What works against his claim of defeating ISIS ?
Well, perhaps it has to do with the undeniable failure of his fight against Middle East terror, to date. Understand that he has lost the faith and confidence of the Egyptian government and watched as 200,000 Syrians have died, in a civil war that could have given the US an ally in the region. Since his time in office, the embassies in Lybia, Syria, Somalia and Yemen have closed and Iran has radicalized as it works to take over the region. Since his time in office, he has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and allowed for terrorist training regions in Norther Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. And, most importantly,, he cannot come up with a strategy for winning the war against ISIS, something he has admitted to, as recently as Aug 28, 2014. here, he said on national television, just five short months ago, "We don't have a strategy, yet."
Without a stated and specific strategy, the Congress will not go along with his request. But, seriously, this request is nothing short of an attempt, by the Ruler In Chief, to pass his do-nothing legacy onto the next president. That is what is going on, here.
______________________
Stories such as the following, add to Obama's dilemma. confirming some of what was written above:
The death
of the latest ISIS victim, Kala Mueller,
is, in part, lies at the feet of
Barack Obama. While the article talks
about a four week window, our own intel
knew of the captives’ location, in Northern
Syria, for seven weeks, yet,
Obama dittled for that entire period of time, allowing ISIS
to change locations at least three times.
If he had acted in a timely fashion,
it is very possible the outcome would have been a good one. We will never know, because this “Commander” cannot make decisions frot with danger, for fear of making a political mistake.
The United Kingdom gave the Obama administration
intelligence in June 2014 about where in Syria
the ISIS terror army was holding its American
captives, but the White House dithered and missed its opportunity to rescue
them, according to a shocking report published Thursday.
By the
time a rescue was mounted on July 4, 2014, the hostages had been moved.
All three
are now dead. ISIS militants executed Sotloff and Foley, and ISIS
claims a Jordanian airstrike killed Mueller when it hit a buiding where she was
being held . . . . . the story continues here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951148/Obama-White-House-dithered-nearly-month-launching-rescue-UK-told-administration-look-ISIS-hostages-Kayla-Mueller-James-Foley-Steven-Sotloff.html
Obama can't win with the haters. They criticize him either way.
ReplyDeleteHe just accepts this and keeps doing his job, and the US keeps improving, in every way.
Reminder, we were spending TWO BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK occupying Iraq for more than 10 years. If it were up to the stupid people, we'd still be there, bankrupting America. And for what?
"Obama can't win" because he is not trying to win. When asked about a marker for "victory," he has replied that "victory" must be redefined in these days and time. And "two billion a week" is a preposterous lie. Next time you present such ridiculous nonsense, I will not publish. Got it ?
ReplyDelete$2 billion a week is a conservative estimate considering reports now are putting the total cost of the conflict at between $1.1 and 3.7 Trillion. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
ReplyDeleteThe CBO estimated that of the long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion spent on Iraq, would equal $6,300 per U.S. citizen.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/24/us-iraq-usa-funding-idUSN2450753720071024
WASHINGTON -- A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -- nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year -- as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment...
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/
Dick Cheney, less than a week before the Iraq War began, told host Tim Russert that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."
---
Still think this is "preposterous lie"? If so, you're in denial, which is par for the course.
The direct and related costs of the war in Iraq or in Obama's War in Afghanistan, are no different in type than any other other we have ever fought. You make it sound otherwise.
DeleteSecondly, those accumulated costs include housing, salaries, benefits and medical treatment, which are a matter of budgeted expense, Most of these costs would have been assessed with or without the war effort. The actual cost of of arms, ammo, transportation and equipment (which most normal people call "the cost of war"), was around $200 billion per year, for five years (the Bush years). That money is a matter of budget and did not "bankrupt" America. The 2008 collapse was caused by the Utopian Crap Dream of making Affordable Housing available to people who could not afford such opportunity. As far as Cheney's estimate, it is no different than the nonsense Obama told us about the savings of ObamaCare, that the reform law would put 1 trillion into the economy over ten years. Turns out, it will cost $2 trillion. So why is THAT not a lead-in to national bankruptcy? How about that, Mr. PhD Critical Thinking man about town.
"That money is a matter of budget and did not "bankrupt" America"
DeleteBS. Bush's wars were entirely financed through borrowing. Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001. And not only did we fail to pay as we went for the wars, the Bush administration also successfully pushed to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, which added further to the debt. This toxic combination of lower revenues and higher spending sent the country into recession, which Obama has gotten us out of, ahead of schedule.
A load of sheer crap. "Ahead of schedule" is nuts. "Slowest recovery for any recessionary period since the days of FDR" is the frequent headline seen in our papers (your buds at the NY Times and CNN ad infinitum). If you think 2.4 GDP for 2014 is "recovery," well, no wonder you're so damn pleased with Duffus. If you think 10 trillion dollars in added debt is something to brag about, hats off to ya. If you think 18 million Americans out of work or under-employed is "ahead of schedule," gawd only knows that you Utopians will think of next. Try a workforce that is at its smallest since the late 1970's or you don’t listen to business news at all. And anyone who can read with comprehension, jack, knows that the 2008 collapse was a sub-prime disaster, not a general debt crisis. Besides, it was your genius in the WH who said, "All government spending is stimulus," so what's your beef with Bush's meager debt issues (meager compared to Obama's Utopian "we can't run out of money" debt theory). You all believe that spending equals stimulus, so Bush should be one of your hero's. And, btw, we won that war and left behind an Iraq that was "strong, stable and sovereign" for Obama and Joe the Blow to grab off the table and claim victory -- all the while crafting a war "doctrine" that has wasted the lives of more than 6,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afganhistan, and turned the Middle East into a hell hole.
DeleteOh, and, tax revenues increased 22% under Bush, after those tax cuts. No wonder your home is built high on a mountain. If you start digging, you’ll find that mountain is the Democrat pile of BS shoveled on the American People since Obama took office. I mean, if Hussein O was a newsman, he would be Brian Williams.
And the war was financed by 100% borrowed money. Another intentional lie. Why do you write crap like this? Bujsh and Cheney got congressional approval for all the money spend in Iraq . . . . all of it. In fact, the Dems approved of the invasion before they were against it and THAT is a fact.
More people NOT working THAN EVER BEFORE, highest taxes in American history, a president who is a Muslim sympathizer and supporter of Iranian nuclear policy, a man who managed to get two pieces of major legislation done, in six freaking years, a homeland that has seen 403 terror caused casualties and open cases against ISIS related idiots in 49 of our 50 states, and a president who thinks there are “57, maybe 58” states in the Union and can’t pronounce “corps" correctly . . . . . . no wonder your so damn happy.
DeleteThese are the facts - reported by Republicans on a Senate economic committee. Everyone (except apparently Smithson) knows Bush's wars were fought with money we did not have. They raided our SS money to fund the wars.
"Treasury should have $6.5 trillion in surplus FICA taxes but has only $2.6 trillion. This deficit exists because Republicans borrowed trillions in FICA taxes to offset tax cuts for the rich, and fund Bush's unnecessary wars."
- from Republican Joint Economic Committee report, 6/14/11
http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0edfdbbe-6f48-4007-a429-6ef64fda10cb
Maybe Anonymous should have read the full report. If he had, he would have stumbled on this comment:
Delete"Many people believe the reason Social Security will go broke is because Congress “raided” the trust fundand spent the money on other things. That’s not true. The trust fund will be exhausted in 2036 becausethat’s when all of the money Congress “stole” from Social Security will be fully repaid. The truth is, SocialSecurity is unsustainable in its current form because the amount of benefits paid or scheduled to be paidis greater than the amount of taxes collected or scheduled to be collected."
The total unfunded liabilities, per current collection projections finds SS with just under 17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Meaning? Current projections will not pay the bills. Expect retirement/qualifying ages to rise, deductions to increase, and the lies about "raiding" the Trust Fund to continue.
In review, then: Regarding the fairytale that Bush stole from SS to pay for the Iraqi War, that is sheer crap, a comment defeated by the very source Anonymous used in his comment. There is no raiding of the Trust Fund, period.
Note: Smithson offers no support for his claims. I do.
ReplyDeleteFrom a Harvard Report 2/13"
"The large sums borrowed to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will also impose substantial long-term debt servicing costs. ... The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come"
and
"The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history – totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion. This includes long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid. "
http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789
From the LA TImes, a conservative paper, 9/18/11:
"Even if we were to leave Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, our war debt would continue to rise for decades. Future bills will include such things as caring for military veterans, replacing military equipment, rebuilding the armed forces and paying interest on all the money we have borrowed. And these costs won't be insignificant. ... To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon spending spree that accompanied it and a battery of new homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11.
How have we paid for this? Entirely through borrowing. Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001. And not only did we fail to pay as we went for the wars, the George W. Bush administration also successfully pushed to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, which added further to the debt. This toxic combination of lower revenues and higher spending has brought the country to its current political stalemate."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/18/opinion/la-oe--bilmes-war-cost-20110918
Yesterday, was it, you gave us a quote that said the cost of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan was 1.9 trillion. Now we are looking at 6 trillion. So which is it. Look, when someone goes from 1.9 trillion to 6 trillion in 24 hours, you know they are just making up stuff. And what is the point? Not to fight against a force that would kill us all? Is that what you are saying? We won the war in Iraq and no one died, in the United States homeland during that war. Since then, 403 Americans have been injured or killed, in the homeland and there are open terrorist cases in 49 of the 50 states in our union. What do you think the costs are as relates to the deaths and casualties of those 403 individuals, medical treatment for the survivors, the court costs for the growing number of prosecutions against the Muslim terrorists in our country and the billions in lost revenues in each locale, where terror strikes? What are the projected costs? One thing for certain, the peace-at-any-price crowd will NEVER present such a list.
DeleteAnd the LA Times, a conservative paper? Good grief. Proof to me that your PhD is mail-ordered.