheney, was formed. After looking at the current improved state of technology, it issued a call to begin building new nuclear power plants. This led to a new program, started in 2002, by the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), called Nuclear Power 2010 … with the goal of building new nuclear power plants by the end of the decade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program ). They didn't make that timeline but that was the goal. To support this effort, the Bush administration grew the NE's budget by nearly 70%. And it's worth noting that Democrats in general were opposed to this effort, so deep was their hostility to nuclear power. As for the loan guarantees, they were made under a law signed by Bush (the Energy Policy Act of 2005). So, again, Obama benifited from events that began under Bush and you could say he inherited a new nuclear power plant program. By the way, Obama also used the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to fund Solyndra and the rest of his green energy programs.

 

Now the reactors in question are called Generation III+. Their design was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2005. Again under Bush. That allowed prospective builders to begin applying for licenses to build, although the full approval process for the reactors themselves continued … not being fully approved until 2011. You see, it took half a decade to complete all the regulator steps. It isn't like Obama suddenly declared *let their be nuclear* and it happened. He merely came in at the end of a LONG process. To take credit like he always does.

 

And, finally, you need to understand why Obama now supports nuclear energy. Remember, back when he was a state senator, he BOASTED that a bill to require all nuclear plant owners to notify authorities of even small leaks was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed." And that was in a state that got half it's electricity from nuclear power. The answer to why he's now for it is Global Warming (now Climate Change) … a key Obama campaign mantra. In 2009 he stated “We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change.” And as he said in his 2015 SOTA, there is "no greater threat to future generations than climate change". His adminstration says nuclear is key to their climate change policy. So Obama's support of nuclear power is based primarily on promoting that scam ... a scam that's designed to empower, and enrich, socialists and the Democratic Party. A scam to make *progressives* like Al Gore into billionaires. A scam that will put uncounted millions into Democratic Party coffers. And, ironically, part of that scam is shutting down fossil fuel power plants, no matter how efficient they are. You need nuclear power just to replace that lost energy. So it's not that Obama is part of the energy lobby as you claim, he's using one group in it to further OTHER GOALS that have nothing to do with energy. You're the one that needs to wake up and smell the roses, Gator.

 

China has been equally quietly buying their way into our political arena and has been caught several times since Clinton was forced to return 2.5 million of their contributions during his 1996 campaign.

About that. Indonesian billionaire James Riady, a conduit for illegal contributions from China to the Clintons and DNC, stood up in a California courtroom shortly after Bush took office, and told a judge, under a plea agreement that he'd lose if he lied, that Clinton and the DNC had NOT returned millions of illegal campaign dollars that they'd publically claimed they returned. And the judge asked the prosecuting attorney if that was true. The attorney stated that to the best of their knowledge it was indeed true. The Bush administration just moved on and did nothing about that disclosure (because they had their agenda to push and didn't want to have the media attacking them for going after Clinton and the DNC). So don't be so sure that the Clinton's and DNC returned all the illegal contributions they used to steal the 1996 election.

 

Look at Wesley Clark's video

Wesley Clark? LOL! Now there's a reliable and HIGHLY partisan source. Do you know who ran the bogus Kosovo War that Bill Clinton used to distract attention from revelations about Chinagate and Democrat treason? Welsey Clark, NATO's supreme commander. He's a Democrat lackey who was willing to violate Geneva conventions in order to *win* that war for Clinton. Who lied to the public about events in that conflict just to create perceptions of genocide where there was none. Who ordered an attack on RUSSIAN forces during the conflict (that had to be countermanded by other commanders). And when he retired from NATO early and left military life to run for office AS A DEMOCRAT, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, stated "the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues." That's your source? LOL!

 

As for the childish name calling

What? You don't like being called a socialist? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At absolute best a drone can pull a grid that's 30 meters off target

 

========================================================\

Why do your spew this nonsense, when we all have seen a drone his a moving jeep dead on? 30 meters is over 90 feet.

Drones are far more accurate than you claim, and we all know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 counterpoints.

 

...The war on terror propaganda doesn't even bother with good propaganda anymore, they just spew whatever, and people swallow it in big gulps.

The ultraliberal agenda driven media is not going to let the first Afro-American President fail...no matter what, even if he negotiates with terrorist illegally behind Congress back ! In ultraliberalville GWB was personally responsible for the massive Katrina disaster but our Commander-in-Chief is not responsible for the Benghazi fiasco.

 

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

 

Obama gets together with the Old White Christian Male Club.

 

gugugugugu-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 Times Obama Showed He Doesn’t ‘Get’ the War on Terror

 

 

 

By Alexa Coombs

 

1obama-sad.jpg

Recent events have really exposed President Obama’s fecklessness on terrorism, and people from all over the spectrum are finally beginning to take notice.

Piers Morgan, of all people, wrote a scathing editorial in the UK Daily Mail calling Obama out for not attending the Paris unity march. It included this excerpt:

That got me thinking about all the times Obama showed he just didn’t “get” the War on Terror over the years…

No, the sad truth is that Obama just didn’t ‘get’ it.

He didn’t understand the magnitude of what was happening, or the importance of him being part of it.

And that’s unforgivable.

1. Ignoring the Paris rally. The world was shocked when not only was Obama a no-show, but he failed to send a single high ranking official to Paris for a major anti-terrorism march attended by 44 world leaders and millions of French citizens. The White House was forced to admit, “We should have sent someone with a higher profile.”

2. Golfing after James Foley’s beheading. It was Obama’s “Now watch this drive” moment. The American people were aghast when the president made a statement condemning the murder, and then returned to joking on the golf course just minutes later. Obama later said he regretted the “optics” of it.

3. Saying, “We don’t have a strategy yet.” In late August 2014, months after ISIS had taken over large swaths of Iraq and had begun to behead American hostages, President Obama gave a press conference during which he admitted to not having a strategy on how to defeat the most dangerous terrorist threat facing the country since 9/11.

4. Calling ISIS the “Jayvee team.” In January 2014, Obama was quoted dismissing ISIS, saying, “The analogy we use around here sometimes and is accurate is if a Jayvee team puts on Laker uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Obviously, ISIS has turned into a terrorist dream team.

5. Losing Iraq. Obama cut and ran, leaving zero troops in the country, just so he could say he had fulfilled a campaign promise to “end” the War in Iraq. As predicted, without a residual force in place to secure our progress, large areas of Iraq have been turned into terrorist safe havens. So eager was our president to abandon the country that he even ignored Iraqi requests for drone strikes against ISIS as early as August 2013 that could have nipped them in the bud.

6. Swapping prisoners. Somehow people in the Obama Administration thought that trading five of the most dangerous Taliban terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay for a deserter would be a good idea. Now these hardened terrorists are free to go back to attacking America anywhere they can.

7. Whitewashing the War on Terror. When Obama came to power, he ended the Global War on Terror – by renaming it the “Overseas Contingency Operation.” He also turned “terrorism” into “man-caused disasters,” removed the words “Islamic extremism” and “jihad” from national security strategy documents. He even tried to downplay terrorist attacks by refusing to call Benghazi a terrorist act and calling the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence.”

Truly unforgivable.

After 6 years of this madness, I’m sure I’ve forgotten some other examples. Please suggest any more in the comments section below.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/7-times-obama-showed-doesnt-get-war-terror/#ixzz3P7xOt5Kv

yo Dimwit, ask Osama Bin Laden about how our president forgot the war on terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guy wasn't in the running. And your guys just got trounced twice. Say hello to eight years of a Republican presidency that will not forget the lack of dimocrat bipartisanship.

That is because your guy, Jefferson Davis, has been deceased for over 100 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...