Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Media Supplants Republicans as Bogeyman of the Day

Avatar

Posted: 08/30/2014 9:07 AM

Media Supplants Republicans as Bogeyman of the Day 


 "We are who we are".........David Shaw

"We were who we were"..........Rocky17

"We aren`t who we should be" ........Anonymous

Last edited 09/01/2014 10:48 AM by Rocky17

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/30/2014 12:27 PM

Re: Media Supplants Republicans as Bogeyman of the Day 


No, its his media operation that now sucks.  He has a tin ear with the golfing post beheading, he has to take the podium to undo the warnings by his SoD, SoS & Dep Nat Sec Advisor, and then he says, "A plan, a strategy, a plan; I ain't go no plan!"

His very limited skill set is entirely over matched by current events.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/31/2014 12:06 AM

Re: Media Supplants Republicans as Bogeyman of the Day 



rjnwmill wrote: No, its his media operation that now sucks.  He has a tin ear with the golfing post beheading, he has to take the podium to undo the warnings by his SoD, SoS & Dep Nat Sec Advisor, and then he says, "A plan, a strategy, a plan; I ain't go no plan!"

His very limited skill set is entirely over matched by current events.
His skill set peaks at campaigning.
“Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.” JFK

Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/31/2014 7:11 AM

Everything's fine, just turn off twitter 


The world was a lot more dangerous 20 years ago, it's just that you notice more now. Please stop worrying about anything (global warming excepted, I suppose).

http://www.buzzfeed.com/passantino/obama-the-world-has-always-been-messy-were-just-noticing-now
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/31/2014 10:10 PM

Re: Everything's fine, just turn off twitter 



Cliff Speed wrote: The world was a lot more dangerous 20 years ago, it's just that you notice more now.
I realize you're being facetious to attack Obama, but do you really disagree with that statement?

All of us grew up worry that Russia was going to launch a first-strike nuclear attack.  When's the last time you felt that way?  Probably not since 1989.

When I was 10 years old I would ride my bike by myself for hours around the neighborhood, including to the video arcade 5 miles away in the next town.  But nowadays if I let my 10-year-old play alone in the park a few blocks away, someone would likely call the police.  It's not that the world is more dangerous -- domestically, violent crime rates have dropped to levels not seen since the 1960s.  It's just that you hear about it more often.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 10:02 AM

Of course the world was more dangerous during the Cold War 


It seems more dangerous now partially because we are hyper aware of the dangers, but also because we have a spectacularly incompetent, disinterested, and disengaged Commander in Chief.

Regarding the sole issue of terrorism, and the rise of ISIS, here is what POTUS BO has done in the last 18 months.

#1:  Declared the War on Terror over.  Opined that Al Qaeda was on the "path to defeat".  Jihadis everwhere laugh and celebrate.  Three months later the State Department issues its largest ever terror alert and closes 21 embassies and consulates.    

#2:  Declared a red line in Syria over the use of chemical weapons.  Ignored violations of the red line he established, then said "I didn't set a red line; the world set a red line.."  ISIS in particular celebrated the US inaction, because it was the single best recruiting event in their history.  "See?  The US doesn't give a $hit about you, never has, never will.  You want to beat Assad?  Join with us."  ISIS recruiting skyrockets in the aftermath of US inaction.  

#3:  Compared ISIS to a JV team.  Shortly thereafter, ISIS goes on a rampage, defeating the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, Jabhat al Nusra, the Iraqi Army, and the Peshmerga in dozens of battles.  The Islamic State is declared.

#4:  Chuck Hagel wakes up, takes some No Doz, and opines that ISIS is beyond anything we have ever seen, and is an imminent threat to US interests everywhere.  No.  $hit.  

#5:  POTUS BO tries to walk back Hagel's statement, and inadvertently tells the truth regarding ISIS.  "We don't have a strategy yet."  

The best explanation for Obama's incompetence - given that he is so smart and a Nobel Prize winner, yo - is he just doesn't care to be informed or engaged.  Peggy Noonan relayed this story from a WH staffer.  

"On his state trip to Italy in the spring, he asked to spend time with "interesting Italians." They were wealthy, famous. The dinner went for four hours. The next morning his staff were briefing him for a "60 Minutes" interview about Ukraine and health care. "One aide paraphrased Obama's response: 'Just last night I was talking about life and art, big interesting things, and now we're back to the minuscule things "

The Daydream and the Nightmare

To him, getting briefed on national security issues is minutiae; it's not as if nobody else knew what ISIS was doing; five months before he declared them the JV team, they had already occupied a number of town and villages throughout western Iraq.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 10:11 AM

About #1..... 



When did he declare the War on Terror over....?     Was there a speech?

Now, I grant that his inaction has said that....  and I've strongly opposed his views...

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

navy9t1 wrote: It seems more dangerous now partially because we are hyper aware of the dangers, but also because we have a spectacularly incompetent, disinterested, and disengaged Commander in Chief.

Regarding the sole issue of terrorism, and the rise of ISIS, here is what POTUS BO has done in the last 18 months.

#1:  Declared the War on Terror over.  Opined that Al Qaeda was on the "path to defeat".  Jihadis everwhere laugh and celebrate.  Three months later the State Department issues its largest ever terror alert and closes 21 embassies and consulates.    

#2:  Declared a red line in Syria over the use of chemical weapons.  Ignored violations of the red line he established, then said "I didn't set a red line; the world set a red line.."  ISIS in particular celebrated the US inaction, because it was the single best recruiting event in their history.  "See?  The US doesn't give a $hit about you, never has, never will.  You want to beat Assad?  Join with us."  ISIS recruiting skyrockets in the aftermath of US inaction.  

#3:  Compared ISIS to a JV team.  Shortly thereafter, ISIS goes on a rampage, defeating the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, Jabhat al Nusra, the Iraqi Army, and the Peshmerga in dozens of battles.  The Islamic State is declared.

#4:  Chuck Hagel wakes up, takes some No Doz, and opines that ISIS is beyond anything we have ever seen, and is an imminent threat to US interests everywhere.  No.  $hit.  

#5:  POTUS BO tries to walk back Hagel's statement, and inadvertently tells the truth regarding ISIS.  "We don't have a strategy yet."  

The best explanation for Obama's incompetence - given that he is so smart and a Nobel Prize winner, yo - is he just doesn't care to be informed or engaged.  Peggy Noonan relayed this story from a WH staffer.  

"On his state trip to Italy in the spring, he asked to spend time with "interesting Italians." They were wealthy, famous. The dinner went for four hours. The next morning his staff were briefing him for a "60 Minutes" interview about Ukraine and health care. "One aide paraphrased Obama's response: 'Just last night I was talking about life and art, big interesting things, and now we're back to the minuscule things "

The Daydream and the Nightmare

To him, getting briefed on national security issues is minutiae; it's not as if nobody else knew what ISIS was doing; five months before he declared them the JV team, they had already occupied a number of town and villages throughout western Iraq.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 10:21 AM

Re: About #1..... 


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 10:52 AM

Michael, Here is One Article About the End of the Terror War 


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over


It should seem obvious to most observers and is definitely obvious to me that Obama desires to do everything to mollify the extreme left wing and progressives in his part and our country while only wishing away any terrorist threat.  It is almost as if he believes that terrorists want to destroy us only because we treated them unfairly and wrongly in the past. He seems oblivious to the reality of what they are actually doing and actually want to achieve.  Someone within his government ought to sit him down and tell him this Dusty Springfield strategy of "Wishin` and Hopin` and Thinkin` and Prayin` is not going to cut it against people for whom mass rape, genocide and torture is business as usual and will be for millenia should they succeed in establishing a permanent caliphate and are not opposed as they spread tentacles throughout the world.

Obama truly appears daft and hopeless in this regard.

 "We are who we are".........David Shaw

"We were who we were"..........Rocky17

"We aren`t who we should be" ........Anonymous

Last edited 09/01/2014 11:00 AM by Rocky17

Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 10:58 AM

Thanks.... 



Rocky17 wrote: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over

Thanks to you both....   Honestly, I have no recollection of this....  and I don't recall us talking about it 15 months ago....   I would've thought this would've led to a thread about 100 posts long...

Maybe it's my fading memory....?

The article is beyond pathetic.    It even talks about Guantanimo,  which now 15 months later is STILL open for business.     And personally,  I'm OK with that....

This Commander in Chief is beyond clueless.....

Good luck to the next Liberal Democrat who wants to run....     no chance.

And good luck to the next African American who wants to run...    no chance.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 11:36 AM

The article is wrong 


That article is wrong. The article claims Obama said the "war on terror is over" in a speech at the National Defense University. But he did not say any such thing in that speech. On the contrary, he explicitly said "the United States is at war." You can read the speech here.

A main point of his speech was to justify the use of drone strikes against terrorists. A key point of his rationale for drone strikes was that the United States is at war:

"[T]he United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first.  So this is a just war -- a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense."

Obama's point here was the opposite of the article's headline. Far from declaring that "the war on terror is over," Obama was saying that the ongoing war justified his continued use of military force against terrorists.

Obama said that we still face, and must deal with, the ongoing threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists, including the emergence of al Qaeda affiliates, the foothold gained by extremists in places such as Libya and Syria, localized threats such as Benghazi, and radicalized individuals in the United States.

Obama said that he intended to engage in a discussion with Congress "to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing." He said "this war, like all wars, must end." But he made it quite clear that the end of this war has not yet come. He certainly did not declare that the war on terror is over.

Last edited 09/01/2014 1:38 PM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 11:39 AM

The epitome of ineptness 



He currently occupies the Oval Off....er, I mean Air Force One.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 11:55 AM

Re: The article is wrong 



terry2 wrote:

Obama said that he intended to engage in a discussion with Congress "to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing." 
Did he ever do this?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 12:29 PM

Terry, If Ever There Was a Non-Sequitur, Cliff Quoted It 


The sentence makes absolutely zero sense and the two thoughts are mutually exclusive.  I cannot believe you might actually  believe his policies as now configured could possibly succeed as to his stated goals............................

 "We are who we are".........David Shaw

"We were who we were"..........Rocky17

"We aren`t who we should be" ........Anonymous

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 12:52 PM

Re: The article is wrong 


Terry, good find. I remember reading those headlines and thinking they, and others like them were wrong on the quotes at the time.

However, the multiple inconsistent statements at the time set off a number of similar discussions about exactly what Obama was saying about the War on Terror.  The consesus that I recall (though I am not finding an instant cite on it) is that no one really understood what he was trying to say.

In Obama's defense, the "War on Terror" was never as clearly defined as most people thought.  We are fighting a movement which is not monolithic, is not a state actor, is a minority even in the States and religious group it claims to represent and which thrives in areas of chaos.  The Jihadis are a force in probaby a score of countries, and there is no traditional diplomatic, military or economic strategy to attack them.

Where POTUS has gone wrong is to completely lose focus on the threat.  Clinton did not take aggressive action on Al Qaeda to our detriment, but there was no political will, nationally or internationally, to do much about it in the 90's.  And Clinton did listen to the intelligence and military briefings on it, taking some steps, having some successes (prosecutions/Airlines) and some failures (the infamous cruise missile attacks/Mogadishu).  The current incumbent inherited a war and a threat that cannot be mistaken.  He commanded the ongoing war and has tried to put his own stamp on it.  He has no excuse for the parade of folly recited by Navy91.

So did POTUS literally in one phrase declare the War on Terror over?  Well, you're right.  Not exactly in that speech.  But whatever he did say and do has left our allies guessing and our enemies advancing.

My own personal view is that Susan Rice and John Kerry are both no use to Obama on this, and Obama has no relationship with the military because he is engaged in a purge of the military.  Whatever the cause, there does appear to be a general impression that the US is not credibly engaged in the War of Terror at present.  The "Red Line" incident, the Benghazi fiasco, the abandonment of diplomatic missions (including the US embassy in Tripoli occupied today by Jihadis), and the "no strategy" statement demonstrate that there is no consistent policy or effort.

"Nothing is more effective than sincere, accurate praise."
--Bill Walsh

Last edited 09/02/2014 9:54 AM by oline84

Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 1:17 PM

I do disagree with that statement. 


I wasn't born for the Cuban missile crisis, so that doesn't color my thinking.

Jimmy Carter scared me. My brother saw "The Deer Hunter" in what 1978-79? We lost the embassy in Tehran and the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan and we...boycotted the Olympics? My brother pretty much figured he was headed to fight the next war, Deer Hunter, desert edition. So Ronald Reagan and the whole peace through strength idea made sense to me, with the added bonus that it succeeded tremendously, culminating in Reagan receiving the Nobel Peace Prize (oh, that's right, credit cannot be given).

Now I agree with you on the rest of the danger issues--my mom is these days a germophobe, buying antibacterial soaps, living in a constant state of fear. She didn't raise me that way and I'm glad. I, on the other hand, now wear a bicycle helmet after being struck by a car.

So, to sum up, I don't think the threat level is higher or lower. It just is, and I'll deal with it as it comes. But I do wish the president inspired me to be a little more confident.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 2:18 PM

The "Rock Star" candidate . . . 



So much of all of this was implicit in his ghost written autobiographies, "Dreams of My Father," and "Audacity of Hope."

I guess nobody much cared. His 'rock  star' personna swept away critical analysis.

It appears to me that, so far as the general public is concerned, even the educated general public, still nobody much cares, the polls notwithstanding.

"When you elect a matinee idol, don't be surprised when  you have a musical comedy administration." Attributed to Robert Moses, the builder of New YorK City, on the election of John Vliet Lindsay Mayor of New York.

Last edited 09/01/2014 2:27 PM by vragazzi

Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/01/2014 4:14 PM

Then I guess John Brennan didn't get the memo either 


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 5:33 PM

Brennan didn't say the war is over either 


If you want to know whether Obama has said the "war on terror is over," you don't have to go back to a 2009 speech by John Brennan. You can just read Obama's 2013 speech in which he said "The United States is at war." Link  As I said above, Obama certainly did not declare in that speech that the war on terror is over.

However, if you want to go back to the Brennan speech in 2009, you will find that Brennan also did not say the "war on terror is over." On the contrary, Brennan quoted an earlier Obama statement that "our nation is at war." Brennan said:

"[T]he President described it in no uncertain terms in his Inaugural when he said, 'Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.'"

So, Brennan made it clear that we are at war. Read the speech here.

Later in the speech, Brennan said that the President prefers not to call the war a "war on terrorism" because terrorism is just a tactic used by our enemies, a means to their end of global domination by an Islamic caliphate. He said the President prefers not to call the war a "global war" because it gives the terrorists credit for being more organized and pervasive than they really are, and because it implies that the U.S. is in conflict with the rest of the world. But those are just semantic issues about how to describe the war in which Brennan said we are engaged. The important point is that Brennan did not say the war is over. Rather, Brennan said:  "[W]e are at war with al Qaeda. . . . We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda."

Last edited 09/01/2014 5:40 PM by terry2

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/01/2014 8:01 PM

Re: Brennan didn't say the war is over either 


Terry, don't diminish yourself by quoting Mr. 'If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'  Look at what he has done to prosecute this 'war' you speak of.
  1. Facilitated the transfer of power in Egypt to the muslim brotherhood.
  2. Bailed on Iraq as fast as he could
  3. Published an advanced retreat schedule in Afghanistan
  4. Did nothing in response to the Benghazi attack
  5. Signed on to a hopeless regime change in Libya abandoning the country to extremists.
  6. Played through as 'the world's red line' was breeched in Syria
  7. Allowing ISIS to set up safe haven in Syria
  8. Suspended arms shipments to Israel in the middle of a shooting war.
  9. Spoke eloquently about work place violence at Ft. Hood
  10. Taking a mulligan on the Iranian nuclear program
  11. Still no strategy for ISIS?


That's a real 'war' on terror, no?  Quoting Obama, parsing Obama speeches, that's like believing Clinton pre blue dress.  Some folks are liars.  When do you simply admit the guy is unbelievable?  And there you are, calling a previously impeached witness to support your case.  You know better than that don't you?
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever plus a minute more;
May fortune sing you her sweet song; to live and love way past long
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >