Obama Went to War to Win the Senate (long article)

RUSH: So George Bush supposedly went to Iraq for oil, right? So I guess we could say that Barack Obama went to war with ISIS for the Senate. It looks like that's exactly what's going on. And I'm like you, I'm watching all of the reports about we've already taken ISIS out. I watched Kerry on TV today: They're done. They're over. We have wiped 'em out. John Kerry was talking to Christiane Amanpour on CNN, and he said (imitating Kerry), "Yeah, yeah, we wiped 'em out. We're gonna keep going, too, but we wiped 'em out."

They're putting the news out there that after one day, two days, that we have just had overwhelming success against ISIS, ISIL, the Kardashians, Khorasans, whatever they are. (interruption) I know, I know, that's the point. ISIS is advancing. I mean, I've got Max Boot here, who is, you know, Max Boot used to be at the op-ed page, editorial page of the Wall Street Journal years ago, and now he writes for Foreign Policy.

He's a freelancer and gets a lot of his stuff published, and he has a piece here Commentary: "Yesterday’s Real News Out of Iraq and Syria -- There were three big stories yesterday out of Iraq and Syria. Question: which is the most significant? Story No. 1: The US Navy and Air Force, in cooperation with five Arab allies (Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE) launched a series of air strikes and cruise missile strikes on ISIS targets in and around Raqaa, Syria. Separately, the US launched air strikes against the Khorasan group, another jihadist terrorist organization." You know what, all they are is Al-Qaeda. They are maybe an Al-Qaeda splinter group.

From what I understand, the Regime has given this group a new name in order for Obama to be able to continue to say he wiped Al-Qaeda out. So you come up with a new name for Al-Qaeda, the Kardashians, whatever, the Khorasans, whatever they are, and either way it's defeating. I mean, if you wipe out Al-Qaeda, how can they have a new group spring up? If you wipe 'em out, you wipe 'em out. If you get rid of a species, it's gone, right? Until you discover it somewhere in the Himalayas. So this new group is essentially just Al-Qaeda renamed. There may be some differences beyond that, but nevertheless. So, anyway, that's story number one.

Story number two from Max Boot: "ISIS continued to attack the Kurdish area of north-central Syria, killing large numbers of people and pushing more than 130,000 refugees over the Turkish border." This doesn't sound like we've wiped anybody out. Did I mishear Kerry? I'm watching him. I didn't have the audio on. I'm looking at their headline slug, their chyron graphic, and it was clear that they were conducting an interview with Kerry in which he was talking about phenomenal first day success against ISIS.

Story number three: "ISIS attackers in Anbar Province, Iraq, reportedly killed more than 300 Iraqi soldiers after a weeklong siege of Camp Saqlawiya where some 800 soldiers had been trapped. Few, if any, Sunni tribal fighters did anything to prevent yet another large Iraqi army formation from suffering annihilation."

Remember, these are the moderates we're depending on here, folks. These are our boots on the ground. "Few, if any, Sunni tribal fighters did anything to prevent yet another large Iraqi army formation from suffering annihilation." The got annihilated and they didn't do anything to stop it.

"The Iraqi army showed itself unable to supply its soldiers or to fight effectively.

"Judging from the news coverage, story No. 1 is the most important," and that would be, again, the Navy and the Air Force cooperation with the five Arab states launching a series of air strikes and cruise missiles on ISIS targets in Syria. Max Boot says that's not the most important story, just the media coverage. And I guess that's what I saw on CNN. I guess Kerry was out there with Christiane Amanpour taking great credit for this attack and actually suggesting that it was quite substantive.

Max Boot says here: "In reality I’d argue that No. 2 and especially No. 3 are more significant. No one doubts that the US can launch air strikes on ISIS." Nobody doubts that. Why is that big news? And he's got a point, wouldn't you say? Is this echoed? Mr. Snerdley, have you been watching any of that this morning? (interruption) All right, so is the news media, in fact, focusing on the air strikes and reporting how massive they were? (interruption) That's the story. Okay. All right. (interruption) Yeah. It could go on for years. Even though we've wiped 'em out, it could go on for years.

So Max Boot is right, that's the big story. That's what the media's doing. It's all about winning the Senate or holding the Senate, and it's all about positioning Obama politically. Pure and simple.

Now, Max Boot argues that, "But in reality I’d argue that No. 2 and especially No. 3 are more significant." Continuing to attack the Kurds in northern Syria and ISIS attackers in Anbar province and killing more than 300 Iraqi soldiers, he thinks those are much more significant stories. "No one doubts that the US can launch air strikes on ISIS. The question is whether those attacks will be effective in degrading and eventually destroying this terrorist group.

"The answer is: not until there is an effective ground force able to take advantage of the disruption created by American bombs," and without that ground force, serious people are asking: Okay, how serious is this? Do we want video of massive launches of fighter and bomber aircraft? Do we want the American people to see the launch of the takeoffs down the runway and lift off -- down the runway, down the carrier and lift off -- and then footage of bombs dropped or the results of bombs dropped?

You know how important pictures are, and therefore the pictures coupled with the footage of our jets and bombers taking off creates the illusion that massive success occurred overnight. The question is whether those attacks can be secured without a ground force, and they can't. There are I don't know how many years of world history, world military history that confirms this. It still all comes back to how serious is everybody involved here, and it won't take long to find out. It really won't.

If no ground force of ours that's competent is part of this, then the main reason we're doing this is for the pictures everybody has already seen, which are supposed to convey an impression or image. Now, Max Boot, wrapping ups here: "What this means is that, however welcome, the US air strikes in Syria are of more symbolic importance than anything else. Their military significance is likely to be scant until the US can do more to train and arm forces capable of mounting ground attacks on ISIS militants."

So there you have it. There you go. That's pretty much where things stand with this right now. We've got symbolic footage -- well, we've got footage of a symbolic attack that is supposed to convey to low-information voters that we are kicking butt. We got John Kerry on CNN confirming the pictures everybody's seen. "We kicked butt yesterday, and ISIS and ISIL and the Kardashians and everybody are on the run!" The truth of the matter is, ISIS is on the run, but not from us.

RUSH: The way the left is rationalizing all of this, ladies and gentlemen, is that George W. Bush's War on Terror was a "dumb" war, and Obama's is a "smart" war. (interruption) Well, they're not... Yeah, depending on where you look they're calling it a war, but they're still calling it an "action," and they're saying that Obama's doing it in a smart way. And of course Bush was dumb, shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But, you know, back to this Khorasan Group.

They come out of nowhere, named by the administration just in the past couple of days -- well, last week sometime. Is there any doubt..." If Obama hadn't been running around bragging about taking out Al-Qaeda and wiping out bin Laden and thus ending Al-Qaeda, would we even have heard the name Khorasan Group? But because Obama's been running around bragging about taking out Al-Qaeda, starting at the Democrat convention in 2012?

Okay, Al-Qaeda hasn't gone away, so the Regime has to give them a new name to make it look like it's a new group after Obama wiped out Al-Qaeda. But it's just Al-Qaeda. Now, we have a couple of John Kerry bites. Let's listen to these. We have the audio sound bites of what I saw but didn't hear on CNN today with Lurch speaking with Christiane Amanpour. Her question, "The Khorasan plot, Mr. Secretary, can you confirm precisely what it was and the imminence of it?"

KERRY: These are remnants of who are Al-Qaeda. These are people who were definitively plotting against the United States and the West. It is true that we didn't put a lot of public focus on them because we really didn't want people to take... We didn't want them to know that we were, in fact, tracking them as effectively as we were. So this would have happened with or without ISIL. There were active plots against our country, we knew where they were, and we did what we needed to do.

RUSH: "Can you tell us...?" No, he's not gonna tell you, 'cause they're making all this up! So right here it is. They are remnants of core Al-Qaeda. "See? We wiped out Al-Qaeda!" That's what you are supposed to take with you from this. We wiped out Al-Qaeda. Obama did because with Bush's dumb war, he failed to get Al-Qaeda. There were no weapons of mass destruction! Bush is an idiot, is a cowboy; Obama's brilliant and is a smart commander chief.

Despite the Styrofoam cup salute to the Marines, he's still a smart commander-in-chief and he knows how to do things. He wiped Al-Qaeda out and now here come the remnants of Al-Qaeda -- which we wiped out, but we must have missed a couple of those maggots and so they form a new group called the Khorasan, and we're on 'em, and we've been on 'em, and we knew what they were gonna do.

But we didn't tell anybody about it because we didn't want to let them know what we knew that they knew that we know how we were gonna wipe 'em out. Christiane Amanpour is nodding thoughtfully and understandingly, and then she said, "You've been doing this now for six weeks plus in Iraq, Mr. Secretary, against ISIS and whatever targets. They haven't been flushed out. They're not retreating. They are not surrendering."

KERRY: What we've done is we've stopped the onslaught. That was what we were able to achieve with air power. They were moving toward Erbil. They were moving towards Baghdad. Baghdad could well have fallen, the oil fields. We re-secured the Mosul dam. We broke the siege at Sinjar Mountain. So air power has been effective.

RUSH: Okay, so we saved Baghdad. That's what Kerry was telling Christiane Amanpour. We backed 'em up, we stopped 'em, we put a halt to their advance, and we beat 'em back in Baghdad. Meanwhile, as reported by -- well, everybody; Max Boot and everybody else -- they're in Syria. They're continuing to advance in Anbar Province and so forth. It still remains true that even though... There's nothing wrong with air power, don't misunderstand. I don't want anybody to think that I'm down on air power. I love it.

I'm like everybody: Just bomb these bastards to the Stone Age. But if you really want to get rid of them, if you're really serious about securing whatever you secure with air strikes, there has to be an accompanying, coordinated ground force.

0bama’s ‘war’ consists of taking advice from anyone but the military.

Don’t you want our sons and daughters in that blood because of an intellectual estimation made by an ‘organizer’?

2 posted on 09/24/2014 6:13:11 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)

I called this yesterday. This give him enough time to have headlines every day and then, around October 20, he’ll declare “mission accomplished”. The media will sing his praises and all the tight Senate races will fall to the Dems.

Yep, Obama is allowing attacks on Islamic State and delaying his illegal alien amnesty executive order for the same reason: Dim candidates have been burning his big ears about the problems his preferred decisions would have caused them on election day.

“Might does not make right”... Just like “change”, he took it right out of. Mitterand’s playbook. Leftist all over the world are such hypocrites, since progressism is inherently driven by the might of the new modern generation empowered makes right.

5 posted on 09/24/2014 6:36:55 PM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)

6 posted on 09/24/2014 6:38:17 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

It’s working. His Gallup poll numbers are up.

If anything, it’s a temporary bump.

People are fed up and will stay fed up. In most cases, individual Republicans are going to do well.

Besides, Obama has over a month to show more of his true colors.

7 posted on 09/24/2014 6:43:49 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals don't get it .... their minds are diseased.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.