The French attack

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

And Washington D.C. disagrees with you.

This came out before the Paris attacks.

When in doubt, quote random story...

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

... the Bush policy of de-Bathification ...

but but but but Bush

Newflash: ISIS leadership is comprised of Saddam Hussein's Baathist military and intelligence leadership.

Long and juicy article.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1029274.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

but but but but Bush

Newflash: ISIS leadership is comprised of Saddam Hussein's Baathist military and intelligence leadership.

Sorry if history isn't convenient. It was one of a LONG list of strategic blunders you want to blame Obama for not being able to magically fix.

And yes, ISIS was able to gain strength because the former Baathist military leadership...WAS OUT OF WORK.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

When in doubt, quote random story...

Here's another one.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/20/capi...d_focus_on_is/

Friday, Nov 20, 2015 01:45 PM EST

CAPITOL HILL BUZZ: Forget Assad, focus on IS

Deb Riechmann, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unusual alliance, a House Democrat and Republican have teamed up to urge the Obama administration to stop trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad and focus all its efforts on destroying Islamic State militants.

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and Austin Scott, R-Ga., introduced legislation on Friday to end what they called an “illegal war” to overthrow Assad, the leader of Syria accused of killing tens of thousands of Syrian citizens in a more than four-year-old civil war entangled in a battle against IS extremists, also known as ISIS.

“The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria,” Gabbard said. “The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11. The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

Scott said, “Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”

Publicly, the United States has focused its efforts on fighting IS and urging Assad to step down. But beyond thousands of U.S. airstrikes targeting IS in the region, the CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. The secret CIA program is the only step the U.S. is taking on Assad militarily.

In the Philippines on Thursday for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, President Barack Obama reiterated America’s demand that Assad must go. “The bottom line is: I do not foresee a situation in which we can end the civil war in Syria while Assad remains in power,” Obama said.

Since 2013, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on Assad’s forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American patrons, U.S. officials say.

For years, the CIA effort had foundered — so much so that over the summer, some in Congress proposed cutting its budget. Some CIA-supported rebels had been captured; others had defected to extremist groups.

Gabbard complained that Congress has never authorized the CIA effort, though covert programs do not require congressional approval, and the program has been briefed to the intelligence committees as required by law, according to congressional aides who are not authorized to be quoted discussing the matter.

Gabbard contends that the effort to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it is helping IS topple the Syrian leader and take control of all of Syria. If IS were able to seize the Syrian military’s weaponry, infrastructure and hardware, the group would become even more dangerous than it is now and exacerbate the refugee crisis.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry if history isn't convenient. It was one of a LONG list of strategic blunders you want to blame Obama for not being able to magically fix.

And yes, ISIS was able to gain strength because the former Baathist military leadership...WAS OUT OF WORK.

You responded and haven't even read the article.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

You responded and haven't even read the article.

Where's the spanking emoji ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

You responded and haven't even read the article.

Didn't need to. The involvement of former Iraqi military leadership in ISIS is well known...

[scottw]

Spence only reads the daily talking points...

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't need to. The involvement of former Iraqi military leadership in ISIS is well known...

Uh, I dunno if this fact is appreciated by the general public. They seem to have an impression of ISIS being jihadist radicals. Actually, the leadership isn't.

Hilldog was appointed Sec State in 2009.

The withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq finished up some time in December 2011.

ISIS didn't claim the Levant until 2013.

After WWII hostilities ceased, General Patton kept some Nazis in place to keep an interim government functioning. He caught a little flack for it but it worked out.

Before Bush left office all the libs here were screaming about how Iraq was a mistake and how Bush screwed it up. I don't know if the de baathification of Iraq was talked here (maybe) but ...

Both Obama and Hillary had plenty of time to fix this before ISIS became an issue. They had every opportunity to make simple fixes.

Hindsight is 20/20 ... but what does this tell you about Hillary's and Obozo's statecraft?

Iraqi Baathist officials were Sunni but largely secular. Wouldn't have been much of a stink to re-instate them.

They made the situation worse by withdrawing and doing nothing else.

Pathetic.

[fishpoopoo]

Great article in Mother Jones of all places. Remember we (secretly) started helping the rebels in 2013 to fight Assad. Which drew the civil war out and allowed ISIS to take advantage of the stalemate and vacuum in Syria.

Note the date of this article.

Hillary was secstate until 2013. CIA would not act without State's and WH's approval.

So, I ask again, what does this say of Hillary's statecraft?

If it's all Lurch's fault, what does this say about Obama's statecraft?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...aq-syria-assad

How the US Helped ISIS Grow Into a Monster

In his new book, Patrick Cockburn writes that America's failed strategy will only make ISIS stronger.

—By Patrick Cockburn

Thu Aug. 21, 2014

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website. This essay is excerpted from the first chapter of Patrick Cockburn's new book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, with special thanks to his publisher, OR Books. The first section is a new introduction written for TomDispatch.

There are extraordinary elements in the present US policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the US is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The US would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington's policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.

But US, Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a "moderate" Syrian opposition being helped by the US, Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.

The reality of US policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well. This has now happened.

By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the US has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.

Using the al-Qa'ida Label

The sharp increase in the strength and reach of jihadist organizations in Syria and Iraq has generally been unacknowledged until recently by politicians and media in the West. A primary reason for this is that Western governments and their security forces narrowly define the jihadist threat as those forces directly controlled by al-Qa'ida central or "core" al-Qa'ida. This enables them to present a much more cheerful picture of their successes in the so-called war on terror than the situation on the ground warrants.

In fact, the idea that the only jihadis to be worried about are those with the official blessing of al-Qa'ida is naïve and self-deceiving. It ignores the fact, for instance, that ISIS has been criticized by the al-Qa'ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for its excessive violence and sectarianism. After talking to a range of Syrian jihadi rebels not directly affiliated with al-Qa'ida in southeast Turkey earlier this year, a source told me that "without exception they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the US"

Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa'ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of US policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a "Southern Front" based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa'ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa'ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa'ida in Syria.

The name al-Qa'ida has always been applied flexibly when identifying an enemy. In 2003 and 2004 in Iraq, as armed Iraqi opposition to the American and British-led occupation mounted, US officials attributed most attacks to al-Qa'ida, though many were carried out by nationalist and Baathist groups. Propaganda like this helped to persuade nearly 60% of US voters prior to the Iraq invasion that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and those responsible for 9/11, despite the absence of any evidence for this. In Iraq itself, indeed throughout the entire Muslim world, these accusations have benefited al-Qa'ida by exaggerating its role in the resistance to the US and British occupation.

Precisely the opposite PR tactics were employed by Western governments in 2011 in Libya, where any similarity between al-Qa'ida and the NATO-backed rebels fighting to overthrow the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was played down. Only those jihadis who had a direct operational link to the al-Qa'ida "core" of Osama bin Laden were deemed to be dangerous. The falsity of the pretense that the anti-Gaddafi jihadis in Libya were less threatening than those in direct contact with al-Qa'ida was forcefully, if tragically, exposed when US ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by jihadi fighters in Benghazi in September 2012. These were the same fighters lauded by Western governments and media for their role in the anti-Gaddafi uprising.

Imagining al-Qa'ida as the Mafia

Al-Qa'ida is an idea rather than an organization, and this has long been the case. For a five-year period after 1996, it did have cadres, resources, and camps in Afghanistan, but these were eliminated after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Subsequently, al-Qa'ida's name became primarily a rallying cry, a set of Islamic beliefs, centering on the creation of an Islamic state, the imposition of sharia, a return to Islamic customs, the subjugation of women, and the waging of holy war against other Muslims, notably the Shia, who are considered heretics worthy of death. At the center of this doctrine for making war is an emphasis on self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a symbol of religious faith and commitment. This has resulted in using untrained but fanatical believers as suicide bombers, to devastating effect.

It has always been in the interest of the US and other governments that al-Qa'ida be viewed as having a command-and-control structure like a mini-Pentagon, or like the mafia in America. This is a comforting image for the public because organized groups, however demonic, can be tracked down and eliminated through imprisonment or death. More alarming is the reality of a movement whose adherents are self-recruited and can spring up anywhere.

Osama bin Laden's gathering of militants, which he did not call al-Qa'ida until after 9/11, was just one of many jihadi groups 12 years ago. But today its ideas and methods are predominant among jihadis because of the prestige and publicity it gained through the destruction of the Twin Towers, the war in Iraq, and its demonization by Washington as the source of all anti-American evil. These days, there is a narrowing of differences in the beliefs of jihadis, regardless of whether or not they are formally linked to al-Qa'ida central.

Unsurprisingly, governments prefer the fantasy picture of al-Qa'ida because it enables them to claim victories when it succeeds in killing its better known members and allies. Often, those eliminated are given quasi-military ranks, such as "head of operations," to enhance the significance of their demise. The culmination of this heavily publicized but largely irrelevant aspect of the "war on terror" was the killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad in Pakistan in 2011. This enabled President Obama to grandstand before the American public as the man who had presided over the hunting down of al-Qa'ida's leader. In practical terms, however, his death had little impact on al-Qa'ida-type jihadi groups, whose greatest expansion has occurred subsequently.


Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

The key decisions that enabled al-Qa'ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa'ida relied for its financing on "a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia."

The report's investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the US was facilitated by the US government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.

In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. But despite this private admission, the US and Western Europeans continued to remain indifferent to Saudi preachers whose message, spread to millions by satellite TV, YouTube, and Twitter, called for the killing of the Shia as heretics. These calls came as al-Qa'ida bombs were slaughtering people in Shia neighborhoods in Iraq. A sub-headline in another State Department cable in the same year reads: "Saudi Arabia: Anti-Shi'ism as Foreign Policy?" Now, five years later, Saudi-supported groups have a record of extreme sectarianism against non-Sunni Muslims.

Pakistan, or rather Pakistani military intelligence in the shape of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was the other parent of al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and jihadi movements in general. When the Taliban was disintegrating under the weight of US bombing in 2001, its forces in northern Afghanistan were trapped by anti-Taliban forces. Before they surrendered, hundreds of ISI members, military trainers, and advisers were hastily evacuated by air. Despite the clearest evidence of ISI's sponsorship of the Taliban and jihadis in general, Washington refused to confront Pakistan, and thereby opened the way for the resurgence of the Taliban after 2003, which neither the US nor NATO has been able to reverse.

The "war on terror" has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The US did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa'ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the US, closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the "war on terror" claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.

In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.

In other words, the "war on terror," the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.

Patrick Cockburn is Middle East correspondent for the Independent and worked previously for the Financial Times. He has written three books on Iraq's recent history as well as a memoir, The Broken Boy, and, with his son, a book on schizophrenia, Henry's Demons. He won the Martha Gellhorn Prize in 2005, the James Cameron Prize in 2006, and the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2009. His forthcoming book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, is now available exclusively from OR Books. This excerpt (with an introductory section written for TomDispatch) is taken from that book. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

[Clammer]

Not up to all the he said/ she did stuff ...can soneone answer why we won,t join the other nations in a joint effort to rid ISIS ????

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Clammer

Not up to all the he said/ she did stuff ...can soneone answer why we won,t join the other nations in a joint effort to rid ISIS ????

Because it doesn't jive with Obamas exit strategy of the Middle East. And he doesn't want to be blamed with creating more of a mess which is probably what will happen if we were to go back in there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Clammer

Not up to all the he said/ she did stuff ...can soneone answer why we won,t join the other nations in a joint effort to rid ISIS ????

Different priorities up until this point. Hopefully recent events will change that.

[Doover]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because it doesn't jive with Obamas exit strategy of the Middle East. And he doesn't want to be blamed with creating more of a mess which is probably what will happen if we were to go back in there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kissy? More of a mess? Nuclear Iran? You people are truly delusional!

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

Uh, I dunno if this fact is appreciated by the general public. They seem to have an impression of ISIS being jihadist radicals. Actually, the leadership isn't.

So we're not at war with jihadists? Somebody had better tell Jim.

Both Obama and Hillary had plenty of time to fix this before ISIS became an issue. They had every opportunity to make simple fixes.

Iraqi Baathist officials were Sunni but largely secular. Wouldn't have been much of a stink to re-instate them.

They made the situation worse by withdrawing and doing nothing else.

Not much of a stink to re-instate Baathist officials? That's beyond idealistic thinking. It's silly actually.

As for those "simple fixes." I assume you mean like unilateral involvement in the Syrian civil war? Letting US troops stay in Iraq governed by Iraqi law?

This is a big and complex issue without any easy fixes. Obama's policy may have been cautious and assumed the Iraqi's would actually use the equipment we gave them. But the flip side quickly puts us into another protracted and messy war largely isolated from the International community.

[Fly Rod]

[QUOTE=Clammer;1086787]Not up to all the he said/ she did stuff ...can soneone answer why we won,t join the other nations in a joint effort to rid ISIS ????[/

The present administration has no balls to do collateral damage(civilian casualties of a military operation.)....U C that from the other day, we send leaflets warning to get away from trucks,we will bomb in an hour also we bomb empty warehouses.....Russia on the other killed 600 in one bombing raid of oil supply depots....other then USA other nations kill people, US wants no part of that....we do not support the Kurds we give them antiquated weapons....we gave trucks, tanks etc: to the iragis who turned and retreated and isis ended up with them...should have given them to the Kurds.

Someone please tell spence this is obamas's war seven years worth...Bush is long gone....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So we're not at war with jihadists? Somebody had better tell Jim.


Not much of a stink to re-instate Baathist officials? That's beyond idealistic thinking. It's silly actually.

As for those "simple fixes." I assume you mean like unilateral involvement in the Syrian civil war? Letting US troops stay in Iraq governed by Iraqi law?

This is a big and complex issue without any easy fixes. Obama's policy may have been cautious and assumed the Iraqi's would actually use the equipment we gave them. But the flip side quickly puts us into another protracted and messy war largely isolated from the International community.

"As for those "simple fixes."

Or our d*ckhead-in-chief could have listened to all the military advisors, and there were planty of them, who begged him to get a SOF agreement with Iraq to leave behind a sufficient peacekeeping force to maintain trhe stability which Obama inherited, and then completely squandered. The Surge worked. Al Queda in Iraq, which was the precursor to ISIS, was crushed, defeated, gone.

Obama truly believed he could make these people like us by projecting moral superiority over the previous administration. When it didn't work, he had no other ideas, he was a one trick pony.

Here's how effective Obama is at foreign policy. The doctor who helped us get Bin Laden, is stuck in a goddamn Pakistani prison. Not only have we not demanded his release, we still send aid to these people? Either cut the aid until he is released, or have Seal Team 6 storm the prison. Get this doctor out, bring his family here, and give him the $25 million dollar reward he deserves.

After seeing this guy languish in prison, why the hell would anyone stick their necks out to help us?

How long, O lord?

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Fly Rod;1086824]

Originally Posted by Clammer

Not up to all the he said/ she did stuff ...can soneone answer why we won,t join the other nations in a joint effort to rid ISIS ????[/

The present administration has no balls to do collateral damage(civilian casualties of a military operation.)....U C that from the other day, we send leaflets warning to get away from trucks,we will bomb in an hour also we bomb empty warehouses.....Russia on the other killed 600 in one bombing raid of oil supply depots....other then USA other nations kill people, US wants no part of that....we do not support the Kurds we give them antiquated weapons....we gave trucks, tanks etc: to the iragis who turned and retreated and isis ended up with them...should have given them to the Kurds.

Someone please tell spence this is obamas's war seven years worth...Bush is long gone....

"The present administration has no balls to do collateral damage"

Correct. He probably spends half the day polishing the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded after he had been in office for what, 4 hours? He doesn't want ANYONE to think he doesn't deserve that, he's probably campaigning for another one.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Doover

Kissy? More of a mess? Nuclear Iran? You people are truly delusional!

I know you like to post gibberish, and I usually just ignore it, but I have to ask why do you call Obama Kissy? I keep looking for a news story about Henry Kissinger every time I see Kissy

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I know you like to post gibberish, and I usually just ignore it, but I have to ask why do you call Obama Kissy? I keep looking for a news story about Henry Kissinger every time I see Kissy

I ran into Henry Kissinger several years ago, literally.

Hopped off a bar stool at DCA and nearly bumped right into him. Security agent threw a nice pick and I changed my vector accordingly...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Or our d*ckhead-in-chief could have listened to all the military advisors,

That is a good one!

Your complementing yourself in another thread by saying something along the lines "my kids will never hear me throw the Fbomb" made me laugh and reinforced my view of what type of person you are.

POS, FCOTUS and now D*ckhead. miserable.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is a good one!

Your complementing yourself in another thread by saying something along the lines "my kids will never hear me throw the Fbomb" made me laugh and reinforced my view of what type of person you are.

POS, FCOTUS and now D*ckhead. miserable.

Paul, the man referred to people like me as "bitter clingers". He said that conservatives "gotta stop just hatin' all the time". Now, he says that we are all afraid of liberal media and 3 year-old orphans, and "that doesn't sound so tough" to him". Sorry, the man has made it abundantly clear what he thinks about white people who disagree with him, so he deserves no better. He is consistently dishonest, insulting, and hostile towards my ilk. When he treats my views with some minimum amount of respect, that's what he'll get from me.

I didn't use the f-bomb, and my kids don't know about this site. Zero hypocrisy.

The type of person I am, is one who has no inclination to make "fake nice" with people who always throw elbows at others, but cry like a baby when someone elbows back.

[Doover]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I know you like to post gibberish, and I usually just ignore it, but I have to ask why do you call Obama Kissy? I keep looking for a news story about Henry Kissinger every time I see Kissy

You funny Roundeye.

Goggle Butterfly McQueen.

I know EVERTHING bout birthin babies

[PaulS]

It is not about him, it is about you.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Doover

You funny Roundeye.

Goggle Butterfly McQueen.

I know EVERTHING bout birthin babies

Thanks, very helpful as to why you refer to Obama as Kissy.
She was the black maid in Gone with the Wind, is that part of the reason?

[Doover]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Thanks, very helpful as to why you refer to Obama as Kissy.
She was the black maid in Gone with the Wind, is that part of the reason?

Great, I am glad that I could lead you around by the nose to clarify this for you.

So you are objecting that this movie star WAS Black and OweBlamerLiar is only a Mulatto?

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

So we're not at war with jihadists?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1029274.html

In 2010, Bakr and a small group of former Iraqi intelligence officers made Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir and later "caliph," the official leader of the Islamic State. They reasoned that Baghdadi, an educated cleric, would give the group a religious face.

Bakr was "a nationalist, not an Islamist," says Iraqi journalist Hisham al-Hashimi, as he recalls the former career officer, who was stationed with Hashimi's cousin at the Habbaniya Air Base. "Colonel Samir," as Hashimi calls him, "was highly intelligent, firm and an excellent logistician."

Our country is at war with adversaries who are decidedly more intelligent and ruthless than the morons currently occupying the white house.

Our enemies are more savvy than the idiots who put said cretins into the white house.

ISIS leadership is not jihadist. They recruit and exploit nutbags who are to do the dirty work.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a big and complex issue without any easy fixes. Obama's policy may have been cautious and assumed the Iraqi's would actually use the equipment we gave them. But the flip side quickly puts us into another protracted and messy war largely isolated from the International community.

Look, Obama's and Hilldog's and Lurch's foreign policy in this regard have been an unmitigated disaster.

The results speak for themselves and the Europeans are pissed at us because the problem is spilling over into the continent. Russia feels like they have to step in because of "Obama's cautious policy." It was inept policy formed by inept leadership.

You are just rationalizing. Typical Obama apologist.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Doover

Great, I am glad that I could lead you around by the nose to clarify this for you.

So you are objecting that this movie star WAS Black and OweBlamerLiar is only a Mulatto?

I have no idea about that, this finishes your trip to my ignore list. Thanks for posting.

ps... I haven't seen that in a LONG time, but wasnt her name Prissy, not Kissy in the movie?

[fishpoopoo]

The Saudis sized up Obozo and saw this coming.

They're not dumb.