Republicans assail Obama on ISIS - despite similarities

[webfact]

Republicans assail Obama on ISIS - despite similarities
By STEVE PEOPLES

WASHINGTON (AP) — Minutes after a solemn President Barack Obama spelled out his plans to protect Americans from terrorism, Marco Rubio declared that he "may have made things worse." Jeb Bush called the president "weak" and his approach "business as usual." And Donald Trump declared on Twitter, "We need a new President - FAST!"

Yet beneath their harsh rhetoric lies a fundamental political reality: Few in the Republican Party's 2016 class would break significantly with the Democratic president's approach to combating the Islamic State group. The avalanche of Republican criticism that continued Monday focused on the president's tone, his word choice and the fine points of his plans — not in most cases the specific policy prescriptions he presented in his address from the Oval Office Sunday night.

Bush, in an MSNBC interview, twice acknowledged that he agreed with the president's approach in specific areas. Still, he chided Obama's planning for lacking "the intensity that's necessary."

"He needed to persuade people that our fears will subside when we're engaged actively in the destruction of ISIS, and from there you would have a strategy that would be much more comprehensive," said Bush. He then outlined a plan to strengthen the existing U.S. effort to train local forces and engage Sunni tribal leaders.


Like Obama, most of the GOP's White House hopefuls oppose the use of many U.S. ground troops, preferring instead to send a limited number of special forces to train and support anti-Islamic State forces in the region. Like Obama, they support an aggressive air campaign to bomb the Islamic State group — and its reliance on oil revenue — across Iraq and Syria.

There are specific differences in some cases — most notably on the GOP's support (shared by Democratic contender Hillary Clinton) for a no-fly zone in Syria. But on a broader U.S. approach to taking on ISIS in the Middle East, leading Republicans have more in common than not with the president they hope to replace.

Rubio, when asked how he'd differ from Obama, focused on style rather than substance: "First, we would be straight forward and honest with the American people," the first-term Florida senator said on Fox News. "ISIS is a growing, significant and very serious threat. They're not contained."

Rubio opposes a significant increase in U.S. ground troops, instead calling for "a substantial ground army that needs to be made up primarily of Sunni Arabs from the region." He says that force would "need American special operators, a significant increase in air support, and we will have to beef up our intelligence programs."

Bush called last month for sending U.S. troops to the Middle East but was not specific on numbers and said, "The bulk of these ground troops will need to come from local forces that we have built workable relationships with."

The Obama administration last week announced plans to expand the U.S. special operations force in Iraq and Syria to help fight Islamic State militants. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the expeditionary force would be more than 50 but would not be more specific. Other U.S. officials said the number would be about 100.

There currently are about 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq, and Obama had previously announced he was sending fewer than 50 special operations forces to Syria.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who appears to be rising in the polls, echoed Rubio's charge that the bombing effort isn't aggressive enough.

Cruz, while campaigning in South Carolina on Monday, said the air campaign against the ISIS militants is a "photo op foreign policy." He promised in an earlier radio interview to "carpet-bomb them into oblivion." He also supports sending arms directly to the ethnic Kurds to help defeat ISIS fighters.

The Obama administration is already taking steps on both fronts.

Altogether, fighter jets, bombers, attack planes and drones are dropping an average of 2,228 bombs per month on Islamic State targets: training camps, machine gun positions, oil facilities, weapons shacks and more. The Pentagon says it doesn't do body counts, but the attacks are believed to have killed upward of 20,000 ISIS fighters. The U.S. price tag: $5 billion since August 2014.

The United States also has begun more aggressive airstrikes against the oil infrastructure in Syria that produces a large share of the Islamic State group's revenue.

And the Pentagon says it is already arming ethnic Kurds in Iraq in a way that allows the Iraqi government to see the contents and give customs approval. The reason for letting the Iraqi government sign off on the shipments, Carter said, is to show U.S. support for a multisectarian central government in Baghdad.

Absent significant policy differences, many Republicans have seized on Obama's tone.

"The attitude has to be different," retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday. "We have to have a commander in chief who is willing to come out forcefully against this so that the American people have confidence that something is being done."

Carson said he would focus on "using the banking system and all the monetary mechanisms available" against terrorists, but he didn't elaborate on how he would differ from Obama's policy.

Trump had promised to provide live commentary about Obama's speech on Twitter, but offered little as it unfolded. He seemed disappointed. "Is that all there is?" he tweeted.

Trump also questioned the president's use of the acronym "ISIL" in describing Islamic State militants and, like other Republican candidates, continued to criticize Obama's refusal to use the term "radical Islamic terrorists."
___

Associated Press writers Robert Burns in Washington; Bill Barrow in Greenville, South Carolina; Jill Colvin in Newark, New Jersey, and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-08

[ezzra]

Obama, to paraphrase the words of Jack Nicholson in a few good men ' can't handle the truth '

that radical jihadist Muslims are at war with the US and other countries around the world,

he still refuses to admit and acknowledge that radical Muslims is a huge problem and want

to defeat them with climate change and ignorance......

[Usernames]

Why are people still asking Bush about anything. He's done. Bush and Rubio are a couple of limp noodles.

[Berkshire]

This is what I've said all along: the Republicans criticize Obama, yet, they have no real solutions. Only hyperbole and empty promises. What a joke the GOP has become.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not a Trump fan, but he does have a way of stating the obvious.

And Donald Trump declared on Twitter, "We need a new President - FAST!"

[NeverSure]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

[Andaman Al]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

Just as Dr Frankenstein found it difficult to kill his own monster creation, why would the USA want to eradicate ISIS?

[casualbiker]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

Surely ISIL means exactly that! You would have to be an idiot with your head stuck in the sand if you thought differently! It's not as if he has ever said that they are NOT a threat or that they are the Arabic arm of the Mary Poppins fan club!

[seedy]

Troll / Flaming post hidden

[Ulic]

If Republicans do it, it is good if Democrats do it ,it is bad. Just look at

Romney-care/ Obama care.

[chuckd]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

This analysis from his speech out today...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Spends 27 Percent Of Speech Scolding Americans On Guns, Racism; 8 Percent On ISIS Threat

STEVE GUEST

Media Reporter

12:04 PM 12/07/2015

President Barack Obama spent nearly 20 percent of his Oval Office address on terrorism to urge Americans not to be racist, about twice as long as he took to describe the threat of ISIS.

In the third Oval Office address of his presidency Sunday, Obama spoke for 1,910 words. He spent 372 words telling Americans not to discriminate against Muslims, compared to 160 words directly referencing the threat of ISIS.

Obama used an additional 131 words, roughly 7 percent of the speech, to talk about the need for stricter gun laws.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/07/obama-spends-a-quarter-of-speech-scolding-americans-on-guns-racism/#ixzz3tioelNNZ

[Srikcir]

In response to Trump's incomprehensible tweet, one can only ask, "Is that all there is?"

[casualbiker]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

This analysis from his speech out today...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Spends 27 Percent Of Speech Scolding Americans On Guns, Racism; 8 Percent On ISIS Threat

STEVE GUEST

Media Reporter

12:04 PM 12/07/2015

President Barack Obama spent nearly 20 percent of his Oval Office address on terrorism to urge Americans not to be racist, about twice as long as he took to describe the threat of ISIS.

In the third Oval Office address of his presidency Sunday, Obama spoke for 1,910 words. He spent 372 words telling Americans not to discriminate against Muslims, compared to 160 words directly referencing the threat of ISIS.

Obama used an additional 131 words, roughly 7 percent of the speech, to talk about the need for stricter gun laws.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/07/obama-spends-a-quarter-of-speech-scolding-americans-on-guns-racism/#ixzz3tioelNNZ

possibly because for America the threat of home grown extremists (terrorists) or should I say the mentally ill gun owners is ACTUALLY a bigger threat to America than ISIS or Daesh. Daesh can/could be contained and would eventually dissolve and disappear. But honestly would you allow a foreign country to bomb YOUR country WITHOUT doing something about it?

[notmyself]

Why will the senate not vote on the entire issue?

[chuckd]

Why will the senate not vote on the entire issue?

Not enough Republican votes for cloture of a Democrat filibuster.

[Credo]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

This analysis from his speech out today...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Spends 27 Percent Of Speech Scolding Americans On Guns, Racism; 8 Percent On ISIS Threat

STEVE GUEST

Media Reporter

12:04 PM 12/07/2015

President Barack Obama spent nearly 20 percent of his Oval Office address on terrorism to urge Americans not to be racist, about twice as long as he took to describe the threat of ISIS.

In the third Oval Office address of his presidency Sunday, Obama spoke for 1,910 words. He spent 372 words telling Americans not to discriminate against Muslims, compared to 160 words directly referencing the threat of ISIS.

Obama used an additional 131 words, roughly 7 percent of the speech, to talk about the need for stricter gun laws.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/07/obama-spends-a-quarter-of-speech-scolding-americans-on-guns-racism/#ixzz3tioelNNZ

possibly because for America the threat of home grown extremists (terrorists) or should I say the mentally ill gun owners is ACTUALLY a bigger threat to America than ISIS or Daesh. Daesh can/could be contained and would eventually dissolve and disappear. But honestly would you allow a foreign country to bomb YOUR country WITHOUT doing something about it?

The husband was born in the US and his wife was born in Pakistan but raised in Saudi Arabia. Which one of those countries has the US bombed?

[casualbiker]

^^^ They are properly criticizing Obama for refusing to call those people radical Islamic terrorists and to deal with them as something that must be wiped out. Until we do that there is no hope. If you don't properly identify the enemy you can't fight it.

This analysis from his speech out today...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Spends 27 Percent Of Speech Scolding Americans On Guns, Racism; 8 Percent On ISIS Threat

STEVE GUEST

Media Reporter

12:04 PM 12/07/2015

President Barack Obama spent nearly 20 percent of his Oval Office address on terrorism to urge Americans not to be racist, about twice as long as he took to describe the threat of ISIS.

In the third Oval Office address of his presidency Sunday, Obama spoke for 1,910 words. He spent 372 words telling Americans not to discriminate against Muslims, compared to 160 words directly referencing the threat of ISIS.

Obama used an additional 131 words, roughly 7 percent of the speech, to talk about the need for stricter gun laws.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/07/obama-spends-a-quarter-of-speech-scolding-americans-on-guns-racism/#ixzz3tioelNNZ

possibly because for America the threat of home grown extremists (terrorists) or should I say the mentally ill gun owners is ACTUALLY a bigger threat to America than ISIS or Daesh. Daesh can/could be contained and would eventually dissolve and disappear. But honestly would you allow a foreign country to bomb YOUR country WITHOUT doing something about it?

The husband was born in the US and his wife was born in Pakistan but raised in Saudi Arabia. Which one of those countries has the US bombed?

Pakistan. Also I don't think that the authorities have ACTUALLY confirmed motives yet. Have they? Edited December 8, 2015 by casualbiker

[notmyself]

Why will the senate not vote on the entire issue?

Not enough Republican votes for cloture of a Democrat filibuster.

Sometimes I like to play and have fun but it was actually a serious question.

[arjunadawn]

The byline as well as the article are disingenuous. The number one thing opponents of Obama are calling for is the single thing paid lip service to in this article, intentionally I assert. The failure to define a thing disables any meaningful addressing of it. This is a core component of Buddhism, Hinduism, Logic, Linguistics, Psychology, etc. In fact, humans could never exist in the material world without a process of subject object identification.

Things in the material space exist as a direct consequence of labels, and language- irrespective of what that language is. By disassembling and obfuscating Obama intentional plays into the public mind space a narrative that is divorced from reality. At a certain point people become unhinged, as their observations of the external world conclude something markedly different than Obama's narrative. People are reaching the only conclusions objective facts can provide- Apples fall from... Apple trees.

Besides the fact that there are a few other observations for dealing with IS that the author here failed to address all have the foundation of requiring the threat to be named. This is about as cryptic and iconic as "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." This will go down as one of the greatest deceits of intention of incompetence ever. Obama's disassociation of facts can actually not be taken at face value- the assertion that in so naming a thing for what it is we fuel the legitimacy of that which we war against as shadow. Inspect it. What has his position yielded? Know a thing then by its fruit.

IS legitimacy is not remotely hindered by allowing it to thrive in shadows rather than the light of naming it; it born of shadows, keeping it there aids it. IS holds more ground now then many countries. The larger muslim population is not remotely phased or protected by not so naming this shadow threat, this "Jayvee team." In fact, increasingly, the single result of not naming "islamic terrorism" "Islamic terrorism" results in increasing hostility toward... the larger muslim population. This is demonstrated now, and was predictable; it is almost as if this were the goal. An idiot could have extrapolated the end of this policy of existing in shadows- the larger muslim community will actually be isolated, and further insulated from scrutiny. Couple this with the other mentioned, though equally ignored issue as well- IS versus ISIL- and the plot darkens. IS does not constitute the greater Levant, it reflects the Sham. However, ISIL specifically names a thing which has as its core the Levant, Israel. It is inescapable. Obama's devotion to naming a thing like the Levant but disavowing the self evident should be quite alarming, if not dubious.

Others can debate Obama's intention what is not debatable is the results of his efforts. Every single thing Obama has touched during his years in office has empowered jihad! There is not one single index that would reveal otherwise. Under Obama both shia and sunni foundations have been laid for a bipolar muslim world. Considering the eschatology of both sects this seems an apocalyptic strategy.