Obama Working To Get Allies For Air Strikes In Syria

by JASmius

Ah, yes, the "leading from behind" phase.  Or, "If ISIS is going to be attacked anywhere, we sure as hell aren't gonna be the ones doing it!"



"Conflicting White House signals".  I love that phrase.  It means they still can't get their lies and excuses straight.  I also love the phrase "forceful advocate for intervention" uttered in the same verbal vicinity as "John Kerry," the man who added the term "unbelievably small airstrikes" to the geopolitical lexicon.

Here's a question that nobody else appears to be asking: Why do we need a "coalition" to wipe out ISIS?  I know we don't have much of a military left and that we're outnumbered and outclassed by the Russians and the ChiComms by this point, but don't we still have a lot more military resources than any "ally" foolish enough to join an Obama "Coalition Of The Gullible"?  And that highlights the fact that we really don't have any allies left that trust us as far as they could throw Michelle's arms after the disses (e.g. of Israel), the betrayals (e.g. pulling the rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic on missile defense), the NSA spying (e.g. on Germany and other European states), etc.  Even if we did need a coalition, it's highly unlikely that O could ever put one together, because any solicitees know damn well that they're going to be left holding the proverbial bag.

Bottom line is, anybody who is loopy enough to believe that it's possible that Barack Obama will ever "lay out" a "comprehensive strategy" that deals with anything but his seven-stroke handicap needs to send me their contact information so I can talk them into sending me weekly wire transfers.