“O” and his creatures have been making it up as they go along for his entire tenure in the WH.
The predictable and unavoidable problems associated with this asinine and arrogant approach to ‘leadership’ are more apparent all the time.
I guess the OJT ‘Presidency’ was not such a good idea.
... and your son is an idiot with a perm.
Indeed. His points are well taken that ISIS is to some extent a result of past US policy.
That’s all fine, but it doesn’t provide any guidance on how to deal with the situation as it now exists. It’s as if after Pearl Harbor someone insisted on going back and rehashing all the mistakes the US had made dealing with Japan, which were numerous, and therefore we shouldn’t fight them now.
His notion that Assad has never threatened the US is just stupid. Syria has for decades been a major supporter of terrorism of many varieties. The Assads were allied at various times with both Saddam and Iran.
A foreign theocratic government, as such, is no more repugnant to US values than any other authoritarian or totalitarian system. Although, admittedly, all the theocratic governments around at the moment are all pretty bad.
Ron Paul: exactly right 20% of the time, an idiot the rest of the time.
Oh, I think I understand bammy's hesitation alright. He's lost. He and his cohorts in crime literally have no clue as to what they should do. I'll give them one small kudo for recognizing they are in over their heads and not rushing off and doing something stupid.
The post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan peace dividend disintegrates.
So we should let this go on, get bigger and more dangerous until it completely destabilizes the region? It will be easier to fight and defeat now than 2 or 3 years from now.
You can wring your hands all you want but in the end we may not have a whole lot of options here. If the other guy makes war on you, you're in a war, like it or not. bammy's policies coming home to roost.
"ISIS is an urgent threat and a minimalist approach, that depends solely on FY15 funding or pinprick strikes that leave fragile forces in Iraq and Syria to do the hard fighting, is insufficient to protect our interests and guarantee our safety in time," Mr. McKeon said last week.
He's probably right. I'm sure he has access to better intel than me or Paul.
What does this mean in practice? If the neocons have their way, the Federal Reserve will "print" more money to finance another massive US intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the US dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.
Where is that coming from? Did Paul's cat walk across the keyboard again while he was getting coffee?
A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!
I don't agree with Paul's conclusions. I am certain that letting ISIS gain strength and territory is a very bad idea. There will be a cost to us to deal with them. Some now, no-doubt more later. Thanks bammy for setting the stage for them to come into power.
McKeon and the other hawks act as if they had only recently become aware of the ISIS. Or if they noticed it, they pretend US policy had nothing to do with its rise.
Oh, I'm sure bammy's policies had quite a bit to do with ISIS' rise to power.
...are the same ones who not long ago demanded that we support groups like ISIS to overthrow the Assad government in Syria...
Yes, "like" ISIS in that they opposed Assad. Not "like" ISIS in that they're murderous psychopaths. That was our position, not surprising bammy and crew got it wrong (intentionally or through ignorance).
Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?
You tell me Paul, why does bammy always seem to side with Muslims? Hmm? Why do you think that is Paul?
Is it better to have no strategy or bad strategy?
No, you isolationist dumbshit... viral videos of them hoisting the severed heads of American children will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave. These are NOT PEOPLE we're dealing with! They are savages who thirst for the blood of non-muslims of ALL ages!
What would you do?
I rest my case.
Did neocons want Assad out?! I thought it was the Dems!
Rachel Maddow’s been beating the drums nightly for congress to vote on war authorization for ISIS bombing etc.
But what is congressional Republicans incentive for taking the focus off of Obama on this?
Let his flounder for all to see.
He says he doesn’t need congress for anything else, he has a pen and phone.
????
Stop picking on McCain and Grahamnesty Ron, the Sunday morning talk shows count on them as guest experts.
That Mike Rogers is on TV every Sunday morning.
Paul’s attitude would be fine, if our borders were sealed, and if we were prepared to pay the economic price of doing so. (There are economic benefits to free trade—comparative advantage and all that.)
The Muslim world should be quarantined. No travel in or out, no trade in or out. We have plenty of oil and gas. Systematic deportation of Muslims should follow. Secular, moderate, unserious Muslims only should be allowed to stay.
Doing nothing after saying little implies tacit consent.