Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he has to backtrack, I don't think he'll care. Because it certainly won't be the first time he will have done so. And as before, he'll be unapologetic. Heck, maybe he'll even find a way to blame it on Republicans, or Bush!
I'm sure he'll find someone else to blame.
It certainly hasn't made headlines here that we trained and armed these ISIS extremists back in 2012 in secret training camps in Jordan. They were going to fight for us to take down Assad.
But now they've turned against us so we need to arm and train the next group of "moderate rebels" to fight for us.
The Incompetent Obama At Odds With His Generals In The War Against ISIS
You mean the generals who gave us glowing reports about the bang-up job they were doing training the Iraqi Army?
You know, the army that turned and ran away from their fight?
Those Generals?
As opposed to the prez who whose words just accumulate as unintelligible sounds, chronically lies and misleads and has demonstrated his colossal incompetence and disinterest in domestic and foreign affairs?
Simple enough. I'm not interested in what the general staff has to say beyond concocting battle plans. Otherwise they need to shut the hell up and mind their business. They don't make policy...they follow orders.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
YEP - that's why I called him General Obama. He constantly reminds us in his speeches that he is the "Commander in Chief" ..... but does he have either the experience or the knowledge to justify overruling all the "real" Generals?
You'd rather someone who BSs the people and says "we'll be greeted as liberators"?
He continually went against his generals concerning pulling out our troops in Iraq also. They told him we needed a 15,000 man stay behind force and told him that the Iraqi military was not yet even capable of defending their borders. but Obama had a campaign to win so he ignored his generals for cheap, temporary, expedient, domestic political gain.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padajo
Great, another war in Iraq, just what we need.
I'd like to know why we see so many of the same people who will gladly tell you "We're from the government, we're here to help" are the scariest words one can hear are so willing to send people from that very same government to other countries to allegedly help?
BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister strongly rejected the idea of the U.S. or other nations sending ground forces to his country to help fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, saying Wednesday that foreign troops are "out of the question."
BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister strongly rejected the idea of the U.S. or other nations sending ground forces to his country to help fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, saying Wednesday that foreign troops are "out of the question."
Obama DECIDED already.
He doesn't need to ask a country permission to put our boots on their ground.
We already have 1700 Special Ops and combat troops over there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
