Gen. Martin Dempsey,Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Says … US May Send in Ground Troops to Fight ISIS (Video)
BOOTS ON THE GROUND … I THOUGHT THAT OBAMA SAID THERE WOULD BE NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND?
Foreign policy from the Divider in Chief, even the military and WH are divided …
Barack Obama said emphatically that the US would put no boots on the ground against ISIS, not so fast. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday that the United States may send in ground troops if they are needed to defeat ISIS. Gen. Dempsey stated, that he hasn’t ruled out recommending U.S. ground forces deploy to attack ISIS targets if the current air campaign in Iraq fails. Dempsey said that Obama might reconsider boots on the ground and come back to him on a case by case basis. Oops. That is a much different message than Obama is trying to show in public to his left-wing, moonbat base.
ABC NEWS: US Troops Could Fight ISIS in Iraq
The nation’s top military officer opened the door slightly today to the possibility of American troops accompanying Iraqi forces on the battlefield against ISIS if needed.
The latest deployment of 475 American forces to Iraq includes 150 advisers who will be working closely with Iraqi brigades at the headquarters level to coordinate the Iraqi military’s offensive operations against ISIS.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the advisers “will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate coalition contributions.”
He told the committee that he currently does not see a need for American troops to serve as JTAC’s with Iraqi units, though he could change his recommendation as events warranted.
Dempsey said that Gen. Lloyd Austin, who oversees U.S. Central Command, had initially recommended using American JTAC’s with the Iraqi and Kurdish forces that retook the Mosul Dam last month, but ended up using work-around technologies. Dempsey said he does not currently see the need to embed the controllers with Iraqi forces, “but I’m not walking away from what I said. If we get to the point where I think we need the JTAC with the Iraqi security forces, I will make the recommendation.”
At least it was ironclad until Tuesday, when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of Congress he hasn’t ruled out recommending U.S. ground forces deploy to attack ISIS targets if the current air campaign in Iraq fails.
“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President,” Dempsey said.
NBC/WSJ Poll: Large Majority of Americans Support Barack Obama Mission to Destroy ISIS, But Have No Confidence That He Can Do So
THIS IS WHY YOU NEVER ELECT, LET ALONE REELECT A COMMUNITY AGITATOR TO BE PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF … A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.
It is a sad state of affairs in the White House these days and the people have lost confidence in President Barack Obama. In the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, although 62% of voters say that they support Obama’s decision to take action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, however, even more, 68%, say they have little to some confidence that he can reach his goals of degrading and eliminating ISIS. Sadly, that seems to be Obama’s own opinion as well with his mixed messages and a plan that counts on premises that he was against just months ago.
It is hard to win a war on terror when you cannot even bring yourself to say it.
Nearly 70 percent of Americans say they lack confidence that the U.S. will achieve its goals in fighting the terrorist group ISIS, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll. The findings come in the wake of President Barack Obama’s national address announcing new measures to combat the Sunni militants.
Pressure is mounting on the U.S. and its allies to cripple the militants, who have waged a brutal campaign across Syria and Iraq. ISIS already has beheaded two American journalists and on Saturday released a video showing the execution of a third Westerner, British aid worker David Haines.
The poll – conducted before the latest execution emerged – showed that a combined 68 percent of Americans say they have “very little” or “just some” confidence that Obama’s goals of degrading and eliminating the threat posed by ISIS will be achieved. Just 28 percent said they had “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence. Still, 62 percent of voters say they support Obama’s decision to take action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, while 22 percent oppose it.
The NBC/WSJ poll also shows that just 38% of voters approve of Obama’s job in handling foreign policy.Which is actually higher than the most recent FOX News poll that has Obama’s approval rating in dealing with foreign police at 34% approve and 59% disapprove.
Posted September 14, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
America - United States, Barack Obama, Bystander in Chief, Community Agitator, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, ISIS, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Islamofascist, Jihad, Leading from Behind, Misleader, NBC/WSJ Poll, Polls, Radical Islam, Terrorism, War on Terror | 8 comments
Barack Obama’s 9-10-14 Full Speech on ISIS … Wrong President at the Wrong Time: From the Jayvee Team to America’s Greatest Terror Threat
SORRY, OBAMA LOST ME AT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF MY HIGHEST PRIORITY IS THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OKAY REALLY IT WAS AT MY FELLOW AMERICANS
Lying to the American people and playing politics with healthcare, the IRS and jobs is bad enough, but lies and playing politics with terrorism kills.
Barack Hussein Obama is the wrong president at the wrong time with a speech that many feel are just more words. Let’s get serious folks, it was WE THE PEOPLE who forced Barack Obama, kicking and screaming, to speak to the American people with regards to the terror threats of ISIS. The only reason why Obama addressed the American people was because of his sinking poll numbers of terrorism and foreign policy. In gaffe after gaffe, or in Obama’s case, how he really felt, Obama claimed that ISIS offered no threat, they were just the jayvee. As ISIS ravaged innocent men, women and children he stood back and did nothing. As ISIS created a caliphate and took over lands in Syria and Iraq, Obama did nothing. Isis beheads an American journalist and Obama says bad things have always happened, its just the media and social media that make more out of it today. Then when Obama first presents what he will do to ISIS he admits he has no strategy and then when he comes up with one it is to make ISIS a “manageable problem”. WTF!!!
So now Barack Obama provides us with more words, little details and a 180 on so many of his own words, policies and principles, it makes anyone’s head spin, even Democrats and liberals. Just curious, since when has the core principle of Obama’s presidency been, if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. REALLY? Did Obama also provide Yemen and Somalia as examples of successes against terrorism? Hold the phone, did Obama just say that ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel and facilities? Mr. President, you said ISIS was the jayvee. You dismissed them as not a threat and not on par with Al-Qaeda and now they are a threat to all, including America? Then what might be the flip-flops of all times, Obama states that there will be no American boots on the ground, but instead we will reply on Syrian opposition fighters. The very people that President Barack Obama once derided as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth” are now form a key pillar of the U.S. leader’s strategy to beat back the militant insurgency known as Islamic State. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The White House (CNN) — My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.
As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counter-terrorism professionals, America is safer.
Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the “Islamic State.”
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.
In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.
So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners — including Europeans and some Americans — have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
WELCOME TO OBAMA IN WONDERLAND …
The tin-pot dictator Barack Obama told Congressional leaders he does not need their vote to wage war against ISIS. Isn’t that rich. Even when so many are on board with collectively annihilating ISIS and it is Obama who has been pulled into this kicking and screaming, the president took the opportunity to do what he does best, be negative and divisive. With the polls showing that an overwhelming majority think that Obama has been to lax in dealing with
ISIL ISIS and want more action taken against the terror group. So why no vote? Isn’t this the same president who for 6 years has been bitching and moaning about no bipartisanship in Washington? Is this a matter of Obama wanting to go it alone because he is a narcissist, is it because he does not want to show the optic ever of Democrats and the GOP coming together on any issue, or is it because he does not want liberal Democrats to have to vote for war ahead of the 2014 midterms and upset their radical left-wing base?
This is what happens when you have a president that does everything with a political taint to it, rather than what is best for America.
President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists.
The president offered the assurance one day before a prime-time address he’s scheduled to give to the nation.
The president is also weighing the possibility of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria, as well as asking the United Nations to pass a binding resolution requiring governments to prevent the flow of foreign fighters to the region.
While Obama told the House and Senate leaders he would welcome congressional action that demonstrates a unified front, the president told the bipartisan group “he has the authority he needs to take action against (ISIS) in accordance with the mission he will lay out in his address,” according to the White House.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called on Obama to better clarify his strategy this week, and the White House has said the president will offer a frank “assessment of this critical national security priority.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest cautioned that the address would not provide a timeline for the military campaign, nor was Obama expected to outline costs for the operation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is emerging as the most outspoken congressional leader pushing for a vote on President Barack Obama’s plan to take on the Islamic State, even as the White House insists the president already has authority to take on the militant group.
On Tuesday, McConnell aggressively called on Obama to back a vote in Congress on his military strategy before the November elections, which will pit the GOP leader against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in a pivotal race that could determine control of the Senate.
“He really ought to ask for our support, whether or not he may think he’s authorized to do what he intends to do. I think it’s in his best interest,” McConnell told a reporter.
And Democratic leaders are also trying to stay out of the fray, though some rank-and-file Democrats in the Senate are agitating for a roll call on continued airstrikes in Iraq or an expansion into Syria.
FLASHBACK 2007 … However, that was not always the case. The Gateway Pundit reminds us of Obama, in his own words, criticizing GWB in 2007 for actually going to Congress and getting approval as opposed to Obama who says he does not need Congress to wage for on ISIS. HUH? Bush followed the War Powers Ac in Iraq and that is not good enough for then, Senator Obama. My how times have changed. Hear Obama criticize how the president, Congress and the MSM have failed the American people. Did he just say that the MSM reported spin instead of facts? Seriously?
Barack Obama’s Gutless Meandering on ISIL: From Promises of “Degrade and Destroy” to a “Manageable Problem” all in One Speech
AND YOU WONDER WHY ISIS OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD DOES NOT FEAR THE US … THANKS BARACK OBAMA.
Yet another heading shaking speech for Barack Obama in reaction to ISIS … Barack Obama spoke earlier this morning in Estonia and once again made an attempt to address dealing with ISIS as he failed miserably last week with his, “we have no strategy” comment. This time Obama began by saying ...”Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL, so that it is no longer a threat”. Tough talk from a paper tiger who has done nothing but dither on ISIS and refuse to say that we are at war against them as they (ISIL) are most certainly at war against the United States. However, Obama’s lack of a strategy in dealing with ISIS and his definition of clear are a mystery to the rest of us. Yet again Obama presented a mixed message as he went from promises of bringing ISIS to justice and to “degrade and destroy” them to at the speech’s end saying that ISIS a “manageable problem” if the “international community” comes together. WOW, yet more lack of leadership from Obama.
A manageable problem? What’s that mean, only foreign media will be beheaded? Is it manageable Mr. President if ISIS only rapes and kills 10 women and children a day rather than 20? Or maybe Obama will manage the number of individuals who are stones to death or he are shot in the head by ISIS for not converting to Islam? Maybe it’s manageable if ISIS only creates a caliphate of 3/4th of Iraq and Syria, rather than all of it?
Sorry Obama, under your dithering presidency, our objective has been never less clear. His speech was nothing but a cautious speech that rang hollow. Okay, I am just going to put the obvious out there … if your OBJECTIVE is to DESTROY ISIS, why in the HELL would you need to MANAGE IT? What is our mission, to crush them or contain them!!! What a clear message from Obama.
“We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISILl’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem,” said Obama.
“And the question is going to be making sure we’ve got the right strategy but also making sure we’ve got the international will to do it. This is something that is a continuation of a problem we’ve seen certainly since 9/11, but before and it continues to metastasize in different ways. And what we’ve got to do is make sure that we are organizing the Arab world, the Middle East, the Muslim world, along with the internationl community to isolate this cancer.
“This particular brand of extremism that is first and foremost destructive to the Muslim world and the Arab World and North Africa and the people who live there. They’re the ones who are most severly affected. They’re the ones who are constantly under threat of being killed. They’re the ones whose econimies are completely upended to the point where they can’t produce their own food and they can’t produce the kinds of goods and services to sell in the world marketplace.
“And they’re falling behind because of this very small and narrow but very dangerous segment of the population. And we’ve got to combat it in a sustained, effective way. And I’m confident we’re going to be able to do that.”
Needless to say ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Putin, Iran, North Korea and the rest of the enemies of the US are wetting themselves laughing at you and US.
WHEN IT ALL ENDS OBAMA WILL BE THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY …
According to the most recent Gallup poll, Barack Obama’s “strongly disapproval” rating is more than double that of his “strong approval” one. Republicans have gone from 58% strongly disapprove in 2009 to 75% strongly disapprove in 2014. However, the real story may be in the disillusionment of Democrats. In 2009, 65% of Democrats had a strong approval of the Obamamessiah but in 2004 that percentage has dropped to 38%. It would appear that Barack Obama was not the one that they had been waiting for.
Americans are more than twice as likely to say they “strongly disapprove” (39%) of President Barack Obama’s job performance as they are to say they “strongly approve” (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.
In the first year of Obama’s presidency, the percentages of Americans who had strong views about the job he was doing were essentially tied, but the strongly negative responses now significantly outweigh the strongly positive ones. The largest segment of Americans today, 39%, strongly disapprove of Obama’s job performance, while 14% moderately disapprove. Another 27% moderately approve, while 17% strongly approve.
Strong disapproval of the president’s job performance has been within 30% to 39% the four times Gallup has asked the question — in 2009, 2010, 2011, and now this year — but has risen by five percentage points since 2011, and by nine points since the first month Obama was in office. At the same time, strong approval has fallen by nine points in the last three years, and by 15 points since January 2009.
WHO IS THE JAYVEE MR PRESIDENT … MORE FROM AMERICA’S WORST PRESIDENT, EVER!!!
UNBELIEVABLE … President Barack Hussein Obama admitted during his speech yesterday that “WE DO NOT HAVE A STRATEGY YET” to deal with ISIS. JUST UNREAL. ISIS terrorists have been slaughtered innocent victims, taking over city after city in Syria and Iraq in the most brutal fashion. They just brutally murdered another couple hundred Syrian soldiers this week and beheaded American journalist James Foley . But instead Obama says he does not don’t want to put the cart before the horse. Get of the friggin golf course Obama and do your job. How unprepared, how detached, how derelict of their duty could a president possibly be? Just how dangerous could one president possibly be? And this clown had the audacity to call ISIS the Jayvee … Obama may want to look in the mirror and see he the real jayvee team consists of.
But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet. I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are. And I think that’s not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military, as well. We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard.
But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.
And Obama continues to dither.
More from Powerline, STRATEGY, WHAT STRATEGY?
And yet, by Obama’s own account, he has barely begun the process of developing a strategy to combat ISIL. How can this be? Well, from August 9 until August 25, he was on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard–apparently not the traditional presidential “working vacation.” Before that, who knows? Was there something that Obama had to do between June and the present that was more important than developing a strategy to stop the terrorist organization that was marauding across Iraq and Syria? Apparently so. Fundraising, most likely–the one thing Obama is good at.
The fact that we have arrived at this late date, and our president says “We don’t have a strategy yet,” testifies to the utter fecklessness and incompetence of the Obama administration.
Pew Research/USA Today Poll: African Americans Think Race Relations Have Gotten Worse Since 2009 Under Barack Obama
WHO DIDN’T SEE THIS COMING FROM A COMMUNITY AGITATOR …
Wasn’t the election of Barack Obama supposed to make everything better in the United States, including race relation? Wasn’t the election of the first black president supposed to bridge the divide between races? Well a recent Pew Research/USA Today poll says, not so much, especially among blacks. The poll shows that blacks have a 64% positive view of relations between the races, down 12 points from 76% in 2009. Hmm, I guess an Obama administration of perpetual dividing and race baiting would do that.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center and USA TODAY, conducted August 20 -24 among 1, 501 adults, finds that overall perceptions of relations between blacks and
whites are only modestly changed from five years ago.
Currently, 69% of the public, including majorities of both whites (75%) and blacks (64%), say blacks and whites in this country get along “very well” or “pretty well.” Since
2009, the share of blacks with a positive view of relations between the races has fallen 12 points (from 76% to 64%) while remaining largely unchanged among whites (80% in 2009).
Full poll can be read HERE.
From the WAPO: Blacks give police lower marks than whites.
Barack Obama Sends More White House Officials to Michael Brown’s Funeral than Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Funeral … Add Maj. Gen. Harold Greene & photo-journalist James Foley to the List
Sometimes a headline just says it all … What else would One expect from a Community Agitator?
Fox News reports, that the Obama administration sent more White House officials to the Michael Brown funeral than they did for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Hmm, Michael Brown, Margaret Thatcher … Michael Brown, Margaret Thatcher. Which one was more historic and important to America, let alone the world? It is just head-shaking the contempt this individual has and over-riding political agenda
The White House sent three officials to attend Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown in St. Louis — three more than it sent for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral last year.
The administration’s handling of the Brown funeral already has started to raise comparisons between the two.
For Monday’s funeral, the White House sent two officials with the White House Office of Public Engagement as well as Broderick Johnson, chairman of the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force.
No White House officials, though, were part of the presidential delegation sent last year to Thatcher’s funeral. For that, the White House sent former secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker III — as well as the charge d’affaires to the U.K. and the former U.S. ambassador.
At the time, the nature of the delegation stirred controversy in the British media as tabloids claimed British officials felt snubbed that high-level American officials — including President Obama himself — were not attending.
How many do you think they sent to Maj. Gen. Harold Greene, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer killed in combat since the Vietnam War? Hint, Obama, the so-called Commander in Chief was not there, he was too busy with his vacation. How many did Obama send to the funeral of murdered American photo-journalist James Foley?
President Barack Obama sent no White House representative to the memorial Mass held yesterday in Rochester, New Hampshire, for James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) terrorists.
President Obama, however, did send three White House aides to Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African American fatally shot in an encounter with a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo.
GAO Oversight Report: Obama Administration Broke the Law by Freeing 5 Taliban Terrorists in Exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
Barack Obama, The Law Breaker in Chief …
The GAO, Government Accountability Office, issued a report that concluded that the Obama Administration broke federal law when it released five Taliban prisoners from GITMO in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl without notifying Congress in advance. According to the GAO, the Pentagon “violated” the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act “when it transferred five senior Taliban prisoners to Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. The GAO also found that the DOD violated the “Antideficiency Act,” which prevents unauthorized government expenditures. As Hot Air opines, many Democrats in Congress spent much of the summer dismissing Republicans’ claims as partisan and even callous, preferring to focus on the return of an American soldier held captive rather than the politically expedient removal of the “Taliban Five” from American custody. Now we know what many had suspected and alleged … The Obama Administration broke the law.
The Obama administration violated federal law when it released five senior Taliban leaders from prison without notifying Congress, as is legally mandated, according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The GAO concluded in a report issued Thursday that the Obama administration failed to provide proper notification of the Taliban release and illegally used taxpayer funds that were not appropriated to enable the inmate transfer, according to the report.
The Obama administration in May secretly struck a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan to free from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba five of its top leaders in exchange for the return of captured U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was later accused by fellow soldiers of having deserted the Army prior to his capture.
The Pentagon was found to have “violated” the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act “when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees,” according to the report.
Barack Obama 5 for 1 swap was already on the wrong side with the American people and their belief that it was wrong to release 5 senior Taliban individuals in exchange for what many believe to be a military deserter, now we find Obama is on the wrong side of the law as well.