Obama’s Mideast - An autopsy

It seems like an eternity has passed since the Cairo Speech, in which President Barack Obama said he came “to seek a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world,” was delivered a mere five years ago this month.

Half a decade on, Obama’s vision is in shambles. US interests in the Middle East are imperiled as they have not been for half a century. Disrespect of America is rife among those Obama set out to appease, while America’s allies mistrust Obama. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of Americans – including Democrats – have lost faith in his foreign policy, according to a New York Times/CBS poll published this week.

Back in 2009, Obama delivered more than 5,000 words of sweeping generalizations and pretentious declarations, many of which he now surely regrets.

Quoting the Koran, he preached the merits of truth, apologized to Iran for a US-aided coup in 1953, vowed to close the Guantanamo prison, assured Muslims that America is not “a self-interested empire,” cried “Islam is part of America,” derided governments “dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear,” hailed democracy while equivocating that “no system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by another,” insinuated that the Holocaust was the reason for Israel’s existence, compared the Palestinian plight to that of the American slaves, and, to audience applause, demanded an immediate cessation of settlement building in the West Bank.

Obama’s move was already attacked at the time, most notably by Lebanese- born, Middle East expert Fouad Ajami, who incidentally passed away this week.

“I was in Saudi Arabia,” reported Ajami days after the Cairo Speech.

“There was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.”

Referring to an earlier statement by Obama, that he wanted American- Muslim relations restored to how they were “30 or 20 years earlier,” Ajami noted that Obama’s imagined idyll actually included the Khomeini Revolution, the standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to America’s enemies, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

Still, at the time the damage of Obama’s speech seemed to be mainly to his image, which came across as frivolous. Critics noted that no plan of action was associated with his lecture, no prior coordination occurred with local allies, and no experts were consulted about the likely results of such high-profile rhetoric in societies unaccustomed to American-style public debate.

Now, with events making a mockery of his vow to help Baghdad build its army and “support and secure a united Iraq,” a consensus is emerging in the West that US strategic interests have been seriously damaged, that American diplomacy fell victim to ignorance, arrogance and naivete, and that policy overhaul is imperative – if not for the sake of America’s interests, then at least for the sake of worldwide diplomatic stature.

THE FAILURE of Obama’s diplomacy is climaxing now in Iraq, but his strategic losses began in Egypt.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s appearance this week in Cairo was a trip to Canossa.

Having previously sided with Egypt’s Islamists, and responded to their ouster by suspending aid to the interim government of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Obama’s emissary this week arrived in Sisi’s chambers and sheepishly restored that aid.

It was a belated recognition that the florid rhetoric of the Cairo Speech had little to do with reality, which is embodied in the elevation of Sisi to president of Egypt. And as has happened repeatedly because of his Middle East hyperactivity, Obama ended up buying the damaged goods and paying double the price.

Obama’s original sin with Egypt was the delivery of his ideas through a loudspeaker in then-president Hosni Mubarak’s living room. There are only two possible explanations for this conduct: maybe Obama did or didn’t understand that he was potentially helping unseat one of America’s most loyal allies. If he didn’t understand such an elementary Middle Eastern dynamic, he was in no position to discuss our troubled region’s problems. And if he did understand the risks, he should have considered how his ideas would come across to locals as betrayal.

As it were, Obama’s treatment of Mubarak resulted in Egypt turning to Russia, which gladly agreed to sell Sisi advanced aircraft and missiles.

That was a strategic bonanza Moscow had never dreamed of, considering the superiority of American weaponry that Egypt had been buying ever since its peace treaty with Israel. Obama, in sum, failed to bring Egypt closer to democracy, lost its trust, and eased its way back to Moscow’s bosom.

This failure to understand the most elementary laws of power-play was repeated in Syria, although in a different way. At stake there was not loyalty and alliance, but enforcement. It would have been one thing for Washington to say that it is neutral on Syria, or to remain mum while President Bashar Assad gassed his people. However, to vow to use force and then fail to deliver on the threat indicates that Obama did not merely play the game poorly – he didn’t even know the rules.

Such conduct calls for bad guys throughout the world to do as they please – which is indeed what they did. The first to test Obama was North Korea, when it violated agreements with the US and conducted a nuclear test, incidentally or not, the week before the Cairo Speech. Obama’s failure to respond to such a drastic provocation was registered by autocrats worldwide, from then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who helped Iran survive sanctions, to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who later prowled Ukraine.

The diplomatic inconsistency displayed in Syria was compounded by the ideological inconsistency displayed to its south.

If US policy was to demand democracy in Cairo, then why not make the same demand in Riyadh, Kuwait City and Doha? And if popular upheaval is to win US support, then why not back the Shi’ite majority’s challenge to Bahrain’s pro-Saudi government? Yes, the Middle East is a very complex place, and no one would have demanded that Obama reinvent it. He volunteered to present himself as the region’s reinventor, and the funeral for this pretension is now taking place in Iraq.

THE TROUNCING of Iraq’s American-built army by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s armed forces would have been avoided had Washington thought historically, and acted creatively.

The underlying assumptions of Obama’s policy in Iraq were that international borders are sacred, its army is reliable and its democracy is viable. Yet any student of Middle Eastern history would have told him that Iraq, like Syria and Lebanon, is an artificial country that European colonialists imposed on rival minorities and faiths.

Americans, who by definition superimpose their citizenship on their religious and ethnic backgrounds, find the Iraqis’ inversion of these priorities difficult to understand.

Yet that is the norm in this part of the world, and this mentality is in fact now reshaping Syria, Lebanon and Libya. To distance himself from the colonialist legacy he decried in Cairo, Obama could have embraced Iraq’s organic divides, and supported their building a future around its three major communities’ well-known identities.

Instead, he enshrined the colonialists’ untenable legacy.

A proper reading of Iraq’s American-led democratization would have led to the conclusion that dissolution is effectively the will of the Iraqi people, considering that they voted, and their politicians ruled, according to sectarian priorities. That is also why the Iraqi army unraveled. Handing Sunni conscripts nice uniforms and new guns did not make them feel closer to those who dressed and armed them than to the tribe and faith that defined them.

IT IS NOT TOO LATE to redefine Washington’s Middle Eastern policy. But it must first ask what its overriding interest in this part of the world actually is.

The Middle East has been, over the centuries, many things to many powers. For Alexander the Great, it was a bridge between civilizations.

For the Ottomans, it was an imperial center of gravity. For the British, it was the passage to India. For US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was an oil field. For the Cold War’s protagonists, it was a wrestling arena. For US president Bill Clinton, it was a peacemaker’s Gordian knot. And for his two successors, it became a field of dreams.

Now, the dreaming is making way for sober watchfulness.

America has only one enemy in the world, and it is not autocracy – it is Radical Islam. Rulers like Putin, Sisi or Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah are bad for their people, but they don’t target America.

Islamism does.

It follows that in the Mideast, the US should play with those who are strong and pragmatic, and focus on confronting the fanatics – be they Sunnis in Mosul and Gaza, or Shi’ites in Beirut and Tehran.

Judging by its acceptance of Sisi, the White House is now beginning to understand this.

The next logical step is therefore to accept Iraq’s and Syria’s dissolution, cultivate the Kurdish Regional Government, accept the emergence of a Shi’ite state in southern Iraq, and help Jordan and Turkey shape a Sunni state between western Iraq and eastern Syria.

No, this will not be panacea.

Western values will remain on foreign to them, and Western interests will still require struggle. However, the struggle’s aim will be clear, and its prospects vastly improved.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/168562/obama-s-mideast-an-autopsy.html

Six months ago, Sunni Arab militants faced a daunting firepower imbalance in their uprising against the US-equipped Iraqi army west of Baghdad.

But once their campaign for the city of Fallujah was launched in January, their lethal capabilities were bolstered from the stockpiles of the Iraqi armed forces. Many soldiers fled, throwing down their weapons, which were picked up by the insurgents. Police stations and security posts overrun by Sunni militants yielded more martial booty to be turned against the forces of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Shiite Muslim-led government.

"Praise Allah, we soon had enough weapons to fight for one or two years," said Ahmad Dabaash, spokesman for the Islamic Army, a Sunni rebel faction, who spoke in a hotel lobby here in Iraq's northern Kurdistan region. "And now? Don't even ask!"

By "now," he was referring to the current ground assault by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, the Al Qaeda breakaway group that in the past two weeks has seized large parts of northern and central Iraq, including Mosul, Iraq's second-most populous city. Fighting alongside ISIL formations are other Iraqi Sunni factions such as the Islamic Army, which rose against the US occupation a decade ago.

As the Iraqi government mobilises to halt the insurgents' advance toward Baghdad, the capital, there is no full accounting of the stocks of plundered arms, ordnance and gear. But experts agree that the haul is huge - with implications for the merging wars in both Iraq and neighbouring Syria.

Rival Syrian rebel factions already report seeing US-built, ISIL-commandeered Humvees almost as far east as the vicinity of Aleppo, 400 km from Iraq. The influx of arms and fighters from Iraq could shift the balance of power among fractious rebel groups fighting for supremacy in Syria.

$557 MILLION IN CASH

ISIL, which also reportedly snatched the equivalent of close to US$500 million (NZ$557m) in cash from a Mosul bank, has been catapulted to the position of the world's wealthiest and best-equipped militant group, analysts say. Its riches easily eclipse those of Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden, despite his personal fortune. The group, which has attracted thousands of fighters from the Arab world, Europe and elsewhere, also controls a broad swath of contiguous territory in the heart of the Middle East.

"ISIL are well-trained, very capable, and have advanced weapons systems that they know how to use," said Michael Stephens, researcher at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies.

In the current ISIL-led thrust, the scenario played out earlier by Sunni insurgents in western Iraq has been replicated on a monumental scale.

Government forces retreated en masse from the onslaught, leaving behind a military hardware bonanza, including the US-made armoured Humvees as well as trucks, rockets, artillery pieces, rifles, ammunition and even a helicopter. Some of the seized materiel was old or otherwise nonfunctioning; but a lot was promptly put to use on the battlefield.
Ad Feedback

Pictures of grinning Islamist warriors cruising in US Humvees bedecked with white-on-black militant flags flooded the Internet and became the signature image of the ISIL campaign.

Though ISIL initially encountered little opposition from the Iraqi army in central and western Iraq, the insurgents have not directly challenged Kurdish troops known as the peshmerga who control a more than 965km front in northern Iraq.

Stretching from the Syrian to Iranian borders, this territory is protected by the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government. Iraqi soldiers who once patrolled much of the line retreated and are now found only along about a 55 km stretch close to Iran, according to Kurdish security officials.

ISIL "took the weapons stores of the 2nd and 3rd (Iraqi army) divisions in Mosul, the 4th division in Salah al Din, the 12th division in the areas near Kirkuk, and another division in Diyala," said Jabbar Yawar, secretary-general of the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs. On a map, he indicated an arc denoting various provinces and cities strung across northern and central Iraq.

'COLOSSAL INTENSITY OF BULLETS'

"We're talking about armaments for 200,000 soldiers, all from the Americans," Yawar said.

With such an immense quantity of captured weaponry, Yawar said, ISIL and its confederates are now capable of laying down "a colossal intensity of bullets" against their foes.

The plundered weapons and likely flood of new recruits might shift the initiative among rebel groups in neighbouring Syria. ISIL emerged from the turmoil of the Syrian conflict but later suffered setbacks in internecine rebel combat.

This year ISIL faced an assault from rival insurgent factions that cut its presence to a few strongholds in northern and eastern Syria, including the city of Raqqah. Various Syrian rebel groups, including the Islamic Front and the Nusra Front, the latter the al-Qaida franchise in Syria, are avowed enemies of ISIL, which broke away last year in a bitter dispute.

But the newly galvanised ISIL recently made substantial gains along the desert borderlands of the Iraqi-Syrian frontier. It seized the border town of Qaim and tore down border fences and bulldozed berms and ditches in a dramatic gesture meant to illustrate its goal of creating a unified Islamist caliphate. ISIL forces also advanced near the eastern Syrian city of Dair Alzour, capital of the oil-rich province of the same name.

ALTERS BALANCE OF POWER

The lightning assault and attendant publicity may be winning new allies, even among the Nusra Front.

Several days ago, a group of Al Nusra rebels in the Syrian town of Bokamal, along the Euphrates River on the border with Iraq, pledged allegiance to ISIL, according to various accounts. ISIL's captured Humvees helped alter the balance of power on the border battlefield, said a Nusra fighter reached via Skype.

More ISIL militants and weapons are expected to pour into Syria from Iraq, said Col. Abdulrazzaq Abu Bilal, commander with Liwa Tawheed, one of the Syrian rebel groups aligned against ISIL. ISIL has been massing forces north of Aleppo and clashing with rival rebel groups for a week just 19 km from the main highway linking Aleppo with Turkey, Bilal said in an interview via Skype from Syria.

"After the Iraqi borders opened and ISIL seized control of the Dair Alzour suburbs, this gave them the motivation to advance toward Aleppo," said the rebel colonel, a defector from the Syrian air force.

The group's successes have prompted President Barack Obama to seek US$500 million (NZ$557m) from Congress to train "appropriately vetted elements of the moderate Syrian opposition".

As ISIL continues to storm through Iraq, the rebel colonel said, its leaders seem determined to repeat the same offensive trajectory in Syria - and regain areas ceded to rivals in northern Syria.

"They are seeking to control the Turkish border in its entirety," he said, and "to cut off the supply routes and retake all the areas they lost."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10215561/Plundered-US-gear-helps-ISIL-insurgents

and now Obama is giving ISIS's syrian branch $500 million dollars for training and equipment

Obama’s call for $500 million to arm and train Syrian Jihadist fighters couldn’t have possibly come at a more inappropriate time as Al Qaeda in Iraq menaces both countries.

It wasn’t the Iraq War that made the Al Qaeda affiliate so dangerous. In 2008 it specialized in suicide bombings. It wasn’t marching on Baghdad with an army behind it.

The Arab Spring destabilized the region while money, weapons and recruits poured into Libya and Syria. Obama’s regime change war in Libya led not only to the takeover of entire Libyan cities by Al Qaeda, culminating in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, but to an Al Qaeda affiliate seizing much of neighboring Mali. Libyan terror training camps also led to an attack on the Amenas gas plant in Algeria.

Three Americans were killed in that attack bringing the US death toll from Obama’s Libyan War up to seven.

But that was last year. This year it’s the Syrian Civil War that turned its local Al Qaeda affiliates into breakout Jihadi stars seizing entire cities and terrorizing the region.

Obama’s solution is to direct money intended for counterterrorism partnerships to terrorists in Syria.

This may be one of the worst ideas that he has ever come up with. Attempts to control the flow of weapons likely played a role in the Benghazi attacks. NATO forces enforcing an arms embargo on Libya had been told to ignore Qatari weapons shipments that were meant for “moderates”.

Instead they went to Al Qaeda.

Obama and Kerry, not to mention Graham and McCain, believe that weapons can be directed to “moderate” Syrian groups and that by arming the “good” terrorists, we’ll stop the “bad” terrorists.

But there are no “good” terrorists. Promises of delivering weapons only to “pre-vetted” groups are worth as much as Obama’s assurances that Al Qaeda was on the run and that ISIS is only a jayvee team.

Kerry met with Ahmad al-Jarba, the President of the Syrian National Coalition. Al-Jarba said that $500 million wouldn’t be enough and demanded more weapons. Meanwhile Al-Jarba was feuding with Ahmad Tohme, the Prime Minister of the SNC’s fictional government. Tohme had attempted to disband the Supreme Military Council over corruption charges while firing the head of the Free Syrian Army.

None of this really matters because the SNC is a puppet regime with many puppet masters and no puppets. The Syrian front men for the Saudis, Qataris, the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey and other factions are constantly firing each other. Their Free Syrian Army is a label stamped on a bunch of Islamist militias, many of whom openly support Al Qaeda.

Four out of five of the FSA’s front commanders had demanded to work with Al Qaeda last year. Parts of the FSA joined the Islamic Front and seized the FSA’s weapons warehouses taking anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The FSA fighters fled. Earlier ISIS had seized USAID items intended for the FSA.

After these embarrassments Obama was forced to temporarily suspend aid to the Free Syrian Army.

A senior Al Qaeda terrorist who answered to Ayman Al-Zawahiri was a leading figure in the Islamic Front through Ahrar al Sham, which operated alongside the FSA, until he was killed in an attack by ISIS. Ahrar al Sham had a powerful role in the Supreme Military Council through Deputy Chief of Staff Abdel-basset Tawil.

The FSA, to the extent that it exists, consists of bearded Salafist fighters and commanders in the field and “moderate” leaders in suits in Qatar and Turkey who usually never set foot in Syria. They obtain weapons and money from the West for Jihadists who are much less camera friendly.

Groups such as Liwa al Ummah choose to affiliate with the FSA even while they continue fighting alongside the Al Nusra Front. Experts label some Syrian Jihadist groups as moderate and others as extremist, but the “moderates” and “extremists” fly the black flag of Jihad and fight for an Islamic state.

Pre-vetting the groups means nothing because names like the Free Syrian Army or the Supreme Military Council are only fronts for outside interests. Even the names of the individual militias are often meaningless because new groups and new umbrella groups are constantly being created and dissolved.  Fighters and commanders move from one group to another taking their weapons with them.

Keeping track of the various pseudonyms used by the commanders is already a full time job. It is often impossible to tell whether two Jihadist commanders with the same pseudonym are even the same person. Figuring out the relationship between various groups means depending on intelligence from those groups and various activists on the ground who all have their own alliances and agendas.

No meaningful vetting is possible under these circumstances and supplying weapons to “pre-vetted” groups is as good as supplying them to Al Qaeda. Supplying weapons to pre-vetted groups only  means that it will take longer for those weapons to reach Al Qaeda through barter, alliance or capture.

And even if the weapons don’t end up with Al Qaeda, they will go to Salafist groups that share its goals. The difference is that those have not yet officially declared war on us. That same false sense of security led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

We should not be arming any Islamic militias. We certainly should not be arming Salafi Jihadis who wave the black flag of Jihad. That would be more foolish than anything that Carter did in Afghanistan.

And even if we could control who the weapons went to and even if the Free Syrian Army were moderate, prolonging the Syrian Civil War only makes Al Qaeda more dangerous. Some have said that the best scenario is for both the Sunni and Shiite sides to go on bleeding. But the Syrians and Iraqis are not Americans. They have a much higher birth rate and a much lower regard for individual life.

A prolonged conflict will not break them. It will however train them.

Iran and Iraq bounced back from a much more devastating war to become serious threats.  Conflicts in the region are training grounds that make enemies more dangerous, not less. The longer the fighting goes on, the more fighters will be recruited and the more competent commanders will emerge.  And no matter how the fighting ends, many of those fighters and commanders will go on to other wars.

Afghanistan produced many of the Al Qaeda fighters and commanders who became a threat to the United States. The Arab Spring wars are producing a new generation of fighters. Their expertise will lead to multiple terror attacks and wars around the world. There is already concern about Muslim settlers in America, Europe, Canada and Australia who have gone to fight in Syria returning to the West.

The longer the conflict goes on, the more of them there will be. Prolonging the fighting by aiding the Sunnis is a mistake that ultimately helps Al Qaeda, not to mention Hezbollah, become more dangerous.

The myth of a moderate alternative to Al Qaeda that we can create with weapons shipments is an appealing fiction. The FSA couldn’t stand up to the Islamic Front. It certainly can’t stand up to ISIS. And there is no need for it to do so. The opposition fighters all want the same thing. They only disagree on who will have the upper hand. That is why Al Nusra fought against ISIS before kissing and making up.

The forces of the Sunni opposition have much more in common ideologically and culturally with each other than they do with us. Their common goal is a Sunni Islamic state built by the Jihad.

We can’t win by supporting them. We can only lose.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/if-we-want-to-beat-al-qaeda-we-have-to-stop-arming-it/

Thanks for that smelly it describes whats going on in great detail.

Muslim loonies killing other Muslim loonies , who cares , let them get on with it.

As long as it doesn't effect us I agree, but will it in the future?

Obama's call for $500-million is just a stage prop. The Congress will never pass a spending measure for Obama's signature. The McConnel/Boehner doctrine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power) will forestall any action from the US.

It's just a chess move.

Original Quill wrote:Obama's call for $500-million is just a stage prop.  The Congress will never pass a spending measure for Obama's signature.  The McConnel/Boehner doctrine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power) will forestall any action from the US.

It's just a chess move.

and if for some reason congress gave it to him, then AL-Q/ISIS whatever they call themselves now will be half a billion better off

his fumbling of iraq has already allowed higher spec weaponry to fall into ISIS's hands.

instead of camel riding sandal wearing shitskin desert savages that they are, obama has allowed ISIS to transform into a relativity well armed and Armour fighting force that is not even stopping to see that its obama they are tramping into the dirt

lefties, you people fuck up everything you lay your hands on dont you??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Obama's call for $500-million is just a stage prop.  The Congress will never pass a spending measure for Obama's signature.  The McConnel/Boehner doctrine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power) will forestall any action from the US.

It's just a chess move.

and if for some reason congress gave it to him, then AL-Q/ISIS whatever they call themselves now will be half a billion better off

his fumbling of iraq has already allowed higher spec weaponry to fall into ISIS's hands.

instead of camel riding sandal wearing shitskin desert savages that they are, obama has allowed ISIS to transform into a relativity well armed and Armour fighting force that is not even stopping to see that its obama they are tramping into the dirt

lefties, you people fuck up everything you lay your hands on dont you??  

I don't see what you are arguing about, smels. The RW started it all in 2003, and now they are complaining?? The RW is constantly on the rag. Go to bed and wait til it's over.

Because of the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, Obama has done nothing wrong. His hands are tied. It's all in the hands of Congress. If the bed doesn't work, put on your jackboots, march around the back yard a couple of times, and you'll feel better. Get the dog to join you, he needs the exercise.

smelly_bandit wrote:and now Obama is giving ISIS's syrian branch $500 million dollars for training and equipment

You've missed out the best bit:

New Islamic Caliph ( Baghdadi ) Was Released From Captivity By Obama in 2009

"Fox News host Jeanine Pirro tied President Barack Obama to the roots of the current assault.

"The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden," Pirro said. "A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/

nicko wrote:As long as it doesn't effect us I agree, but will it in the future?

most certainly it will affect us

its already affecting us, our security services are shitting their pants at the thought of the British jihadis fighting over there returning here and bombing the shit out of us

this caliphate they have established, means the genie is well and truly out of his lamp and he sure as hell isnt going back in.

Muslims around the world are obsessed by a mythical era of Islamic history which they bizarrely call the "golden age", it was during this age where there was an Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law and ruled by a divinely ordained caliph and the ummah (Muslim population) lived in peace and prosperity along side their non Muslim dhimmis who knew their place

of course this is utter madness, pre invasion Afghanistan was the closest thing to an Islamic state/caliphate governed by sharia law

Iran is governed by sharia law

Saudi Arabia is governed by sharia law

when this is pointed out to Muslims they simply say "its not proper sharia law" or some other nonsensical excuse why the reality of their pipe dream utopian world is anything but peaceful and prosperous or a holiday destination of thiers

anyway, the idea of a caliphate is always at the forefront of the Muslim worldview, but up till now its never been a possibility because of strong and robust western foreign policy that allowed dictators to dictate so long as they kept they boot firmly on the throat of Islamic fundamentalism

Obama changed all that, he betrayed all those former "allies" / puppets in the ME and allowed the threat that they had been suppressing to break free

we are currently seeing the result of obama's weakness and disloyalty across the ME

make no mistake, Islam is rising on an mountain of fire and blood and we will soon have to face the consequences from decades of ignoring the threat that islam poses to the world

Tesstacious wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:and now Obama is giving ISIS's syrian branch $500 million dollars for training and equipment

You've missed out the best bit:

New Islamic Caliph ( Baghdadi ) Was Released From Captivity By Obama in 2009

"Fox News host Jeanine Pirro tied President Barack Obama to the roots of the current assault.

"The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden," Pirro said. "A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/

Hehe...was he the used car salesman?

nicko wrote:As long as it doesn't effect us I agree, but will it in the future?

It's affecting us right now Nicko as ISIS supporters are well established in the UK,where they are protected by the human rights act,the incumbent government & left wingers.....to name a few.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

and if for some reason congress gave it to him, then AL-Q/ISIS whatever they call themselves now will be half a billion better off

his fumbling of iraq has already allowed higher spec weaponry to fall into ISIS's hands.

instead of camel riding sandal wearing shitskin desert savages that they are, obama has allowed ISIS to transform into a relativity well armed and Armour fighting force that is not even stopping to see that its obama they are tramping into the dirt

lefties, you people fuck up everything you lay your hands on dont you??  

I don't see what you are arguing about, smels.  The RW started it all in 2003, and now they are complaining??  The RW is constantly on the rag.  Go to bed and wait til it's over.

Because of the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, Obama has done nothing wrong.  His hands are tied.  It's all in the hands of Congress.  If the bed doesn't work, put on your jackboots, march around the back yard a couple of times, and you'll feel better.  Get the dog to join you, he needs the exercise.

is that all you got??

blame the former government??

isn't it funny how you assign the blame of mistakes by the former government to the former government but things like laying the ground work for capturing OBL you give the credit only to your messiah

blame others for everything including obamas mishandling of the ME but when its credit to be handed out it all goes to obama (even credit he hasn't earned)

very convenient world view you have there quill - explains a lot

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't see what you are arguing about, smels.  The RW started it all in 2003, and now they are complaining??  The RW is constantly on the rag.  Go to bed and wait til it's over.

Because of the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, Obama has done nothing wrong.  His hands are tied.  It's all in the hands of Congress.  If the bed doesn't work, put on your jackboots, march around the back yard a couple of times, and you'll feel better.  Get the dog to join you, he needs the exercise.

is that all you got??

blame the former government??

isn't it funny how you assign the blame of mistakes by the former government to the former government but things like laying the ground work for capturing OBL you give the credit only to your messiah

blame others for everything including obamas mishandling of the ME but when its credit to be handed out it all goes to obama (even credit he hasn't earned)

very convenient world view you have there quill - explains a lot

Har Har Har...what groundwork?  Drunken Georgie ran around in circles trying to figure out who UBL was.  Terrorista??  Aren't they the ones who make the coffee at Starbucks?  Georgie couldn't figure out his ass from a hole in the ground.  As always, the LW has to clean up after the RW...that's how UBL went down.

Now is the time for us all to find a lounge chair by the pool in LA, and sit back and watch the show.  Under the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, we are all just part of the audience anyway.  Lol  Have a mai-tai.  

Cheers.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

is that all you got??

blame the former government??

isn't it funny how you assign the blame of mistakes by the former government to the former government but things like laying the ground work for capturing OBL you give the credit only to your messiah

blame others for everything including obamas mishandling of the ME but when its credit to be handed out it all goes to obama (even credit he hasn't earned)

very convenient world view you have there quill - explains a lot

Har Har Har...what groundwork?  Drunken Georgie ran around in circles trying to figure out who UBL was.  Terrorista??  Aren't they the ones who make the coffee at Starbucks?  Georgie couldn't figure out his ass from a hole in the ground.  As always, the LW has to clean up after the RW...that's how UBL went down.

Now is the time for us all to find a lounge chair by the pool in LA, and sit back and watch the show.  Under the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, we are all just part of the audience anyway.  Lol  Have a mai-tai.  

Cheers.

yeah the LW are cleaning up the ME good and proper aren't they??

whats the scorecard saying so far quill??

Libya in ruins

Egypt in chaos

chemical weapons used in Syria despite obamas temper tantrums that he would go in if it happened, or perhaps it happened because Obama is seen as weak and everyone knew he was just full of hot air

Iraq getting smashed up by ISIS who are being supported in Syria by obama but opposed by him in Iraq

one bummed and murdered ambassador that obama still hasn't done anything about

Iran allowed to dance the world on its merry way to nuclear obliteration

and all across the ME Muslim jihadis previously kept under control by a strong RW foreign policy are running amok and obama is doing absolutely fuck all to stop it

but then Muslim in chief obama is probably happy with the rise of islam

fuck my life is this what you call cleaning up by the LW???

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Har Har Har...what groundwork?  Drunken Georgie ran around in circles trying to figure out who UBL was.  Terrorista??  Aren't they the ones who make the coffee at Starbucks?  Georgie couldn't figure out his ass from a hole in the ground.  As always, the LW has to clean up after the RW...that's how UBL went down.

Now is the time for us all to find a lounge chair by the pool in LA, and sit back and watch the show.  Under the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, we are all just part of the audience anyway.  Lol  Have a mai-tai.  

Cheers.

yeah the LW are cleaning up the ME good and proper aren't they??

whats the scorecard saying so far quill??

Libya in ruins

Egypt in chaos

chemical weapons used in Syria  despite obamas temper tantrums that he would go in if it happened, or perhaps it happened because Obama is seen as weak and everyone knew he was just full of hot air

Iraq getting smashed up by ISIS who are being supported in Syria by obama but opposed by him in Iraq

one bummed and murdered ambassador that obama still hasn't done anything about

Iran allowed to dance the world on its merry way to nuclear obliteration

and all across the ME Muslim jihadis previously kept under control by a strong RW foreign policy are running amok and obama is doing absolutely fuck all to stop it  

but then Muslim in chief obama is probably happy with the rise of islam

fuck my life is this what you call cleaning up by the LW???

I have no sympathy for you smels.  The situation in the Middle East is what you asked for, as a RW'er, and it's what you got.

The McConnell/Boehner doctrine simply puts Obama out of the reach of your criticism.  You can't blame a guy who is left powerless by the other party.  Too bad for you that when I say powerless, I'm not just talking about the picture painted.  You actually lose.

A week or so back I asked you if you understood the history of this whole part of the world.  You indignantly scolded me for lecturing you on the subject.  Now, you come up with these sophomoric digs at Obama, revealing you have about as much understanding as a flatworm.  

It's a real world out there smels, you can't play at this stuff. You lost your chance...it's all gone now. Nothing to do but sit back and watch the show. Enjoy...

Original Quill wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
You've missed out the best bit:

New Islamic Caliph ( Baghdadi ) Was Released From Captivity By Obama in 2009

"Fox News host Jeanine Pirro tied President Barack Obama to the roots of the current assault.

"The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden," Pirro said. "A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/

Hehe...was he the used car salesman?

Sorry Tesstacious I got as far as "Fox News host Jeanine Pirro"  and ignored the rest.
taking any notice of that lot Adds no credibility to any debate and is dangerous at best

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
You've missed out the best bit:

New Islamic Caliph ( Baghdadi ) Was Released From Captivity By Obama in 2009

"Fox News host Jeanine Pirro tied President Barack Obama to the roots of the current assault.

"The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden," Pirro said. "A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/

Hehe...was he the used car salesman?

Sorry Tesstacious I got as far as "Fox News host Jeanine Pirro"  and ignored the rest.
taking any notice of that lot Adds no credibility to any debate and is dangerous at best

What's really funny, KD, is that if you click on the link Tess provided, you see that Tess's source puts this image next to the nice Fox News lady's claim:



Tess's source goes on to note that:

However, when PunditFact asked the Defense Department to confirm the story, officials there said Baghdadi was released in 2004, not 2009.

"Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon said in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."

In short, according to the Defense Department, the man who heads ISIS was released in 2004, long before Obama took office, and was not recaptured.

I'm having trouble remembering, who was the U.S. president in 2004? Dubya-something?

Original Quill wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:and now Obama is giving ISIS's syrian branch $500 million dollars for training and equipment

You've missed out the best bit:

New Islamic Caliph ( Baghdadi ) Was Released From Captivity By Obama in 2009

"Fox News host Jeanine Pirro tied President Barack Obama to the roots of the current assault.

"The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden," Pirro said. "A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/

Hehe...was he the used car salesman?

Tess's original source points out that the claim that Obama released Baghdadi from captivity is a lie. The Pentagon confirms that the head of ISIS was released in 2004 under Bush.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Sorry Tesstacious I got as far as "Fox News host Jeanine Pirro"  and ignored the rest.
taking any notice of that lot Adds no credibility to any debate and is dangerous at best

What's really funny, KD, is that if you click on the link Tess provided, you see that Tess's source puts this image next to the nice Fox News lady's claim:



Tess's source goes on to note that:

However, when PunditFact asked the Defense Department to confirm the story, officials there said Baghdadi was released in 2004, not 2009.

"Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon said in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."

In short, according to the Defense Department, the man who heads ISIS was released in 2004, long before Obama took office, and was not recaptured.

I'm having trouble remembering, who was the U.S. president in 2004? Dubya-something?

PMSL never got as far as the link ....2004  OOooooo let me think 2004 Mmmmmmmm now who was that

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Sorry Tesstacious I got as far as "Fox News host Jeanine Pirro"  and ignored the rest.
taking any notice of that lot Adds no credibility to any debate and is dangerous at best

What's really funny, KD, is that if you click on the link Tess provided, you see that Tess's source puts this image next to the nice Fox News lady's claim:



Tess's source goes on to note that:

However, when PunditFact asked the Defense Department to confirm the story, officials there said Baghdadi was released in 2004, not 2009.

"Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon said in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."

In short, according to the Defense Department, the man who heads ISIS was released in 2004, long before Obama took office, and was not recaptured.

I'm having trouble remembering, who was the U.S. president in 2004? Dubya-something?

PMSL never got as far as the link ....2004  OOooooo let me think 2004 Mmmmmmmm now who was that

We're supposed to put these people who can't bother to read more than two paragraphs of a story in charge   

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hehe...was he the used car salesman?

Tess's original source points out that the claim that Obama released Baghdadi from captivity is a lie. The Pentagon confirms that the head of ISIS was released in 2004 under Bush.

yes along with 500 other detainees ........i call it the " fox rot" ...If you watch fox and believe it.it`s proof your brain is starting to rot

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hehe...was he the used car salesman?

Tess's original source points out that the claim that Obama released Baghdadi from captivity is a lie. The Pentagon confirms that the head of ISIS was released in 2004 under Bush.

yes along with 500 other detainees ........i call it the " fox rot" ...If you watch fox and believe it.it`s  proof your brain is starting to rot

Clever, I like it!  ::D:: 

This sort of thing is also a good object lesson -- whenever a right-winger cites a source to back up their argument, never give them the benefit of the doubt. Always click the link to make sure they didn't cherry-pick the quote and that the full story doesn't actually completely contradict their point.

I have seen this thousands of times from RWers, there were a handful at ShortNews who were notorious for it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
yes along with 500 other detainees ........i call it the " fox rot" ...If you watch fox and believe it.it`s  proof your brain is starting to rot

Clever, I like it!  ::D:: 

This sort of thing is also a good object lesson -- whenever a right-winger cites a source to back up their argument, never give them the benefit of the doubt. Always click the link to make sure they didn't cherry-pick the quote and that the full story doesn't actually completely contradict their point.

I have seen this thousands of times from RWers, there were a handful at ShortNews who were notorious for it.

In my defense  ::D::  the link contained "foxs-pirro" and just took in "As read" it would be bullshit

Also i watched her do it live on her Sunday.. was it ? "Program" I was gobsmacked
The total lack of disrespect to the president that fox exhibit on a minute by minute basis is truly mind numing and I am not even American

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
yes along with 500 other detainees ........i call it the " fox rot" ...If you watch fox and believe it.it`s  proof your brain is starting to rot

Clever, I like it!  ::D:: 

This sort of thing is also a good object lesson -- whenever a right-winger cites a source to back up their argument, never give them the benefit of the doubt. Always click the link to make sure they didn't cherry-pick the quote and that the full story doesn't actually completely contradict their point.

I have seen this thousands of times from RWers, there were a handful at ShortNews who were notorious for it.

In my defense  ::D::  the link contained "foxs-pirro" and just took in "As read" it would be bullshit

Also i watched her do it live on her Sunday..  was it ? "Program" I was gobsmacked
The total lack of disrespect to the president that fox exhibit on a minute by minute basis is truly mind numing and I am not even American

Absolutely. Even the mildest civilian protests against Bush were labeled "treason" by the right, as they said, "Even if you don't respect the man, you should respect the office." Now they give it 100 times worse to Obama -- as was was the beginning per their plan laid out by Rush "I Hope He Fails" Limbaugh.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't see what you are arguing about, smels.  The RW started it all in 2003, and now they are complaining??  The RW is constantly on the rag.  Go to bed and wait til it's over.

Because of the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, Obama has done nothing wrong.  His hands are tied.  It's all in the hands of Congress.  If the bed doesn't work, put on your jackboots, march around the back yard a couple of times, and you'll feel better.  Get the dog to join you, he needs the exercise.

is that all you got??

blame the former government??

isn't it funny how you assign the blame of mistakes by the former government to the former government but things like laying the ground work for capturing OBL you give the credit only to your messiah

blame others for everything including obamas mishandling of the ME but when its credit to be handed out it all goes to obama (even credit he hasn't earned)

very convenient world view you have there quill - explains a lot

FFs do me a favour!!!


Ground work my arse

very  in accurate world view you have there smelly

ps ben you can remove the autoplay when he gets the message didn`t want him to ignore it

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
In my defense  ::D::  the link contained "foxs-pirro" and just took in "As read" it would be bullshit

Also i watched her do it live on her Sunday..  was it ? "Program" I was gobsmacked
The total lack of disrespect to the president that fox exhibit on a minute by minute basis is truly mind numing and I am not even American

Absolutely. Even the mildest civilian protests against Bush were labeled "treason" by the right, as they said, "Even if you don't respect the man, you should respect the office." Now they give it 100 times worse to Obama -- as was was the beginning per their plan laid out by Rush "I Hope He Fails" Limbaugh.

Limbaugh yes i am familiar with the fat oxy cotton useless twat

Original Quill wrote:Obama's call for $500-million is just a stage prop.  The Congress will never pass a spending measure for Obama's signature.  The McConnel/Boehner doctrine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power) will forestall any action from the US.

It's just a chess move.

Yeah right. When Obama sent 250 troops 'to protect the Embassy' I said at the time it'd be mission creep - how could a mere 250 troops protect anything when faced with ISIS? Was I right? Today's news:

Iraq crisis: US sends 300 more troops to shore up embassy security
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/us-sends-300-more-troops-to-iraq/5561888

  

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

yeah the LW are cleaning up the ME good and proper aren't they??

whats the scorecard saying so far quill??

Libya in ruins

Egypt in chaos

chemical weapons used in Syria  despite obamas temper tantrums that he would go in if it happened, or perhaps it happened because Obama is seen as weak and everyone knew he was just full of hot air

Iraq getting smashed up by ISIS who are being supported in Syria by obama but opposed by him in Iraq

one bummed and murdered ambassador that obama still hasn't done anything about

Iran allowed to dance the world on its merry way to nuclear obliteration

and all across the ME Muslim jihadis previously kept under control by a strong RW foreign policy are running amok and obama is doing absolutely fuck all to stop it  

but then Muslim in chief obama is probably happy with the rise of islam

fuck my life is this what you call cleaning up by the LW???

I have no sympathy for you smels.  The situation in the Middle East is what you asked for, as a RW'er, and it's what you got.

The McConnell/Boehner doctrine simply puts Obama out of the reach of your criticism.  You can't blame a guy who is left powerless by the other party.  Too bad for you that when I say powerless, I'm not just talking about the picture painted.  You actually lose.

A week or so back I asked you if you understood the history of this whole part of the world.  You indignantly scolded me for lecturing you on the subject.  Now, you come up with these sophomoric digs at Obama, revealing you have about as much understanding as a flatworm.  

It's a real world out there smels, you can't play at this stuff.  You lost your chance...it's all gone now.  Nothing to do but sit back and watch the show.  Enjoy...

oh quill i dont need your sympathy

America needs your sympathy since its the one being mauled by obamas lack of a spine

as for the ME??

im loving it, mulsims being massacred on a daily basis?? ill buy that for a petrodollar

i can see that any criticism of your messiah is hurtful to you quill, the fact that you see him as some ordained deity that can do no wrong and get angry when his flaws are presented to you is rather amusing, but of course he cannot deny the facts

if you're willing to give him unearned credit then you have to take the very well earned criticism to

this isn't kindergarten where the world is what you make it up to be

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

yeah the LW are cleaning up the ME good and proper aren't they??

whats the scorecard saying so far quill??

Libya in ruins

Egypt in chaos

chemical weapons used in Syria  despite obamas temper tantrums that he would go in if it happened, or perhaps it happened because Obama is seen as weak and everyone knew he was just full of hot air

Iraq getting smashed up by ISIS who are being supported in Syria by obama but opposed by him in Iraq

one bummed and murdered ambassador that obama still hasn't done anything about

Iran allowed to dance the world on its merry way to nuclear obliteration

and all across the ME Muslim jihadis previously kept under control by a strong RW foreign policy are running amok and obama is doing absolutely fuck all to stop it  

but then Muslim in chief obama is probably happy with the rise of islam

fuck my life is this what you call cleaning up by the LW???

I have no sympathy for you smels.  The situation in the Middle East is what you asked for, as a RW'er, and it's what you got.

The McConnell/Boehner doctrine simply puts Obama out of the reach of your criticism.  You can't blame a guy who is left powerless by the other party.  Too bad for you that when I say powerless, I'm not just talking about the picture painted.  You actually lose.

A week or so back I asked you if you understood the history of this whole part of the world.  You indignantly scolded me for lecturing you on the subject.  Now, you come up with these sophomoric digs at Obama, revealing you have about as much understanding as a flatworm.  

It's a real world out there smels, you can't play at this stuff.  You lost your chance...it's all gone now.  Nothing to do but sit back and watch the show.  Enjoy...

Excellent post, he lacks any historical knowledge, we are talking about a person wanting to wage war on a myth, in other words a religion, the rational of the 11th century Crusaders.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have no sympathy for you smels.  The situation in the Middle East is what you asked for, as a RW'er, and it's what you got.

The McConnell/Boehner doctrine simply puts Obama out of the reach of your criticism.  You can't blame a guy who is left powerless by the other party.  Too bad for you that when I say powerless, I'm not just talking about the picture painted.  You actually lose.

A week or so back I asked you if you understood the history of this whole part of the world.  You indignantly scolded me for lecturing you on the subject.  Now, you come up with these sophomoric digs at Obama, revealing you have about as much understanding as a flatworm.  

It's a real world out there smels, you can't play at this stuff.  You lost your chance...it's all gone now.  Nothing to do but sit back and watch the show.  Enjoy...

oh quill i dont need your sympathy

America needs your sympathy since its the one being mauled by obamas lack of a spine

as for the ME??

im loving it, mulsims being massacred on a daily basis?? ill buy that for a petrodollar

i can see that any criticism of your messiah is hurtful to you quill, the fact that you see him as some ordained deity that can do no wrong  and get angry when his flaws are presented to you is rather amusing, but of course he cannot deny the facts

if you're willing to give him unearned credit then you have to take the very well earned criticism to

this isn't kindergarten where the world is what you make it up to be

Enjoy it?  It's all you can do.  Because of the McConnell/Boehner doctrine, you won't see any American presence in this fight. They could ask the soldiers to buy their own airline tickets, but I doubt they will.

So, conservative Republicans are too cowardly to join the fight. They talk a good game. Maybe harsh language is the way to fight the bad guys.

Another mai-tai?

Maybe a margarita? The ice lasts longer.

oh look another lefty blaming everyone else

smelly_bandit wrote:oh look another lefty blaming everyone else

Thank goodness you on the right don't do that, you don't see righties blaming the left, the Muslims, the foreigners, the scroungers, the gays or the feminists for everything that's wrong with the world! Allah's blessings upon you, Smelly:

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Tesstacious wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Obama's call for $500-million is just a stage prop.  The Congress will never pass a spending measure for Obama's signature.  The McConnel/Boehner doctrine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power) will forestall any action from the US.

It's just a chess move.

Yeah right.  When Obama sent 250 troops 'to protect the Embassy' I said at the time it'd be mission creep - how could a mere 250 troops protect anything when faced with ISIS?  Was I right?   Today's news:

Iraq crisis: US sends 300 more troops to shore up embassy security
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/us-sends-300-more-troops-to-iraq/5561888

  

What's up, Tess? Any comment on your epic source fail above, or are we just moving on from that?  ::D:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:

Yeah right.  When Obama sent 250 troops 'to protect the Embassy' I said at the time it'd be mission creep - how could a mere 250 troops protect anything when faced with ISIS?  Was I right?   Today's news:

Iraq crisis: US sends 300 more troops to shore up embassy security
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/us-sends-300-more-troops-to-iraq/5561888

  

What's up, Tess? Any comment on your epic source fail above, or are we just moving on from that?  ::D:: 

Indeed Mr smelly seems also reluctant to reply to my posts .....It does tend to be a RW trait ...ignore the facts ,delfect and change the subject although i guess he got the message every time he visits the page

You know what they say

A picture is worth a thousand words .....and video is 24 pictures a second

Deluded lefties....

Tommy Monk wrote:Deluded lefties....

How so TM ?

"...ignore the facts ,delfect and change the subject..."







These are fundamental leftie traits.... and witnessed daily on here!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:"...ignore the facts ,delfect and change the subject..."







These are fundamental leftie traits.... and witnessed daily on here!!!

Facts ?smelly claimed  Bush laid the ground work for capturing OBL and as can be seen in the video the claim is totally phlatious  
Straight from the horses mouth  so to speak he (bush) has no idea or interest where OBL was
Unless you're deaf.... are you deaf??

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:"...ignore the facts ,delfect and change the subject..."







These are fundamental leftie traits.... and witnessed daily on here!!!

Facts ?smelly claimed  Bush laid the ground work for capturing OBL and as can be seen in the video the claim is totally phlatious  
Straight from the horses mouth  so to speak he (bush) has no idea or interest where OBL was
Unless you're deaf.... are you deaf??

never heard of subterfuge then??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:"...ignore the facts ,delfect and change the subject..."







These are fundamental leftie traits.... and witnessed daily on here!!!

Facts ?smelly claimed  Bush laid the ground work for capturing OBL and as can be seen in the video the claim is totally phlatious  
Straight from the horses mouth  so to speak he (bush) has no idea or interest where OBL was
Unless you're deaf.... are you deaf??

never heard of subterfuge then??

Subterfuge, my ass -- more like gross incompetence:

... The top three civilians at the Department of Defense discouraged concentrating on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Secretary Rumsfeld instructed his civilian and military subordinates, “Don’t over-elevate the importance of al Qaida,” while Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz “warned against focusing narrowly on al Qaeda and Afghanistan.” To them, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network in Afghanistan were not the primary targets but merely actors in a much broader global conflict aimed to prevent terrorist attacks by whomever and wherever they arose.

But the largest mistake made by President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was their failure to examine and intervene in the affairs of the military. Throughout the Battle of Tora Bora, neither the president nor the secretary of defense was directly engaged in the most important operation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, how could an engaged president and secretary of defense – who questioned and prodded the military commander about the significant battles being waged, the location of Osama bin Laden, the possibility of his escape, the whereabouts of concentrations of al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, the reliability of local partners, the “knowns and unknowns,” and the tactics utilized by American forces – allow a battle for the existence of al Qaeda to be waged by ninety-three Western commandos and a contingent of generally untrustworthy Afghan rebels without any reliable force to seal the escape routes?

From that point forward, nothing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the war against al Qaeda has ever been the same.

Twelve years later, as America’s longest war comes to an inconclusive and uncertain end, one question lingers: how could we let Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban survive 2001?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/15/how-bin-laden-escaped-in-2001-the-lessons-of-tora-bora.html

Oh so the search for bin laden only started AFTER Obama took office....???



Right......

smelly_bandit wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Facts ?smelly claimed  Bush laid the ground work for capturing OBL and as can be seen in the video the claim is totally phlatious  
Straight from the horses mouth  so to speak he (bush) has no idea or interest where OBL was
Unless you're deaf.... are you deaf??

never heard of subterfuge then??

well can you provide any evidence that he laid the groundwork as you claim because its quite clear that he couldn`t give a crap in the video
but please post some evidence that supports your claim because the only subdifuge i see is you trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes... Unsuccessfully, I might add

your entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts


Of you go and see if you can copy and paste some facts that support your claim

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh so the search for bin laden only started AFTER Obama took office....???



Right......

well it seems that way and don`t forget the bin ladins are family friends of the bush`s

I can't stand George bush.



But I'm sure the security services were looking for bin laden before Obama took office.

Tommy Monk wrote:I can't stand George bush.



But I'm sure the security services were looking for bin laden before Obama took office.

Yes I suspect they were however
in 2005, Bush shut down the CIA’s unit dedicated to finding bin Laden in order to shift resources to Iraq. “The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” the New York Times reported in 2006, adding that resources “had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi


But Soon after he took office, President Obama steered the U.S. on a course to end the war in Iraq and put resources back into finding bin Laden. “Shortly after I got into office,” Obama said in an interview after bin Laden’s death, “I brought [then-CIA director] Leon Panetta privately into the Oval Office and I said to him, ‘We need to redouble our efforts in hunting bin Laden down. And I want us to start putting more resources, more focus, and more urgency into that mission.

And don`t you think if bush could have gotten OBL in 2008 he would have had a landslide victory in the election