Posts
Doesn't president Obama seem like the kind of guy who, as a boy, always told other people's secrets? He probably didn't though, because he probably didn't have any friends as a boy and acquired them later when he joined the Choom Gang.
Well he has made it clear to our enemy, ISIS, that we will definitely not have "boots on the ground" in our battle with them. But the real problem isn't merely giving away what we will not do, it's the failure to define what this fighting will be all about.
Are we at war with ISIS?
The president and Pentagon say we are at war with the Islamic State. But this contradicts what John "Plugs" Kerry has said as well as others who just a day before the speech said something different. This led lawmakers to criticize the administration saying that they are downplaying it.
Josh "Almost Sounding" Earnest said: "In the same way the United States is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates . . . the United States is at war with ISIL."
Kerry called it a "very significant" and "major counter-terrorism operation," much the same way Harry Truman called the Korean War a "Police Action." It seems that rhetoric for liberals is more important than actions.
Even Susan "It-Was-The-Video" Rice said that she wasn't sure if it should be called a war or a "sustained counter-terrorism campaign." Why not just call it a religious disagreement or workplace violence?
Meanwhile, Obama has foregone golf today and is working hard to get a coalition of nations to ultimately "destroy" the growing terror network, carefully avoiding words like 'jihadists,' 'Muslims,' 'Islam,' and 'not a religion of peace.' Where G.W. Bush was able to get 37 nations on board to fight in Iraq, Obama has thus far gotten 9, but this may change as England and Germany are not in it to win it.
But we're not in it to win it either. Not with airstrikes alone. And if we are going to pin our future security on the Syrian rebel army (those dentists, lawyers, farmers, and pharmacists Obama laughed at) we are going to lose this war.
Not many nations want to stand with us. Obama has assured them that he is ready to pick up and run if the polls go south. Who can blame them? If his folks are vague about what to call it, just what do they think they're getting themselves into?
You would think that an administration that pretends to be wonderful communicators would at the very least be able to communicate without the wishy-washy vagueness that we hear.
But then again, when you have a wishy-washy POTUS, you're going to get wishy-washy in everything that happens under his administration.
Tweet
Well he has made it clear to our enemy, ISIS, that we will definitely not have "boots on the ground" in our battle with them. But the real problem isn't merely giving away what we will not do, it's the failure to define what this fighting will be all about.
Are we at war with ISIS?
The president and Pentagon say we are at war with the Islamic State. But this contradicts what John "Plugs" Kerry has said as well as others who just a day before the speech said something different. This led lawmakers to criticize the administration saying that they are downplaying it.
Josh "Almost Sounding" Earnest said: "In the same way the United States is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates . . . the United States is at war with ISIL."
 |
| Teaching the children about jihad |
Kerry called it a "very significant" and "major counter-terrorism operation," much the same way Harry Truman called the Korean War a "Police Action." It seems that rhetoric for liberals is more important than actions.
Even Susan "It-Was-The-Video" Rice said that she wasn't sure if it should be called a war or a "sustained counter-terrorism campaign." Why not just call it a religious disagreement or workplace violence?
Meanwhile, Obama has foregone golf today and is working hard to get a coalition of nations to ultimately "destroy" the growing terror network, carefully avoiding words like 'jihadists,' 'Muslims,' 'Islam,' and 'not a religion of peace.' Where G.W. Bush was able to get 37 nations on board to fight in Iraq, Obama has thus far gotten 9, but this may change as England and Germany are not in it to win it.
But we're not in it to win it either. Not with airstrikes alone. And if we are going to pin our future security on the Syrian rebel army (those dentists, lawyers, farmers, and pharmacists Obama laughed at) we are going to lose this war.
Not many nations want to stand with us. Obama has assured them that he is ready to pick up and run if the polls go south. Who can blame them? If his folks are vague about what to call it, just what do they think they're getting themselves into?
You would think that an administration that pretends to be wonderful communicators would at the very least be able to communicate without the wishy-washy vagueness that we hear.
But then again, when you have a wishy-washy POTUS, you're going to get wishy-washy in everything that happens under his administration.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment