CBS: Majority Of Americans Don’t Trust Obama To Defeat Islamic State

[bonnie]

CBS: Majority Of Americans Don’t Trust Obama To Defeat Islamic State

 

 

President Barack Obama speaks about Afghanistan, Thursday, Oct. 15 / BY: Daniel Bassali
November 23, 2015 9:19 am

 

A new poll released Monday morning by CBS showed a majority of Americans do not trust President Obama to defeat the Islamic State.

Only 23 percent of Americans said they believe the president has a clear plan for how he will “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS. Three times more Americans, 66 percent, said he has no clear plan. Perhaps even more alarming for Obama, more Democrats say he has no strategy than believe he has a blueprint for success.

More Americans support sending ground troops into Syria after the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 that killed over 130 people. Currently half of the country supports sending more Americans to fight the Islamic caliphate, up four percent from this summer.

Only one in five Americans believe airstrikes will do enough to defeat IS compared to 63 percent who believe a ground presence will be necessary.

While Americans’ sentiment appears to be moving towards more engagement in the Middle East, opinions on whether to accept Syrian refugees remains divisive. Half of all Americans would outright reject refugees while 47 percent would admit refugees into the U.S. under strict screening measures. A large majority of Americans, 78 percent, believe more rigorous screening measures should be in place.

The House of Representatives passed a bill last week to put a pause in the Syrian refugee program to ensure vetting standards are thorough enough to protect Americans. The measure passed with a veto-proof 289 votes, including 47 Democrats who opposed the president. Obama has promised to veto the legislation that would slow down his plan to let in at least 10,000 refugees this year.

[Aliensanctuary]

Obama is the kind of person who might bring terrorist teams over in boats, give them bombs and heavy firepower, or even a few nukes, then let them destroy Congress and Wall Street and murder all of the presidential candidates. Since he would be the last man standing, he would be the one to lead America into the dark ages of Islam. 

By rejecting the Biblical foundations of respect for God, life, and property, the USA may have opened the door to evil unimagined and the complete loss of freedom. Our Founding Fathers were correct in trying to prevent religion from running the country, but when Islam rules America, our constitution will be trashed and murderous totalitarianism will rise from the blood those who resist.

Obama doesn't want to defeat IS as he has already demonstrated. He may talk big, but carry only a fly-swatter, claiming IS is not so much of a threat. He want terrorists in the USA because they are on the same team. By eliminating Congress, his path will be clear. Even if a new president is elected, and we can only hope that it's not Hillary or Donald, he could still engineer a take-over during a terrorist-created national disaster.

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, Aliensanctuary said:

Obama is the kind of person who might bring terrorist teams over in boats, give them bombs and heavy firepower, or even a few nukes, then let them destroy Congress and Wall Street and murder all of the presidential candidates. Since he would be the last man standing, he would be the one to lead America into the dark ages of Islam.

I don't know if I would go that far; but I would say that Obama (and probably most Americans) doesn't have the brutality and mercilessness that it takes to really take down ISIS.  Obama has this idea that a war can be fought without collateral damage.  Even here in Colorado, I can't find any smoke strong enough to make me believe that hallucination.

I'm not advocating going to war; although we might already be at war and just not know it yet.  We could try praying FOR jihadi terrorists rather than AGAINST them to bring the strongest forces in the universe - love and grace - to bear on the situation rather than fear and panic.

[LifeHiscost]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

 

I'm not advocating going to war; although we might already be at war and just not know it yet.  We could try praying FOR jihadi terrorists rather than AGAINST them to bring the strongest forces in the universe - love and grace - to bear on the situation rather than fear and panic.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Tom Wetmore]

16 hours ago, Aliensanctuary said:

Obama is the kind of person who might bring terrorist teams over in boats, give them bombs and heavy firepower, or even a few nukes, then let them destroy Congress and Wall Street and murder all of the presidential candidates. Since he would be the last man standing, he would be the one to lead America into the dark ages of Islam. 

By rejecting the Biblical foundations of respect for God, life, and property, the USA may have opened the door to evil unimagined and the complete loss of freedom. Our Founding Fathers were correct in trying to prevent religion from running the country, but when Islam rules America, our constitution will be trashed and murderous totalitarianism will rise from the blood those who resist.

Obama doesn't want to defeat IS as he has already demonstrated. He may talk big, but carry only a fly-swatter, claiming IS is not so much of a threat. He want terrorists in the USA because they are on the same team. By eliminating Congress, his path will be clear. Even if a new president is elected, and we can only hope that it's not Hillary or Donald, he could still engineer a take-over during a terrorist-created national disaster.

That's just crazy talk...

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote

That's just crazy talk...

I'm not alone in thinking Obama could do something "really crazy" in order to "save America".

[Tom Wetmore]

So what if you are not alone.  It is still crazy talk.  The asylum is overcrowded with a whole bunch wild eyed crazies babbling nonsense.  Let's try to not join them in the theater of the absurd.   Like the leader of the pack these days, the Donald.  That Trump can possibly be first in the polls just tends to confirm that the asylum is overcrowded and the inmates are vying to run the place.  

it just gets nuttier and nuttier.  Time to get off this crazy train...

[Gregory Matthews]

To call it "crazy talk" is to elevate it to a level of worth above that which it is at.

To even respond to it grants it more value than it has.

[Tom Wetmore]

True.  Just call it reality therapy.  Call me Captain Obvious on the reality train chugging down the track in the opposite direction.  Sometimes you just have to say something before the crazy train goes off the rails. 

[lazarus]

3 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

True.  Just call it reality therapy.  

Interesting you should mention that. Glasser (founder of Reality Therapy) would probably have a good explanation for all the "crazy talk" that's going on.

[Stan]

If "THE MAJORITY" was correct, I would have never become an Adventist.

[Geoarrge]

The specifics are rather outlandish, but is it unfair to say that Obama is on their side? 

He's already admitted as much, right in his book.

 

[lazarus]

5 hours ago, Geoarrge said:

He's already admitted as much, right in his book.

 

That sounds rather outlandish to me. Didn't know ISIS existed when he wrote his book. Please substantiate what I consider a rather bizarre suggestion.

[Geoarrge]

2 hours ago, lazarus said:

That sounds rather outlandish to me. Didn't know ISIS existed when he wrote his book. Please substantiate what I consider a rather bizarre suggestion.

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." - Audacity of Hope, page 261

[lazarus]

Just now, Geoarrge said:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." - Audacity of Hope, page 261

That is a disingenuous interpretation of the statement.

That is like the suggestion that support for Irish Catholics is support for the IRA.

[Geoarrge]

9 minutes ago, lazarus said:

That is a disingenuous interpretation of the statement.

That is like the suggestion that support for Irish Catholics is support for the IRA.

And yet, he can't seem to manage more than a token effort in dealing with ISIS.  Forty-five minute warnings and entire strikes vetoed over 'environmental concerns.'  After they publicly announced their intention to plant their fighters among the refugees coming into Western countries, what do we get when people make the outlandish suggestion that this is actually happening and maybe we ought to take some extra care over who we let in?  Another sanctimonious finger-wagging tirade saying "That's not who we are."  What's the simplest explanation for this?

[lazarus]

1 hour ago, Geoarrge said:

  What's the simplest explanation for this?

The simplest explanation is that he knows there is no military solution. 2016 GOP candidates have no other strategy than bellicose rhetoric. There is no material difference between Obama and those who criticise  him. 

Are you suggesting that 50,000 - 100,000 troops should be sent?

[Geoarrge]

That's a very interesting interpretation, considering I made no mention of sending in troops.  All I mentioned were the airstrikes that US planes were in position to do already. 
The notion that 'military solutions' and 'bellicose rhetoric' are the wrong reaction to a group of fanatics declaring their absolute commitment to our destruction is also very interesting.

[lazarus]

1 hour ago, Geoarrge said:

That's a very interesting interpretation, considering I made no mention of sending in troops.  All I mentioned were the airstrikes that US planes were in position to do already. 
The notion that 'military solutions' and 'bellicose rhetoric' are the wrong reaction to a group of fanatics declaring their absolute commitment to our destruction is also very interesting.

The reason why I suggest troops because that would be a substantive difference from the current policy. Why would you not want to send troops if ISIS is such a grave threat.

I'm not sure if you have military experience but Martin Dempsy, Joint Chiefs Head said there was no military solution. Notice the word is solution not response. That is an important distinction. I didn't say rhetoric is wrong I just said that is the major difference in policy between the Dems and GOP.

More airstrikes is a response but not a solution.

We have traveled a long way from your original assertion that Obama in on ISIS' side. Will you now withdraw that suggestion? You have to admit it is ludicrous.

[Tom Wetmore]

36 minutes ago, Geoarrge said:

That's a very interesting interpretation, considering I made no mention of sending in troops.  All I mentioned were the airstrikes that US planes were in position to do already. ...
 

What do you mean about the air strikes?  What are you talking about?  How many air strikes against ISIS do you think the US has conducted?  

What do you think the solution is?  Do you think we should put boots on the ground to fight against ISIS? If so, how many? And how long are you willing to commit, and pay for that extensive of an involvement?  

It really is really a ill thought out pile of political rhetoric to call for boots on the ground and greater military effort against ISIS for a Party that also refuses to generate any revenue, and in fact that seriously tries to cut revenue to pay for it.  Did we learn nothing from the Bush era of borrowing trillions to pay for two wars and continuing to cut taxes so that we cannot even pay for the borrowing? 

 

 

[Geoarrge]

30 minutes ago, lazarus said:

We have traveled a long way from your original assertion that Obama in on ISIS' side. Will you now withdraw that suggestion? You have to admit it is ludicrous.

No. His behavior is consistent with that thesis.  I will grant, however, that he is possibly simply a museum-grade fool, in accordance with Heinlein's Razor.  

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

What do you mean about the air strikes?  What are you talking about?  How many air strikes against ISIS do you think the US has conducted?  

What do you think the solution is?  Do you think we should put boots on the ground to fight against ISIS? If so, how many? And how long are you willing to commit, and pay for that extensive of an involvement?  

It really is really a ill thought out pile of political rhetoric to call for boots on the ground and greater military effort against ISIS for a Party that also refuses to generate any revenue, and in fact that seriously tries to cut revenue to pay for it.  Did we learn nothing from the Bush era of borrowing trillions to pay for two wars and continuing to cut taxes so that we cannot even pay for the borrowing? 

And quite frankly, no, I'm not enthusiastic about sending troops in.  Still, an actual old-fashioned war to unconditional surrender would probably not be even half as expensive or deadly as an elongated half-war hampered by absurd rules of engagement.  As for fiscal policy, that's a whole detailed discussion unto itself. Suffice to say, Bush wasn't that good at it, but the Bush/Rove faction of the party are in decline, so I wouldn't worry too much about that in the future.

[Tom Wetmore]

Except that the current rhetoric of the Republican candidates make the Bush/Rove faction sound moderate/rational/sensible/pacifist.  

Here is an informative article about what ISIS really wants - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/  It is long but worthwhile to read and understand.  Sending in the troops just plays right into their game plan.  Those who know and understand  are saying that the current strategy of Obama is the best of what are all bad options.  

[bonnie]

MSNBC Military Analysts Agree: Obama's [Lack of] Strategy Is Troubling

By Cheri Jacobus | August 8, 2014 | 5:30 PM EDT

 

 

0

shares

In the wake of the news that President Obama had ordered limited bombing on ISIS mobile artillery units – a small hit with only two 500-pound bombs – experts were not shy about declaring their concern on TV about the Obama strategy.

The White House won't commit to stopping the genocide by ISIS -- as evidenced yesterday when White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest failed to provide an affirmative response to a question by the press as to whether President Obama would take every measure to stop the genocide --  And President Obama has conclusively ruled out any U.S. troops going into Iraq, whether his strategy of very limited air strikes successfully stop ISIS or not. The disjointed, anemic responses by the White House is not sitting well with military analysts.

---

Fox News Channel contributor Lt. Col. Bill Cowan told anchor Jon Scott that air strikes alone will not get the job done, and that at a minimum, non-U.S. troops on the ground will be needed, but that trained troops are not available from other sources.

Meanwhile, over on the chief Obama cheerleader cable network, MSNBC, viewers were exposed to something they are not accustomed to -- commentary by a paid MSNBCer critical of President Obama, specifically the limited air strikes in Iraq against ISIS.  

MSNBC contributor and former Clinton administration drug czar Gen.Barry McCaffrey expressed his position to host Andrea Mitchell today, saying, "A lot of this doesn't make send.  What is the mission?" He gave a similar statement to NBC's Chuck Todd, adding that the Obama strategy seems to be more of an internal political maneuver than an actual effort at gaining a military result.

"These are political gestures using military power," he explained. "When we dropped three aircraft loads of water and food to 50,000 people in the mountains, now we’re striking ISIS artillery units, it looks to me as if a lot of this is internal U.S. politics to show we’re doing something."

It remains to be seen whether McCaffrey will be a guest on the MSNBC prime time evening shows.

- See more at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/cheri-jacobus/2014/08/08/fox-msnbc-military-analysts-agree-obamas-lack-strategy-troubling#sthash.JCjgQ8Ja.dpuf

[lazarus]

49 minutes ago, Geoarrge said:

No. His behavior is consistent with that thesis.

Problem is that you have not articulated anything that you should think should be done differently.

[bonnie]

Salon,Imagine that.So what has changed?

 

{"uid":6,"hostPeerName":"http://www.salon.com","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":0,\"windowCoords_r\":1366,\"windowCoords_b\":721,\"windowCoords_l\":0,\"frameCoords_t\":105,\"frameCoords_r\":1038.5,\"frameCoords_b\":195,\"frameCoords_l\":310.5,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":0,\"allowedExpansion_r\":0,\"allowedExpansion_b\":0,\"allowedExpansion_l\":0,\"xInView\":0,\"yInView\":0}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":false,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-2\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"19.0.0\"}}","reportCreativeGeometry":false}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="728" height="90" data-is-safeframe="true" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: auto; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: bottom; list-style: none; z-index: 5 !important; display: block; background: transparent;">

THURSDAY, SEP 11, 2014 06:45 AM CDT

Our ISIS strategy’s big flaw: Why the president’s speech was filled with holes

President Obama laid out his ISIS plan last night. But in trying to appeal to everyone, here's what he's risking

JIM NEWELL

 

(Credit: Reuters/Saul Loeb)

Much to the satisfaction of impatient hawks everywhere who actually won’t be satisfied and will remain impatient, President Obama laid out his strategy for “destroying ISIS” in a prime-time speech last night. We know this because he said, “This is our strategy.”

 

 

The strategy itself hewed to the contours of leaks to news outlets earlier this week: airstrikes targeting ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, support for political reconciliation led by the new government in Iraq, training and arming Kurdish forces in Iraq and “the opposition” in Syria, and building a coalition of Arab states to support our endeavors. America would provide muscle and resources, but ultimately the completion of “destroying” ISIS would rest on the ability of local forces to drive things home.

That’s the military and diplomatic strategy. The political strategy, however, seems to be more about appeasing all stakeholders. We will “destroy” ISIS, but it won’t be a war, it will be “counter-terrorism.” It won’t be a unilateral assault, it will be “a strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines … one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.” The administration won’t seek strict congressional authorization for new military action in Iraq and Syria, but it will “welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger” — in other words, Congress can pass the bucks to arm and train the Syrian “opposition.” And while the U.S. intelligence community has not “detected specific plotting against our homeland, it “believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.”

So: We’ll quench the thirst for bomb-dropping but it will only be “counter-terrorism”; we won’t be invading so much as assisting partners; Congress won’t authorize but will hold a vote, on at least something; ISIS doesn’t represent an immediate threat to the homeland now, but it could, later, when these Americans who’ve joined ISIS repatriate to carry out their deadliest of missions.

And so the political strategy is to throw a chunk of bread at everyone. What’s most worrisome for the administration, though, is the expectations it’s set up for itself by adopting the goal of “destroying” ISIS. (Obama does take care to hedge this, at least, with the qualifier “ultimately.” As in, if ISIS is still around when his term is over — which of course it will be — his lucky successor will get to finish it of

It’s the comparisons to the actions in Yemen and Somalia that are the most curious. The government used to try to keep those actions on the down-low, but yes, intermittent strikes on terrorist groups in those countries have been occurring for years. Those groups have hardly been “destroyed,” and the states in which they reside remain more or less chaotic and failed. So Yemen and Somalia are a difficult model for what he intends to do with Syria and Iraq — eliminate the threat, ultimately, by helping to create stable, functioning regimes in those countries.

At least in Yemen and Somalia there are nominal governments — whatever shambles they’re in — that are asking us to be there. The same could be said about Iraq. The Iraq government points, we shoot from the sky. That’s why the haziest part of the plan is Syria.

We do not have a government with which to partner in Syria. In fact the official position of the United States is that the Assad regime must go. Remember when just a year ago we were going to bomb Syrian government targets? All of these competing interests come together in the most jumbled section of the speech:

ADVERTISEMENT