Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2011
- 101,230
- 46,221
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not so odd.
Obumble does not inspire confidence as a wartime leader.
Oh, he managed to pull us out of a war (in Iraq).
And he managed to sustain a war-effort that he inherited.
But there aren't very many people who believe that the Failed Messiah would be any good starting a war and then prosecuting it to a successful conclusion.
He's just not a "Wartime Consigliori" .
I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.
I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.
I haven't parsed it at all. I read the article & posted it near verbatim. It appears YOU are the one looking for hidden messages.I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.
The plan was to let the Iraqis do the heavy lifting. That's a reflection of confidence in the Iraqis, IMO. The majority favor action against ISIS, which is the president's plan. You can parse it any way you want, but I doubt there's much support for sending the troops back in.
it's Obama. He wanted out of Iraq no ifs, ands or buts and he didn't care about what wold happen after. Although I suppose he was too stupid to realize it would turn to shit so quickly and completely, but such is the way things go for a community organizing speech maker who wears a suit that's too big for him.Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.
It wasnt that he was too stupid. Plenty of people said what would happen, and it did. It's that he didnt care because it didnt fit his agenda at that moment. He could hope everything would be hunky dory, and that was good enough.it's Obama. He wanted out of Iraq no ifs, ands or buts and he didn't care about what wold happen after. Although I suppose he was too stupid to realize it would turn to shit so quickly and completely, but such is the way things go for a community organizing speech maker who wears a suit that's too big for him.Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.
I think they are saying they don't have faith in the plan. The plan is Obama's is it not?Is it Obama that people don't trust or the Iraqi army? Partisan hacks will blame it on the president, regardless.
The plan was to let the Iraqis do the heavy lifting. That's a reflection of confidence in the Iraqis, IMO. The majority favor action against ISIS, which is the president's plan. You can parse it any way you want, but I doubt there's much support for sending the troops back in.
It may be less Obama and more the fact that we have been engaged in these types of wars on and off for a few decades now with little success. Our entire military foundation is still constructed on the idea of war as being waged between two States... while we can certainly flex our muscle in the region, I don't think our nation is equipped for any long-term success as long as we are trying to engage such a nebulous and elusive foe. We could have George Patton as our commander in cheif and I would still not feel confident that our military would yield any great "success" against ISIS (not to mention how to define success, considering all the parties involved, our relationships with those parties, and our reputation in the region). The way that war is fought has changed, and the way we strategize militarily is dated.
It may be less Obama and more the fact that we have been engaged in these types of wars on and off for a few decades now with little success. Our entire military foundation is still constructed on the idea of war as being waged between two States... while we can certainly flex our muscle in the region, I don't think our nation is equipped for any long-term success as long as we are trying to engage such a nebulous and elusive foe. We could have George Patton as our commander in cheif and I would still not feel confident that our military would yield any great "success" against ISIS (not to mention how to define success, considering all the parties involved, our relationships with those parties, and our reputation in the region). The way that war is fought has changed, and the way we strategize militarily is dated.