Obama’s is proposing that ISIS be defeated with “better ideas,” an idea he got from a 1977 Ford Maverick ad.
So, whenever anyone says Democrats haven’t had a new idea since 1968, you can prove them wrong now.
Obama’s is proposing that ISIS be defeated with “better ideas,” an idea he got from a 1977 Ford Maverick ad.
So, whenever anyone says Democrats haven’t had a new idea since 1968, you can prove them wrong now.
Iran’s news agency, apparently with the support of some Iraqis, has been pushing a story that ISIS is a UK / US creation. They started pushing it in 2014, but the following is from Feb 23 of this year:
Iraqi Army Downs 2 UK Planes Carrying Weapons for ISIL
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iraq’s army has shot down two British planes as they were carrying weapons for the ISIL terrorists in Al-Anbar province, a senior [Iraqi] lawmaker disclosed on Monday.
“The Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee has access to the photos of both planes that are British and have crashed while they were carrying weapons for the ISIL,” Head of the committee Hakem al-Zameli said, according to a Monday report of the Arabic-language information center of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
Obviously, I don’t want to quote the entire linked article; you can read it. It goes on for awhile, giving names of Iraqi lawmakers and their specific charges about the U.S.-led effort against ISIS being a mask for Western aid to ISIS, “as it does not want the ISIL crisis to come to an end.”
I do NOT automatically believe this story, because Iran’s news agency is hardly a reliable source. And because many Iraqi lawmakers are probably on Iran’s payroll; as fellow Shias, they would oppose ISIS – while preferring Iran to lead the effort.
Sad to say, I also can’t automatically disbelieve this story, for the following reasons:
If you can shed any light on this, please post in the comments. I’d be looking either for some proof of the story that doesn’t merely come from an anti-U.S. mouthpiece (like Iran or Alex Jones) – or/and, for some disproof of the story that doesn’t merely come from a pro-Obama mouthpiece.
Leftists banned DDT (and sentenced millions of humans to death) because junk science said it would harm Bald Eagles. Now, windmills slaughter eagles by the hundreds, but it’s OK because every windmill is a temple to Gaia.
Since Obama’s hashtag diplomacy has utterly failed to turn back the advance of the Islamic State and other units of the Islamic Conquest, the superbrains of his administration took a break from their very hard work of figuring out the best way to snub the Israeli Head of State and unveiled their latest weapon against Islamic Terror… a rainbow-colored kind of flowery circle logo thing.
By the way, the regime is also asking for suggestions on defeating “Violent Extremism” on Twitter. I am not making this up.
And if this doesn’t work, the administration may have to unleash the most dreadful weapon in its arsenal… videos of Michelle dancing.
Our allies don’t want want a war over Ukraine’s ethnic Russians. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, perhaps the only pro-U.S. Frenchman, thinks we’re nuts. While Greece and even Egypt drift toward Russia.
If Mitt Romney was such an old-fashioned dummy in 2012 for saying that Russia was still our main geopolitical enemy: why are we now pushing sticks into Russia’s eyes? When the IS will be the threat – if (or after) it takes over Iraq-Syria-Jordan-Yemen-Egypt, and destroys Saudi Arabia? It’s already getting a foothold in Libya.
President Smart Power always suggested that *he* would astutely settle our differences with Russia. OK then, why hasn’t he? Couldn’t we use Russia’s help in beating Islamism?
And given that ISIS exists, is the Iraq war really “ended”, as President Obama has claimed? I don’t think so. I think the worst is yet to come. (Assuming we don’t just surrender to Islam, first.)
Update (and from the comments): Part of the answer to these questions is, of course, Marie Harf. Not her personally; but her as an example of leftie/Obama thinking. In her recent comments, the “root cause” of the Islamic State would be the Middle East’s “lack of opportunity for jobs…We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities.” What. A. Tool.
The U.S.A., once number one for economic freedom, has sunk to number 12 per the Heritage Foundation. (Top seven: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Chile.)
Somewhere, some leftist is going “Yeah cool! Because economic freedom sux!” Well then. The U.S.A., once number one as a place to be born, has sunk to number 16 in The Economist magazine’s more Europe-friendly rankings. (Compare to 1988 ranking, here.)
What about political-social freedoms, like freedom of the press? The U.S.A., once number one for that, has sunk to number 49. Behind South Africa, Slovenia, even Germany.
As Reporters Without Borders puts it:
In the United States, 2014 was marked by judicial harassment of New York Times investigative reporter James Risen in connection with the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged under the Espionage Act with giving him classified information. US journalists are still not protected by a federal shield law that would guarantee their right not to name their sources or reveal other confidential information about their work. Meanwhile, at least 15 journalists were arbitrarily arrested during clashes between police and demonstrators protesting against black teenager Michael Brown’s fatal shooting…
And where would RPB rank us, if they could consider that our tax authority specially targets our domestic political dissidents (Tea Party conservatives)?
Remember the Left going on and on about President Bush’s supposedly “illegal” and “unilateral” Iraq war? When, in reality, the Bush administration had gone to great lengths to obtain (and did obtain) authorization for Iraq from both Congress and the U.N.
Even Senator Obama got in on the act, saying later in 2007 that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” His words were correct – but again, irrelevant to the Bush case (since Bush had Congressional, bipartisan approval).
Then President Obama felt like bombing Libya out of the blue (no terrorist threat was involved – until after Ghaddafi was gone). And he sought no authorization from Congress. Did the Left care? A little; but really not much.
President Peace Prize also went on to embroil the U.S. in wars in Syria and Ukraine – unilaterally and with no authorization. And to blow any gains of the Iraq war, allowing ISIS to take hold; an event that President Orwell referred to as his having “ended the war”.
Now that he has done so, he proposes to resume the Iraq war. Except this time, he finally wants authorization first. I suppose that’s nice of him. I suppose we must be grateful, to such a terribly great man, for the small graces that he grants to us, his subjects.
European commentary to this event has been universal …. it is one of those WTF moments …. and yes …. this John Kerry (what the hell was he thinking) story has been covered extensively in Europe. On a side note …. I asked some of my friends in Russia on what did they think about this U.S. attempt at diplomacy …. sighhhh …. they are still laughing. As to what is my take …. looking on the bright side we should say that we were extremely lucky …. it could have been John Kerry singing “you got a friend” instead of James Taylor.
A Facebook Friend suggests sending these folks next time:
Under fire for being a no-show at the Paris March Against Terrorism, the Obama administration sent Secretary of State John Kerry to Paris today to give a “big hug” to the French.
In addition to expressing solidarity with the French people, Secretary Kerry brought singer James Taylor to play his 1970s hit song “You’ve Got A Friend” for the French.
No, that is not ‘The Onion.’ They really did that.
I feel like “smart” has become liberal code for “incredibly stupid.” Another Case in point.
If it isn’t Michael Brown or Elizabeth Lauten, it’s Eric Garner(*) or Trayvon Martin or some other media frenzy. In other words, our media “treats” us to a series of frenzies; frenzies that are stupid because – apart from many of the media claims dissolving under scrutiny – there are more important things for the nation to notice.
I’m beginning to think it’s deliberate. For one thing, over the years I’ve seen how the frenzies get nourished (or prevented) by various political fixers, special interests and even government agencies. For another thing, it’s common sense: if the phrase “powerful people” means anything, then certain people have the power to promote (or block) certain media stories to suit their interests.
Finally, whenever you’re confronted with vicious nonsense, you should ask the question “Who benefits?” And again, the series of stupid frenzies does a job: it blots out public notice and discussion of nationally-important topics. It especially blots out discussion of the scandals/failures of the Obama administration.
And that could be Gruber, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, the NSA’s blanket/warrantless spying, Fast and Furious, vote fraud, unconstitutional rule-by-decree, or any number of failures (Iraq/ISIS) for which a Republican president would be crucified. But I think the most glaring problem where President Obama needs a distraction is: his terrible economy.
And now for a little news on the economy. Black Friday retail sales were a disaster by conventional measures. According to the National Retail Federation, sales during the four-day Thanksgiving holiday period plunged by 11% (from $57.4 billion a year ago, to $50.9 billion).
NRF’s CEO Matt Shay offered an absurd explanation – he claimed that sales were down because of (1) Teh Interwebs and (2) an improving economy:
He also attributed the declines to better online offerings and an improving economy where “people don’t feel the same psychological need to rush out and get the great deal that weekend, particularly if they expected to be more deals,” he said.
But Cyber Monday was also weak. And Shay implies that, if sales had not declined (or had even been up), that would have been a sign of a *bad* economy…Riiiiiiiight.
A more sensible explanation is that Americans have less money to spend, because they are struggling to cover basic necessities:
…the Journal analyzed Labor Department data on 2013 out-of-pocket spending for the middle 60% of the population by income — households earning between about $18,000 and $95,000 a year, before taxes.
The data show they are losing ground. Overall spending for the group rose by about 2.3% over the six-year period from 2007, even as inflation totaled about 12%. At the same time, income for the group stagnated, rising less than half a percent…
There it is. The WSJ analysis did not look at 2014, but I can assure you, trends continued in 2014 (aside from our very recent decline in oil/gas prices). In Obama’s bad economy, people struggle more than ever just to cover food, rent and health care: (more…)
Kim Strassel laments that the White House is a hostile working environment for anyone of intelligence or the capability for independent thought.
“Doormat” has been the job description for pretty much every Obama employee. The president bragged in 2008 that he would assemble in his cabinet a “Team of Rivals.” What he failed to explain to any of the poor saps is that they’d be window dressing for a Team of Select Brilliant Political Types Who Already Had All the Answers: namely, himself and the Valerie Jarretts and David Axelrods of the White House.
The experienced Bill Daley came in 2011 as the chief of staff tasked with repairing Mr. Obama’s relations with the business community. He left a year later, having been stripped of many duties and trashed by the White House to the press. The sage Leon Panetta stepped up as defense secretary in 2011; he too left after 20 months of getting his head patted. The folks who look smartest now are those who fled early, while the fleeing was still relatively good—Rahm Emanuel, Austan Goolsbee, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Vivek Kundra.
Who would want to work for a boss who micromanages everything but takes no responsibility when things don’t work out? This president’s playbook for controversy: Deny knowledge, blame subordinates.
Obama has previously declared that he is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, and know more about policy than his policy advisers. Such a megalomaniac has no interest in hearing, much less entertaining, opinions that do not align with his own. So much for diversity.
But then again, it often seems President Obama doesn’t really run the White House; he’s off playing golf, partying with celebrities and billionaires. Every once in a while, they put a suit on him and stand him up in front of a TelePrompter. It is very much the consensus that the real authority in the White House comes from former Slum Queen Valerie Jarrett, an “advisor to the President” (think “Wormtongue”) who has been granted her own secret service detail and is the first and last word on White House policy and hiring decisions.
It is little wonder that Obama and Jarrett have created an environment where anyone of any intelligence leaves, but those who can enthusiastically mouth the official party talking points … like Jen Psaki, Josh Earnest, and Maria Harf … thrive.
Unlike the Reagan wins of the 1980s, or the GOP’s 1994 “Contract with America” win, the 2014 GOP (as a national whole) neither provided nor sold to the voters a pro-freedom, government-cutting vision. The GOP skillfully profited from voter dissatisfaction with President Obama; and little more.
Racial guilt aside, the voters originally bought into Obama because he promised the Impossible Dream: a government which would be Big, but still somehow friendly and American (never mind that oppression is inherent to all Big Governments), and which would look out for them (never mind that socialism serves the elites, undermines the economy for ordinary people, and mathematically cannot provide benefits of much value to most people).
In this election six years later, the voters have repudiated Obama because he failed to deliver on the dream. He promised smooth, cool delivery of the dream. Instead, he gave a string of incompetent, messy disasters that even a corrupt media could not hide: such as the Gulf oil spill (BP’s actions had been approved by Obama regulators), Obamacare (with its expensive and oppressive mandates), Libya war, Benghazi, Syria war, ISIS, Ebola, and a moribund economy where the jobs are part-time, the taxes are higher, the U.S. national debt is doubled and only things that go up are the financial markets and the cost of living. The voters feel “lied to” and for that, they have now punished Obama.
In other words, the voters have not yet learned that the dream itself is impossible. The voters still want Friendly Fascism: a Big Government that somehow (1) works (or, in the famous saying, “makes the trains run on time”); while it (2) maintains a veneer of traditional American freedoms. It is impossible. But voters are hoping now that the GOP can help to correct Obama’s excesses and make the dream work.
The GOP, in this election in 2014, has done little to educate the voters on the dream’s utter impossibility – and thus, little to move America forward.
This is everywhere, and with reason: President Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, people leave early.
P.S. Yes, he basically lied about the economy. Maybe at least some people are getting tired of the lies?
A competent and rational president would have picked… perhaps a noted epidemiologist to coordinate the administration’s response to the Ebola outbreak, or perhaps someone from the military accustomed to mustering and managing large numbers of diverse people and resources.
Obama chose a fiercely partisan Democrat lawyer and lobbyist. These are the qualifications of freshly appointed Ebola Czar Ron Klain.
In January of 2011, Klain stepped down as chief of staff for Vice President Joe Biden. Before that, Ron Klain was a well-connected Washington lobbyist. According to Senate lobbying disclosure records, Klain’s clients included Fannie Mae, U.S. Airways, Time Warner, CIGNA, and Imclone.
Klain also worked as chief of staff for former Vice President Al Gore, Janet Reno, the Senate Democratic Leadership Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. But that’s not all! Ron Klain did debate prep for both Obama and former president Bill Clinton. And if that weren’t enough, Klain was also general counsel of Al Gore’s election recount committee in 2000.
So, Klain was probably one of those guys high-fiving each other after disqualifying thousands of military votes over minor technicalities.
A cynic might suggest that his appointment shows Obama is more concerned with managing the political and public relations side of the Ebola outbreak the medical side.
This would be like George W. Bush putting Karl Rove in charge of the Hurricane Katrina response.
For Bill Clinton, history will remember that he “always kept fighting back” to get things done…“Whether it was Democrats or Republicans, you know, he found a way to be able to do some things, to be able to accomplish some things that were important.”
He makes a similar observation about Hillary Clinton, saying she would be a “great” president. “One thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done,” he says, in words that draw an implicit contrast with Obama…
And Barack Obama’s legacy?
“We are at a point where I think the jury is still out,” Panetta says. “For the first four years, and the time I spent there, I thought he was a strong leader on security issues. … But these last two years I think he kind of lost his way.
“These last two years” – translation, since the indispensable, brilliant Hillary left – so no, nothing happening now is her fault.
But let’s get down to specifics, Mr. Panetta. How has Obama lost his way? From Politico:
Panetta’s criticisms of the Obama administration are similar to the criticisms former Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out in his own memoir: that those inside the White House sometimes put politics first on matters of war and peace.
Panetta describes efforts to reach a deal with Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in the country in the runup to the December 2011 expiration of the status-of-forces agreement — a deal Obama has said he couldn’t achieve because Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. troops gone. “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence,” Panetta writes…
“I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military…But the president’s team at the White House pushed back…”
2011…isn’t that more like three years ago?
So, let’s see. Panetta, Gates, and the Joint Chiefs all pushed in 2011 for a residual U.S. force in Iraq, that would have prevented today’s crisis with ISIS. (Sorry for the rhyme.) They even did so publicly. Did Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Perhaps a little, but not very much. From Jennifer Rubin in June 2014:
Clinton’s failure to impress upon the president the importance of a significant force and to negotiate a deal with Iraq under whatever circumstances existed represents a key failure – one that has directly contributed to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the collapse of the Iraqi military.
So for “PBS NewsHour” Clinton tried out a new tale: “Certainly when President Obama had to make the decision about what to do, he was deciding based on what the Bush administration had already determined, because they were the ones who said troops have to be out by the end of 2011.”
This is patently untrue. The Bush team had always intended that there be a follow-up to the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement]…The game plan for the Bush team and the Obama team was to conclude a deal [to leave a residual force]; Clinton and her boss failed to do so.
For Hillary to claim that the Bushies planned on having all troops out by 2011 is itself a potshot at Obama. If true, it would mean that Obama hardly did anything to “end the war” – he only followed a Bush plan.
But what does all of this add up to? Well, Clinton Central has evidently decided that the way to get elected in 2016 is:
As always, we should expect the Clintons to tell a mixture of truth and falsehoods to get what they want, which is: Power.
Just like everything else…
Cue the Ebola Outbreak Theme Music… (I hear this in my head during every Ebola news story).
The CDC is now tracking at least 100 people who came into contact with the Ebola patient now being treated in Dallas. (BTW: Some influential African-American thought-leaders are claiming Ebola was genetically engineered to kill black people.)
Also, the Enterovirus that was almost certainly brought into this country by the illegal “Dreamers” Obama welcomed over the border has been traced to as many as 10 deaths. While another strain with polio-like complications has paralyzed dozens of American children.
The Obama Administration’s response has been to retain open borders with countries in which there are Ebola outbreaks with no travel restrictions.
BTW: Back in 2005, President Bush recommended tough measures to prevent pandemics in the event of outbreaks of serious diseases like Ebola and Enterovirus68. In 2010, Obama discarded all of those recommendations.
Political Correctness uber alles.
Update (from Jeff): A Missouri doctor raises the alarm, saying the CDC is “sugar-coating” the true risk from Ebola, thus “lying”.
So, yesterday, the Mohammedan savages of the Islamic State (ISIS) sawed off the head of an American journalist on live video, but no one on the left seems to care very much.
President Obama does not want to deal with ISIS and makes it clear that he does so only with the greatest reluctance. Some say this is out of fear of angering the far left base of his party, but that’s not it. It’s because just a few months ago, he was trash-talking ISIS as the “JV Squad” of Al Qaeda, whom he had put “on its heels” by personally making the “gutsy call” of taking out Osama bin Laden. (Because, you see, no other president would have had the guts to do that. [Well, Bill Clinton didn’t, and he bragged about his failure to kill Osama bin Laden.]}
No, Obama does not want to deal with ISIS because their barbarity is a reminder of his own disastrous foreign policy failure. To admit that this “JV Squad” is a problem would be admitting that he underestimated them, that his policies allowed them to become a threat. His ego simply will not permit him to confront his failure; that would require admitting that he failed.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry matches his boss for egocentric narcissism. He has very little interest in ISIS, his bailiwick is “Global Warming.” Not so much because he believes it is a genuine crisis as it is because he believes that his position will win him plaudits from the New York Times editorial page, the faculty lounge at Harvard, the international elites, and his fellow yachtsmen; the people that really matter.
The Obama Administration will do little to fight ISIS unless they do something really bad, like shoot a 292 pound thug who just robbed a convenience store, or their actions become an unignorable political liability to the Democrat Party. Until such time as that happens, ISIS can go on murdering and beheading as much as they please.
What’s amazing is not that, in 2014, President Obama’s personal likeability numbers have finally dipped below 50%. What’s amazing is that, in 2014, they are still up at 40-45%.
How dumb are people? How many more Democrat-Obama disasters do people need before they can admit that the Emperor has no clothes (and continually lies to them about it)?
Just one link today and no lengthy comment for it. All I can say is: This is what happens when America wills itself to be led by a president who truly, deep down, does not understand or believe in America.
While in Brussels, the capital of Bureaucratic Eurotopia, President Obama repeatedly referred to the sport real Americans know as “Soccer” as “football.” Andrew Stiles explains what this minor gaffe reveals about the president.
Hearing someone (any American, that is) refer to soccer as “football” is one of the most definitive signs that you should never be friends with that person. This is especially true if they immediately clarify themselves to let you know they were actually talking about “soccer.” If they begin to explain why they say “football” instead of soccer (see previous paragraph), it is advisable to extricate yourself from the conversation/relationship immediately.
This gaffe (if we can call it that) is just the latest example of Obama’s deeply held desire to join the global cultural elite.
In soccer, players are encouraged to over-react and wildly exaggerate the slightest injury in order to convince officials to penalize the other team. If that ain’t the central tactic of modern liberalism, I don’t what is.