The above is another addition to the "headlines I never thought I'd type" file. I mean, wasn't the ostensible purpose of last night's latest "historic" speech to....lay out the Obama Regime's anti-ISIS strategy? That's how it was billed. That's how the White House promoted it. So O gave a nationally-televised anti-ISIS strategy "historic" speech that did not actually lay out any strategy for defeating the Islamic State? And he thought we wouldn't notice if he made it windy enough?
Of course he would. Barack Obama still believes he is the master of all reality. That he speaks, and creation obeys. And at the very least, the LIVs and NIVs will believe any variety of BS that he shovels into their eager, slobbering mental maws. And he's probably still right about the latter.
But Republicans noticed:
Republicans supported President Barack Obama's pledge on Wednesday to "degrade and destroy" the Islamic State (ISIS), but slammed his speech to the American people for lacking specifics on how to eliminate the terrorist group that beheaded two U.S. journalists."
Of course it lacked specifics. This speech wasn't about making the case to the country for eradicating ISIS; it was about making it look like he's trying to eradicate ISIS. It was about making the ISIS crisis blow over, because it's the first crisis he's ever encountered that he couldn't politically exploit, so he has no use for it. It was about checking off the "ISIS" box. Because in his mind, words trump actions. He gives an anti-ISIS speech and BAM - problem solved, and he's off to the first tee.
One of these days, ladies and gents, you're going to stop expecting Barack Obama to act like an American president. At least I hope you will.
Hell, I hope you get the chance.
A speech is not the same thing as a strategy," said House Speaker John Boehner. "While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act."
No, Mr. Speaker, a speech is the same thing as a strategy. It is. Because the speech is the strategy. Not to defeat ISIS, but to get America off his back about it.
The Ohio-8 Republican added that he was concerned that Obama "appears to view the effort against [ISIS] as an isolated counterterrorism campaign, rather than as what it must be: an all-out effort to destroy an enemy that has declared a holy war against America and the principles for which we stand."
You mean like a war? Like President Bush saw it? Like anybody with two eyes and half a brain would see it? Wow, if only you weren't too stupid and "cynical" to glimpse, to recognize the bacon trees, money bushes, and unicorns pooping rainbow Skittles the world really does have to offer if only you wish hard enough, Mr. Speaker, like POTUS does. It is to weep.
"Obama is a great speech-giver," Representative Matt Salmon told Newsmax. "It's the follow-through I have problems with.
Indeed; so why do you keep expecting any?
"There's a lot of cynicism out there," the Arizona-5 Republican said. "We all believe that it is a top priority to completely eradicate any threat from ISIS and do whatever it takes, but a lot of us are very, very sick and tired of the speeches that don't really translate into any real meaningful action."
Apparently there's not too much cynicism out there, or Barack Obama wouldn't keep getting electoral mulligans.
New York-4 RINO Representative Peter King praised Obama for developing "a strategy to defeat ISIS, but I'm disappointed that he continues to say what he's not going to do.
King "praised Obama for developing a strategy to defeat ISIS" that he did not disclose or explain. Hence, the "RINO" appellation.
"It's the right goal, but he gets too defensive by saying that he's not going to use combat troops," King told Newsmax. "I also felt that his heart wasn't really in it."
Strategies aren't about goals, but how to achieve them. Of course, O proclaimed the right goal - that was for public consumption. He didn't explain how he was going to attain that goal because he has no intention of doing so, which is why the only thing he did explain is what he is not going to do - re-invade Iraq and roll American tanks into Syria, as should have been done over a decade ago - because that is what it would take to actually defeat the Islamic State.
It is, as John Boehner helpfully pointed out, a war. And Barack Obama does not fight wars, he ends them. Don't believe me? Just ask him.
Our jihadist enemies fight wars, though. Oh, my, yes. They never stop fighting us, as a matter of fact. And more of them are arriving on our soil every single day, which you can discern from the Obama Regime's typical attempt to grotesquely downplay it:
[The] Islamic State [has] discussed infiltrating the U.S. through its southern border with Mexico, a U.S. official said.
Francis Taylor, under [Commissar] for intelligence and analysis at the [Commissariat] of Homeland Security, told a Senate committee today that the Sunni [Muslim]s have been tracked discussing the idea on social-media sites such as Twitter.
“There have been Twitter and social-media exchanges among ISI[S] adherents across the globe speaking about that as a possibility,” Taylor said in response to a question from Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. Islamic State is also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS.
Referring to the 1,933-mile (3,110-kilometer) boundary with Mexico, Taylor said he was “satisfied that we have the intelligence and the capability at our border that would prevent that activity.”
An underling of a Regime that has, as a matter of deliberate policy, erased that 1,933-mile border, that has overwhelmed the Border Patrol with a deliberate scheme that triggered a passive invasion of hundreds of thousands of diseased migrants, nearly half of which were and are "OTMs"....
....is "satisfied that we have the intelligence and the capability at our border that would prevent that activity".
Well, that's good enough for me! How ab
No comments:
Post a Comment