B-Man Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Lawmakers at classified meeting leave shaking their heads. Original Article White House Can’t Explain Iraq Objectives to Congress: Classified briefing provides few answers on objectives, legality of strikes Just two weeks after the Obama administration asked Congress to repeal the Iraq war authorization, the White House is failing to adequately explain to lawmakers the legal justification and concrete objectives for its airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), according to congressional insiders apprised of off-the-record briefings on the matter. more at the link:
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 White House Can’t Explain Iraq Objectives to Congress Because the White House's Iraq objectives have nothing to do with Iraq. They're only meant to make the administration look like they're doing something, so the electorate doesn't get upset with them.
Magox Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I think the president should take a national poll when it comes to issues of national defense. Who needs leaders anyway?
Jauronimo Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Lawmakers at classified meeting leave shaking their heads. more at the link: Most transparent administration ever © 2008.
Nanker Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Mission Creep... Hmmm, isn't that Bowe Berghdal?
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I think the president should take a national poll when it comes to issues of national defense. Who needs leaders anyway? Government of the Hashtag. By the Hashtag. And for the Hashtag...
3rdnlng Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Think how Obama and his leading from behind "policy" if Iraq, Syria & Jordon end up in ISIS's hands.
IDBillzFan Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I can't believe you guys are blaming this on Obama. Everyone knows we wouldn't be in Iraq if we weren't already in Iraq. I mean, yeah, we're out of Iraq since the last time we were in Iraq, but if we weren't in Iraq before we were out of Iraq, we wouldn't need to be in Iraq now. Not that we're in Iraq. We're not. But if we were, it'd because we were already there. Barry Obama. Going full gatorman.
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Think how Obama and his leading from behind "policy" if Iraq, Syria & Jordon end up in ISIS's hands. It's not his fault. He gave them the Arab Spring...they just didn't follow through properly.
Keukasmallies Posted August 13, 2014 Author Posted August 13, 2014 Ssssssh, did you hear that? It's the sound of the mission creeping ever so softly toward the phrase, "boots on the ground." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/world/middleeast/us-to-send-130-more-military-advisers-to-iraq.html?_r=0 Advice to POTUS: Never issue statements with absolutes such as always, never, etc. regarding situations you simply don't understand. (If I can help, call me.)
reddogblitz Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) Ssssssh, did you hear that? It's the sound of the mission creeping ever so softly toward the phrase, "boots on the ground." http://www.nytimes.c...-iraq.html?_r=0 Good thing those 1,000 we sent so far wear loafers. Edited August 13, 2014 by reddogblitz
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 Advice to POTUS: Never issue statements with absolutes such as always, never, etc. regarding situations you simply don't understand. (If I can help, call me.) Why not? All he's got to do is "evolve" his position, and his base support will lap it up...
reddogblitz Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 I'm also wondering how many "contractors" (mercenaries) we've got over there they just haven't told us about?
Koko78 Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) Why not? All he's got to do is "evolve" his position, and his base support will lap it up... Nonsense. The military will be switching nomenclature to "combat sneakers" for troops in Iraq. We just aren't smart enough to understand Obama's nuanced statement or what he "really" meant by what he said. His position of "boots" being on the ground is absolute. It clearly will be our fault for not getting his message; he's a constitutional scholar, after all. Edited August 13, 2014 by Koko78
keepthefaith Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 Think how Obama and his leading from behind "policy" if Iraq, Syria & Jordon end up in ISIS's hands. That will really suck and it looks like ISIS has already carved out enough land to make some sort of claim to it. You know we can point the finger at Bush here. If Sadaam was still in power, no way that ISIS would be attacking Iraq. Sadaam would have probably invited ISIS over for cigars and cocktails and they'd leave after a good time. Nonsense. The military will be switching nomenclature to "combat sneakers" for troops in Iraq. We just aren't smart enough to understand Obama's nuanced statement or what he "really" meant by what he said. His position of "boots" being on the ground is absolute. It clearly will be our fault for not getting his message; he's a constitutional scholar, after all. Obama's easy for everyone to understand. He doesn't do what he says and he does what he doesn't say.
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 It clearly will be our fault for not getting his message; he's a constitutional scholar, after all. Tough to hear all the way back here in the back seat...
3rdnlng Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 That will really suck and it looks like ISIS has already carved out enough land to make some sort of claim to it. You know we can point the finger at Bush here. If Sadaam was still in power, no way that ISIS would be attacking Iraq. Sadaam would have probably invited ISIS over for cigars and cocktails and they'd leave after a good time. Obama's easy for everyone to understand. He doesn't do what he says and he does what he doesn't say. Tough to strike a balance between doing what's right for the Iraqi people and keeping the status quo that would have been the best thing for America (if there actually were no WMD's). Colin Powell, who I'm no great fan of, had it right. "You break it, you fix it". Obama should have agreed to keep enough troops there that would have prevented ISIS from considering their recent actions. Obama messed this up because everything with him is about domestic politics and worldwide adoration.
truth on hold Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Figured something was fishy here because when Syrian Christians really were stranded we did nothing other than continue to support the groups attacking them. So once again we're left asking: what was the real motive of our military intervention? Yazidis Weren't Stranded, Pentagon Looks for Other Missions "...a funny thing happened when the US "advisers" got to Mount Sinjar. There weren't 40,000 starving Yazidis stranded there. In fact, the indications are that there never were, and the Pentagon quickly dropped the "rescue" plan." http://news.antiwar....other-missions/ Edited August 14, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
Keukasmallies Posted August 21, 2014 Author Posted August 21, 2014 It appears Mission Creep has quickly become Mission Sprint. Once again, POTUS, don't make absolute statements in reference to situations so fluid that no one can fathom the next step required.
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 IS sent a message to Obama that if US didn't stop the bombings the other reporter in the video would suffer the same fate. The next day US bombing continued. So what happens next? They kill him, then we trade five Gitmo detainees for the headless body?
Recommended Posts