Time To Admit Obama’s Lunacy…Break Out The Straightjacket
Nov 25, 2015 0:34:36 GMT -5
Post by OmegaMan on Nov 25, 2015 0:34:36 GMT -5
The Upper Cut: It’s Time To Admit Obama’s Lunacy… Break Out The Straightjacket
George Upper November 24, 2015 at 8:07am
You’ve probably heard it said that one definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result each time. The quote has been attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein, neither of whom is actually likely to have said it.
But regardless of who originated the saying, President Barack Obama is exemplifying it.
Speaking in Malaysia on Sunday, the president finally promised to “destroy” the Islamic State group, which is stronger rhetoric than he has generally used in the past.
His plan to accomplish this audacious goal? Pretty much the same thing he’s been doing all along, according to The Washington Post.
“Destroying ISIL is not only a realistic goal, we’re going to get it done and we’re going to pursue it with every aspect of American power and with our coalition partners,” Obama said, using the administration’s favorite term for the radical Islamic terror organization.
But, The Post added, “even after three global summits in Turkey, the Philippines and Malaysia, the president had no new strategies for dealing with the so-called Islamic State, and few tangible new commitments from international partners.”
So we’re going to “destroy” the Islamic State group with a handful of airstrikes a day, 75 percent of which aren’t allowed to actually engage the enemy? Because that’s worked just great so far.
The truth is, all that appears to have changed since the deadly Paris attacks is Obama’s rhetoric, which seems to have toughened, perhaps in reaction to what even this tone-deaf White House must be starting to understand by now is a strong and growing demand for action against the extremists.
“Our coalition will not relent,” Obama vowed to reporters in Malaysia, who are perhaps the only people still listening to this lame duck. Oh, and by the way, it would be “helpful,” he added, if Russia could help out.
Helpful. Apparently we will relent, at least when it comes to carrying a big stick in our relations with Vladimir Putin. Obama clearly has the “talk softly” part of that old saw down pat.
Meanwhile, many of the Republican candidates for president have called for stronger action against Islamic State forces and at least a delay in the president’s plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country this year.
(Actually, I assume all of the Republican candidates have probably said something similar, but I literally couldn’t find a statement about the terror group from former Gov. George Pataki more recent than August.)
In addition, Republicans in the House were joined last week by almost 50 Democrats in passing a bill calling for increased scrutiny of incoming Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Honestly, the bill probably will do nothing to keep anyone out of the country who wouldn’t have been refused entry anyway, but apparently Speaker Paul Ryan believes it’s the thought that counts.
And at least the new bill, the future of which in the Senate is unsure, represents something different compared to what America has been doing in what we used to call the War on Terror. That’s more than we can say for the Obama administration’s efforts — unless you consider 100 boots on the ground in Syria bold leadership.
In response to the House bill, Obama claimed that moves to block his refugee plan “feed ISIL’s propaganda.”
Note to the president: Propaganda exists regardless of whether there is any basis of truth to it or not. That’s why it’s called propaganda and not, say, nonfiction.
Besides, the propaganda of radical Islamists has never been lacking for material. We’re told the same thing about the dire need to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay: While it remains open, the Islamists use it for propaganda.
That may be true. But 9/11 happened long before there was any waterboarding going on at Gitmo that might have served as fodder in the war for Islamic hearts and minds. No specific impetus for their hatred is required; their fear of and loathing for our freedom is all it has ever taken to motivate their cowardly acts of terror. Next subject.
The president, in short, is so concerned about avoiding the appearance of the West being at war with Islam that he’s apparently unable to acknowledge the fact that radical Islam is already at war with the West.
For all that, the president has made one statement about his “strategy” (one hesitates to legitimize his ineffectiveness with so grand a term) with which I can completely agree: America’s efforts to destroy the Islamic State group will not be over this year or next; it will be up to the next president to deal with the barbaric organization.
That’s undoubtedly true. But it didn’t have to be. If President Obama would have, at any point in the last two years, admitted in light of the steadily accumulating intelligence that his policies were failing and tried something else, perhaps he could have enjoyed at least some success against the terrorists.
Here’s hoping our next president acts a little more sanely.
link (Believe it or not, someone in the comments section is DEFENDING him! SMH...)
George Upper November 24, 2015 at 8:07am
You’ve probably heard it said that one definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result each time. The quote has been attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein, neither of whom is actually likely to have said it.
But regardless of who originated the saying, President Barack Obama is exemplifying it.
Speaking in Malaysia on Sunday, the president finally promised to “destroy” the Islamic State group, which is stronger rhetoric than he has generally used in the past.
His plan to accomplish this audacious goal? Pretty much the same thing he’s been doing all along, according to The Washington Post.
“Destroying ISIL is not only a realistic goal, we’re going to get it done and we’re going to pursue it with every aspect of American power and with our coalition partners,” Obama said, using the administration’s favorite term for the radical Islamic terror organization.
But, The Post added, “even after three global summits in Turkey, the Philippines and Malaysia, the president had no new strategies for dealing with the so-called Islamic State, and few tangible new commitments from international partners.”
So we’re going to “destroy” the Islamic State group with a handful of airstrikes a day, 75 percent of which aren’t allowed to actually engage the enemy? Because that’s worked just great so far.
The truth is, all that appears to have changed since the deadly Paris attacks is Obama’s rhetoric, which seems to have toughened, perhaps in reaction to what even this tone-deaf White House must be starting to understand by now is a strong and growing demand for action against the extremists.
“Our coalition will not relent,” Obama vowed to reporters in Malaysia, who are perhaps the only people still listening to this lame duck. Oh, and by the way, it would be “helpful,” he added, if Russia could help out.
Helpful. Apparently we will relent, at least when it comes to carrying a big stick in our relations with Vladimir Putin. Obama clearly has the “talk softly” part of that old saw down pat.
Meanwhile, many of the Republican candidates for president have called for stronger action against Islamic State forces and at least a delay in the president’s plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country this year.
(Actually, I assume all of the Republican candidates have probably said something similar, but I literally couldn’t find a statement about the terror group from former Gov. George Pataki more recent than August.)
In addition, Republicans in the House were joined last week by almost 50 Democrats in passing a bill calling for increased scrutiny of incoming Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Honestly, the bill probably will do nothing to keep anyone out of the country who wouldn’t have been refused entry anyway, but apparently Speaker Paul Ryan believes it’s the thought that counts.
And at least the new bill, the future of which in the Senate is unsure, represents something different compared to what America has been doing in what we used to call the War on Terror. That’s more than we can say for the Obama administration’s efforts — unless you consider 100 boots on the ground in Syria bold leadership.
In response to the House bill, Obama claimed that moves to block his refugee plan “feed ISIL’s propaganda.”
Note to the president: Propaganda exists regardless of whether there is any basis of truth to it or not. That’s why it’s called propaganda and not, say, nonfiction.
Besides, the propaganda of radical Islamists has never been lacking for material. We’re told the same thing about the dire need to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay: While it remains open, the Islamists use it for propaganda.
That may be true. But 9/11 happened long before there was any waterboarding going on at Gitmo that might have served as fodder in the war for Islamic hearts and minds. No specific impetus for their hatred is required; their fear of and loathing for our freedom is all it has ever taken to motivate their cowardly acts of terror. Next subject.
The president, in short, is so concerned about avoiding the appearance of the West being at war with Islam that he’s apparently unable to acknowledge the fact that radical Islam is already at war with the West.
For all that, the president has made one statement about his “strategy” (one hesitates to legitimize his ineffectiveness with so grand a term) with which I can completely agree: America’s efforts to destroy the Islamic State group will not be over this year or next; it will be up to the next president to deal with the barbaric organization.
That’s undoubtedly true. But it didn’t have to be. If President Obama would have, at any point in the last two years, admitted in light of the steadily accumulating intelligence that his policies were failing and tried something else, perhaps he could have enjoyed at least some success against the terrorists.
Here’s hoping our next president acts a little more sanely.
link (Believe it or not, someone in the comments section is DEFENDING him! SMH...)
