Obama: U.S. will defeat terror threat’s new phase
President Barack Obama addresses the nation from the Oval Office at the White House in Washington today. The address comes as recent attacks in Paris and California have raised concerns that the U.S. and other countries arent doing enough to prevent terror attacks. (Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP)
WASHINGTON » In a rare Oval Office address, President Barack Obama vowed Sunday night the U.S. will overcome a new phase of the terror threat that seeks to “poison the minds” of people here and around the world, as he sought to reassure Americans shaken by recent attacks in Paris and California.
“I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure,” he said, speaking from a lectern in his West Wing office. “The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it,” he declared.
The president’s speech followed Wednesday’s shooting in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people and wounded 21. Authorities say a couple carried out the attack and the wife pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group and its leader in a Facebook post.
Obama said that while there was no evidence the shooters were directed by a terror network overseas or part of a broader plot, “the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization.”
“This was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people,” he said in the 13-minute address.
In speaking from the Oval Office, Obama turned to a tool of the presidency that he has used infrequently. His decision to speak in prime time reflected the White House’s concern that his message on the recent attacks hasn’t broken through, particularly in the midst of a heated presidential campaign.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Yet Obama’s speech was likely to leave his critics unsatisfied. He announced no significant shift in U.S. strategy and offered no new policy prescriptions for defeating IS, underscoring both his confidence in his current approach and the lack of easy options for countering the extremist group.
“Nothing that happened in the speech tonight is going to assuage people’s fears,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate, said on Fox News.
Obama did call for cooperation between private companies and law enforcement to ensure potential attackers can’t use technology to evade detection. He also urged Congress to pass new force authorization for military actions underway against IS in Iraq and Syria, and also to approve legislation to bar guns from being sold to people prohibited from flying on planes in the U.S. for terrorist concerns.
And he implored Americans to not turn against Muslims at home, saying the Islamic State is driven by a desire to spark a war between the West and Islam. Still, he called on Muslims in the U.S. and around the world to take up the cause of fighting extremism.
The spread of radical Islam into American communities, he said, is “a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse.”
The president’s most specific policy announcement was to order the departments of State and Homeland Security to review the fiance visa program that the female shooter in California used to enter the U.S. In his remarks, Obama referred to a visa waiver program that Congress is also reviewing, but the White House later clarified he meant the fiance program
He also reiterated his call for broader gun control legislation, saying no matter how effective law enforcement and intelligence agencies are, they can’t identify every would-be shooter. He called it a matter of national security to prevent potential killers from getting guns.
“What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill,” he said.
Obama stands little chance of getting the Republican-led Congress to agree to any gun control measures. On Thursday, the Senate rejected legislation barring people suspected by the government of being terrorists from purchasing firearms. Gun rights advocates say such a ban would violate the rights of people who haven’t been convicted of crimes.
Congress also has been unable to coalesce behind any plan to authorize more force against IS, and the administration’s proposal has languished since February.
Obama repeated his long-standing opposition to an American-led ground war in the Middle East and made no mention of the more aggressive action others have suggested, including a enforcing a no-fly zone and safe corridors in Syria.
“Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values or giving in to fear,” he said. “Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless.”
After the speech, the president appeared as previously scheduled at the Kennedy Center Honors tribute in Washington.
The president’s critics — and increasingly, some members of his own party — have questioned his strategy. Hours before he spoke, Hillary Clinton — his former secretary of state and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination — said the U.S. is “not winning” the fight against IS.
Obama has insisted that the Islamic State is contained in Iraq and Syria. However, the group has set its sights elsewhere in the world, launching attacks in Lebanon and Turkey and downing a Russia airliner over Egypt.
The Nov. 13 attacks in Paris marked the group’s most aggressive actions in Europe, a coordinated effort that left 130 people dead and wounded hundreds more.
Last week, the terror threat drew even closer for Americans when a couple — a 29-year-old woman originally from Pakistan and her 28-year-old American-born husband — launched an attack on a holiday luncheon in San Bernardino.
The FBI is investigating the massacre as a terrorist attack that, if proved, would be the deadliest by Islamic extremists on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001.
The woman pledged allegiance to IS and its leader in a Facebook post, according to U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. A Facebook official said the post came about the time the couple stormed the San Bernardino social service center.
___
AP writers Donna Cassata and Josh Lederman contributed to this report.
62 responses to “Obama: U.S. will defeat terror threat’s new phase”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obama said radicalism has spread into some Muslim communities and has become a problem that Muslim leaders “must confront without excuse.” Wait just a minute, Mr. President. Don’t shift the blame to Muslin leaders. It has been a problem in Muslin communities for several years and should have been confronted by the President of the United States, you Mr. Obama, and “without excuse.”
why is obama afraid of the ‘JV Team’? Obama’s solution is to disarm legal citizens of the USA…
That’s great…make us one giant soft target.
You mean like the TSA lines that happened after the TSA was created by the all Republican Government post 9/11? The real threat at an airport isn’t once you get on the plane. It’s standing as cattle in a line with no room to move with hundreds of other people as you wait for TSA to give you a false sense of security. Furthermore, time after time has shown that armed civilians rarely, if ever make a difference. Even tests with trained professionals don’t turn out how people like you think they will. It takes a considerable amount of time for trained professionals to assess and react to a shooter even in planned repeated experiments. Now, tossing in untrained civilians is not a good idea. Remember that cops almost shot several armed civilians at the Giffords shooting in Arizona and several armed civilians nearly shot each other. The fringe element of the pro-gun community has this asinine notion that all gun owners are responsible, have been trained, are excellent at threat assessment and have the proper mental health and attitudes. Any reasonable person who grew up with firearms know this is completely insane.
He took no responsibility for what is happening here or in the Middle East. Nothing! In other words, he had no solutions to offer. He should at least apologize.
“he had no solutions to offer,” so same like everyone else here? Except that Obama doesn’t throw out hateful vomit at the same time refusing to ever offer alternatives. How many times has someone like Winston ever offered an alternative rather than just complain, complain, complain? SA’s posters are a bunch of whiny, bratty, immature little children who dislike what’s happening, but cannot for the life of them ever offer an alternative. Do you know what the business world calls those people? USELESS.
Do you think that Obama should be offering an apology for not reinvading Iraq to dispose of Al-Maliki, the real architect of ISIS?
Why does Obama use the term ISIL instead of ISIS?
sarge22 that is a good question, one that I have pondered for a while. Most Americans prefer ISIS because it specifically names Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which makes perfect logical reasoning. The president on the other hand, has difficulty saying “islamic” and has an even more difficulty saying “Israel”, kinda amazing when you consider he is said to be by some to be a premier communicator. However, the “L” turns out to be “Levant” means more than just Iraq and Syria, it includes Israel as well, and just maybe, he thinks that this should be part of what he views as the “Islamic State”. Only the president knows for sure though.
He finally gets it – a couple of years late. But what action will he now take? He has finally gotten the message that the American people are tired of his lack of attention to this issue.
Fairgame947, I don’t believe he got it. Someone like him will never accept the truth once he develops an position or ideology on any subject. Tomorrow, he will act on an issue that counters any statement he made today. It’s the reason he leads from behind. As Serious posted, “he moves his lips and nothing relevant comes out.” Now, the media talks of Hillary taking over a failed administration, give me a break.
An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal echoed what most of us have know for years. He moves his lips and nothing relevant comes out. Why does he take the time to be on TV for every little item. He has dived this country racially, financially and morally—good riddance!!!
Amen!
and just who are the “terrorists” liberals and obama want to defeat?
the tea party has been labeled terrorist by liberals. obama’s operation vigilant eagle monitors returning veterans from the mid-east as possible terrorists.
but radical muslim extremists are purposely not labeled terrorists.
The last time I heard Obama speak was before the Paris attacks. He said Isis was contained.Today he said nothing to fear he has it under control.Yesterday his AG cautioned Americans that she feared a Muslim backlash in America resulting from the San Bernadino terrorist radicalized Muslim attack and would prosecute anyone that discriminates against Muslims. Someone wake me up! PC has gone beserk and Obama’s Administration rules in a bubble with no sense of reality and totally alienated from its concensus. REM Gov Ige supports taking in Syrian refugeesclaiming they have been fully vetted. Citizens wake up!
In answer to a question from George Stephanopoulos that was specifically about territory controlled by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Obama answered accurately that ISIS has been contained. The question and its answer were about geography, not strategy and not terrorism outside of those two countries.. Pulling that answer out of context to make it appear that Obama said that ISIS-inspred terrorism is contained worldwide is both deeply dishonest and typical of Fox News. In the wake of San Bernadino, do you think that Congressional Republicans will finally end their opposition to an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)? Of course not. More than two years ago, Obama announced, “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.. Having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy … And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.” The Republican response? “NO WAY!” At the same time that they’re wetting their beds in fear (except for Senator Vitter who has a supply of diapers), they won’t pass an AUMF because they would rather sit on the sidelines criticizing the President’s handling of a horrible situation when they have no better ideas.
These so-called patriots are anti-Obama first, everything else second. Infantile.
Too bad your observation doesn’t include the equally infantile attitude expressed by Obamabots..
Pretty much. You won’t see them offer an alternative. All you see them do is blame Obama. How many of them are willing to blame Bush or Al-Maliki? None. Look at Winston’s post. Do you see anything resembling even an outlandish alternative? All he can do, and all people like Hawaiikone can do, is criticize without any alternatives whatsoever. I pity their coworkers (if they have jobs) give their attitudes.
Choyd, your sensitivity is quite telling. Rather than allow it to define you, why not actually try and discuss a particular issue?
hawaiikone, you are one of the infantile people in this country who only complain and never offer any solutions. You are one of the whiniest people, who want everything and don’t want to pay anything. You are one of the most immature brats who just want to criticize everyone about not getting the perfect situation without understanding any of the topics. People like you are dragging America down and if you could please leave the country and let those who actually care about America get to work, it would be appreciated.
Feel better now? Any issue to discuss, now that you’ve reinforced my point?
hawaiikone, have you ever offered a realistic solution in your life? Or are you purely here on this planet to complain?
What are you asking? I’ve offered many suggestions for a variety of issues. Which would you like? Isis? I noticed you already mentioned you have none, yet you still demand one from others. Interesting. Mine? There is no “solution”. A spiritual ideology may be suppressed, but not erased. At least not by military effort. How do we protect ourselves? As a government, one that I’m obliged to obey, it makes no sense to disarm us. As a Christian, it makes less sense to kill either. A conundrum for me personally, but that’s my problem. Arms will not be laid down until Christ returns, as evidenced both by history and His word. So if your tirade revolves around my solution for Isis, I, like you, have none. Could Obama, or Bush, have done better? Probably. But a rigid “yes” or “no”, even from hindsight, is equally inconsequential at this point. They hit, we have to hit back. It’s how we do things..
“Obama repeatedly peddles euphemisms and false assurances. Reality refuses to conform to Obama’s prescriptions. Obama is as impervious to experience as the worst men who ever lived. Obama does not trust the American people with the truth in part because he believes the American people cannot be trusted with the truth and in part because the truth is inimical to his projects.
Obama’s antipathy to the United States and to the American people render him unfit for the high office he holds.” Powerline Blog
Note: The California terrorists were not on the no fly list (nor the Ft. Hood or Chattanooga terrorists) and their weapons were legally purchased under that state’s “common sense” gun control laws. Also note that they could have done exactly the same damage with semi-automatic pistols, attacking a defenseless, unarmed group.
“STEPHANOPOULOS: And that’s the strategy you’ve been following. But ISIS is gaining strength, aren’t they?
OBAMA: Well, no, I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria it they’ll come in, they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain.”
You are willfully wrong. The question was about the strength of ISIS, not it’s territorial gains/losses. Further, Obama’s statement (a typical Obama tactic of not answering the question asked) was directly contradicted by the Chairman of the JCS a couple of days later.
GOP rejection of the AUMF: This is yet another cynical lie to the American public by the president. The AUMF, as Obama has written it would RESTRICT his own use of force and that of the next president. The key issue here is that the president has no strategy to defeat ISIS, that he has no strategy for the Middle East, in general . Given Obama’s faux air campaign against ISIS in which 80 % of the sorties return with bombs not dropped, the rules of engagement are incredibly restrictive, and the true state of the ISIS threat, as described by CENTCOM intelligence analysts is suppressed, most probably by the White House, why should republicans trust the man?
Like Fox News, you have deceptively and selectively lifted something Obama said by not including what he said before the Stephanopouos question that you quote. Here’s what Obama said, “I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true is that, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria. They’ll come in, they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain. What we have not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures. We’ve made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters and part of our goal has to be to recruit more effective Sunni partners in Iraq to really go on offense rather than simply engage in defense.” Stephanopoulos then speaks over him to say, “And that’s the strategy you’ve been following. But ISIS is gaining strength, aren’t they?” and Obama CONTINUES his answer about what’s happening in Iraq and Syria. If you read that “we have contained them” in context, it’s clear that he is talking about having contained a “systematic march by ISIL across the terrain” and the FACT that “we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.”
BS: I read the transcript. Yes Obama had been talking about ISIS’s geographic area, a meaningless metric as long as they control territory they can call a Caliphate, but that was not the question he was asked. He was asked if ISIS was gaining strength. That they have any territory they can call a Caliphate, not how many square miles they own, is their center of gravity, their recruiting tool.
Further, that they may have been contained, geographically, in Syria/Iraq ignores the ISIS affiliates popping up in Africa and the ME. Obama was asked if they were gaining strength. A truthful answer would have been “yes”. Why have they been gaining strength? Access to resources, funding, and success in controlling territory? Answer: because Obama has allowed them that success by staging the most cursory of air campaigns, failing to destroy ISIS controlled oil resources, failing to put the necessary people on the ground to target the air strikes. His description of ISIS as “contained” was just more of the familiar straw man mentality that is his only mode of operation.
BS, don’t watch Fox, it requires you to make your own conclusions regarding the news (“we report you decide”). This is hard when you are are main stream media watcher, because you are told what to decide. So stay away so you don’t have to think for yourself! And by the way Fox beats all other cable news outlets in viewership, so maybe you aren’t as smart as you think you are?
You are right, Winston. The discussion immediately before Stephanopolos’ question about ISIS gaining strength was in response to his question about ISIS going to international terror. “STEPHANOPOLOS: But if ISIS with affiliates in so many countries right now, even Afghanistan, if they decided now to go to international terror, that’s a game changer, isn’t it?” The question was not restricted to ISIS in Syria and Iraq; it was about ISIS going international. After Obama answered this question, Stephanopolos then asked the question about ISIS gaining strength. Here is the link to the full transcript for those who care to know the truth: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-interview-transcript-president-barack-obama/story?id=35203825
I agree with your contextual explanation but would point out the same partisan tactic used with the Mission Accomplished sign. Both ends of the political spectrum are looney tunes.
Bold talk from someone with 24 hour secret service protection.
Touche!
He will have his GUNBOATS & NO-FLY ZONES and SS to check all the RUBBISH BINS along his rout when he vacatins here withhis entourage this Christmas & New Years…HPD will not be compensated for OT AGAIN..
The problem with America’s gun policy is that lunatics can get a hold of guns easily. That places innocent people at risk. That risk is not worth it. There are now regular mass shootings that demonstrate that CLEARLY.
Ordinary Americans do not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of obtaining weapons legally in disgustingly over gun-controlled California. But Jihad Joe and Jane, fresh from a fun-filled, romantic getaway in that well-known love nest Saudi Arabia, have no problem getting guns in Obama’s America. To hell with your naive views on gun control, Cringe-worthy Reader. It’s time to try common sense.
You’re saying that they were able to legally purchase their weapons in a state where you are not? You have a TRO or a drug charge pending? As for your common sense… Well, it just ain’t there.
Too bad for your meme that they didn’t LEGALLY purchase the firearms. They got a straw buyer to purchase them, which is already against the law. Her visa did not allow her to purchase or own firearms while she was in this Country.
Yah well… Can you guaranty that some of the victims of these “mass shootings” wernt muslins planning to blow stuff up? Thot not!
He should also purpose a law to restrict pipe bombs and IEDs as they had 12 of them
This clown is an embarrassment to Punahou.The White House had to issue a correction to “the smartest man in the world’s” lecture.He doesn’t even know how she got in the Country. He stated she came in on a visa waver, when she was here on a K-1 fiancé visa, which is totally different. I guess he was still hung over during the late morning security briefing that took place after his Hollywood party the night before.
Absolutely the worst President in history of America. He has done more harm to our economy, national security, foreign/domestic relations and the safety of America. If he were a republican, there would be riots in the streets and a call for impeachment.
Oh here we go again. Worst president in the history of America? Really? This is after the previous president who ignored warnings prior to 9/11 and took the nation from a surplus to a trillion plus deficit. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
In the meantime, federal debt continues to grow.
What was Bubba Clinton doing during the TERRORIST PLANNING STAGE prior to 9/11? Oh never mind..the stain on the dress was a TELL-ALL explanation not to mention your Hillary saying “It’s a Right Wing conspiracy”!
Oh in case you didn’t know Obama had to rush to the Kennedy Center GALA right after his spew..of meant his speech.
Yeah, Obama’s totally worse than the Presidents who set the country on the path to burying 500,000+ of its own sons. Because you know, those deaths, more than every other combined death total of every other war America has fought was just so little and don’t mean anything. And their lack of political cooperation which created a Civil War, the worst conflict in American history pales in comparison to whatever you perceive Obama’s failing to be. /S
FYI, Obama would be a Republican 10-15 years ago.
“President Barack Obama vowed Sunday night the U.S. will overcome a new phase of the terror threat” I’m glad the president realizes we are in a new phase of terror threat, we have been in it for about 2 decades and only now he is beginning to realize it, but like the saying goes, “If you have never seen it it’s new to you.” What a brainiac!
“Obama repeatedly peddles euphemisms and false assurances. Reality refuses to conform to Obama’s prescriptions. Obama is as impervious to experience as the worst men who ever lived. Obama does not trust the American people with the truth in part because he believes the American people cannot be trusted with the truth and in part because the truth is inimical to his projects.
Obama’s antipathy to the United States and to the American people render him unfit for the high office he holds.” Powerline Blog
Note: The California terrorists were not on the no fly list (nor the Ft. Hood or Chattanooga terrorists) and their weapons were legally purchased under that state’s “common sense” gun control laws. Also note that they could have done exactly the same damage with semi-automatic pistols, attacking a defenseless, unarmed group.
Boots will not reply to your truth because he has nothing to counter with.
Hmmm. Lots of vague criticism here.
No alternatives. Not even crazy, hairbrained, half baked, meth-LSD induced alternatives.
Seems that a large number of SA posters should be clamoring for a Hillary Victory in 2016. After all, what will they do if a Republican wins and their constant, unending, self serving, never ever ever offer an alternative, complain fest has to end?
Poor Choyd. So unhappy when the transformational light-bringer fails, turns out to be a hollow, feckless ideologue trailed by a seemingly endless cycle of bad non-decisions and eternally unexpected consequences followed, always, by juvenile blame-shifting.
Don’t feel bad for Choyd, he or she has had their way for 7 long years, and now when it’s time to see the results of unbridled liberal socialism, it isn’t pretty. I feel bad for America and the especially Hawaii because we have to suffer through all those years.
The irony is hilarious in that I point out exactly what you will do….and then you go ahead and do it. Also, I didn’t vote for Obama ever, yet both you Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb assume whoever doesn’t get on your hate bandwagon is an Obama supporter.
I pointed out that none of you ever offer alternatives. Rather than point out how I’m wrong by actually offering an alternative, both of you double down on personal attacks and refusal to actually provide even a hint of an alternative solution.
Which leads me back to my original point about the endless complain fest going on. You and Winston should donate to Hillary’s campaign. After all, what will both of you do without your emotional need to complain and never offer solutions?
Choyd’s logical falicies. Let me count the ways. Your insistence on someone else providing an “alternative” implies support, in this case, for Obama’s actions. It also implies that a criticism can’t be valid UNLESS it offers an alternative. Now, that’s silly, like a HECO customer couldn’t complain about repeated brown outs unless offering specific fixes to the power grid. Yes, Choyd believes we should all become foreign affairs experts, or SHUT UP.Hate bandwagon: Another tactic to demean the holder of a different opinion. You see, “hate” is easily termed an irrational, out of control emotional state, therefore “haters” can’t be thinkers. Once upon a time hating people like Hitler/Stalin or things like communism was intellectually OK, but now it’s just a term used like a billy club to silence opposition.
Now to your “complaint” about alternatives: Unfortunately, Obama has dithered away many alternatives, leaving us with fewer, more dangerous choices. He could have instituted a no fly zone before the Russians became involved, but didn’t. He could have destroyed the oil resources controled by ISIS, but didn’t. He could have amped up the air attacks to hamper ISIS lines of of communications, but didn’t. He could have armed he Kurds, but didn’t. He could have placed US SOF forces on the ground to control airsrikes, but didn’t. He could have loosened the rules of engagement to allow effective use of airpower, but didn’t.
So, here’s your alternative. Do what he didn’t and still won’t do (too late for the no fly zone).
Actually, Winston, your criticism is always vague and always reliant on personal attacks rather than specific points about policy. And yes, someone who complains about HECO brownouts should offer solutions. People who just complain and never offer alternatives (YOU) are useless and worthless in this world because all you do is complain.
And yes, you should become at least familiar with the topic at hand. You don’t and hence why you are so wildly wrong on virtually every topic you talk about Winston. Your basic grasp of all topics here is not even shallow.
A no fly zone is pointless against ISIS because they have no air force. And since Assad wasn’t bombing ISIS in the first place, it wouldn’t do anything to actually hurt them. All a no fly zone would do is stop Assad from bombing groups primarily fighting Assad and not ISIS. If you even had the most pedestrian grasp of this topic, you’d know that. But your grasp of the topic is not even shallow.
Oil revenues are actually quite a minor amount of money. If you actually understood this topic (which you don’t), you’d realize that ISIS makes the bulk of their income as a pseudo-state collecting taxes. Hence why both the Russian and US attacks on their oil production and refinering haven’t made a difference. ISIS is actually gotten so efficient that they will fine people with broken tail lights which is completely unheard of in the Middle East. But, you, being a zero information person, don’t bother to research. We’ve been bombing ISIS for months, killing leaders and targeting infrascuture. Stop watching Fox. We did arm the Kurds. So much that the Turks protested our actions. Again, stop watching Fox. We do have ground controllers. You do not appear to understand how a plane delivers a smart weapon to a target (not that I’m surprised honestly).
So you were saying?
Or do you want to keep failing?
It’s funny how you criticize Obama for not doing things he actually did. But no one ever thinks you are informed.
I predict it here, it comes out there. Thanks for once again proving me correct.
The only intelligent response to all these “Muslins” [sic] must be Cottons or Linens.
From a web commentary on Obama’s speech”
“At this point in his presidency, Obama speaks with only one tone, the slightly exasperated and sometimes not-merely-slightly exasperated “adult in the room” who constantly has to correct his fellow Americans, who are always flying off the handle, calling for options that “aren’t who we are”, betraying our values, and so on. He’s always so disappointed in us. ”
Poor Mr. Obama. The American public has failed to live up to his expectations, again.
So you’re donating to Hillary right? After all, given your historical adamant refusal to criticize Republicans on any topic whatsoever, including the original stock that Obama was cloned from on any of the identical issues, problems or policies that the GOP has with Obama, it suggests that you will have a big problem if a Republican wins in November. Your incessant need to complain without ever offering any solutions whatsoever may cause you to experience a mental breakdown that can only be alleved if (god forbid) Queen Hillary wins. So how much have you donated to Hillary to feed your baser instincts?
FYI, you should be happy if she wins. Then you can keep your your argument that “Pollution is a Democrat Myth.”
Again, you misstate my opinion that democrats routinely exaggerate environmental secondary effects to stamped the herd into radical environmental policy.
Also, you repeat the logical error that criticism can’t be valid without the critic providing alternatives. Doesn’t make sense on the most fundamental level. The Presidents Middle East policy is a failure and he shows all signs of just aiming to fail harder. That assessment stands alone and the majority of the American people agree according to the polls. Now, unless you support what the president is doing, why do you dispute that. By your own logic, a critic has to have an alternative. So it follows
that someone who sees no justified criticism is a supporter. Get it?
Your criticism is one, uninformed as you just blamed Obama for not doing things he actually did. Two, your criticism is almost always personal attacks rather than policy issues. Three, you never offer any actual alternatives (which this thread is hilarious as you bashed Obama for not doing things you think he should have done despite actually doing those exact same things). Goes to show you don’t know what you are talking about as usual.
Also, you explicitly stated that “externalities are a democrat myth.” The #1 externality is pollution. You can deny you said that all you want, but you’d be lying.
Every President’s Middle East Policy is a failure. Reagan cozyed up to the Saudis, who had their citizens commit 9/11 and who are still funding ISIS. Iran under multiple Presidents was headed towards anti-Americanism by the sheer repression we supported. No US president has been able to alleviate the core problem with Israel and its neighbors. You act like the Middle East wasn’t a failure in US policy for literal decades. BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO CRITICIZE REPUBLICANS. The ME has been screwed up for hundreds of years. For some asinine reason, you think anyone can fix this. But you are a NO information loud mouth.
Do I support Obama’s policy in the Middle East? Nope. Do I think we have a better alternative? Nope. Therefore I don’t say anything. Because, unlike you, I think people who criticize with no alternatives are useless wastes of time who deserve nothing but scorn.
At the end of the day, you and I will not agree because your views are based on being against whatever certain people and parties are for. You have no ideological core. You have no principle beliefs. You waffle in the air in a fashion that would make Clinton look like a stone statue.
I however, actually bother to research my positions and have no problems support whatever party or candidate who holds those same positions. I praised Bush when he wanted to reform Social Security. I didn’t like his end idea, but the very idea that we need to reform it to make it more personally driven was a fabulous idea. I also condemned him for Medicare Part D which was nothing but a transfer of taxpayer monies to drug companies. You’ve only praised Bush here despite Obama and Bush being largely the same person.
For instance on your dishonesty, you hate the ACA and Obama but claim to be for transparency, yet you champion repeals that actually decrease transparency driving up all our costs in a fashion that makes it impossible to gather data to make policies to drive down costs. Your real ideology is hating Obama, rather than being for healthcare transparency, regardless of who is for policies that push it. At least Pnut openly attacks Republicans for their support of the healthcare insurance industry. He has more consistency than you do. I’m embarrassed for you on that.
When the sun sets, you’re that leaf flying around at the whims of the ideology breeze, where I’m the fence, firmly planted into the ground.
What was expressed was typical of an ex-community organizer, full of euphemism without any substance resulting in the situation getting ahead of him. His demeanor portrayed an individual who was over his head and wishing that his term would come to a hasty end. What some would call lack of “Chutzpa”!