BLOG – political thoughts on last week’s presidential statement

My political thoughts to the Statement by the President on ISIL. I’m no political whiz but listening and analyzing aren’t rocket science. So, what solutions did he offer? NONE.

Oh, wait a minute, yes he did……

Obama inaugurated a war… yes, this is a war now


“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are.” (from Obama’s statement)

Isn’t that like saying we feel a visceral reaction because of the brutality?

We asked this man (who is supposed to be able to lead) for a well, thought-out plan to end this; right?

We’re tired of the brutality, right?

But isn’t trying to solve the problem of the Islamic state by bombing it like trying to solve the problem of a wasp’s nest by hitting it with a stick?

Okay, that may be a bit glib, but it does point to the fact that with our military measures and our aggressive stance in the middle east, we’re again creating the conditions in which terrorism thrives. We don’t like brutality and we’re going to bomb you  and show you that we won’t tolerate brutality.

Oh, wait…we’re bombing them? Isn’t that brutal?

So, then, what’s the solution? We’re still waiting for one.

I know I’m not smarter about this than those in Washington working on it, and I know I haven’t heard anything our government didn’t want me to hear (well, that’s not quite true because I do search international news using the internet), but come on now. We all know that the brutality of, the tragedy of, the unforgivingness of the Americans being beheaded is due to, is a result of…air strikes.  We’ve heard it from the perpetrators since the time our ears and eyes were first opened to this horror —they blame the air strikes…that’s their reason for doing it. And, from our lessons as children, we know that brutality begets brutality.

We cannot sit back on our couches complacently watching him read that speech on the television without critically listening to every word.

Obama has just inaugurated a war… yes, this is a war now.

Wait a moment.

When he was running for a second term for the presidency, didn’t Obama pledge to end the second Iraq war?

Didn’t he say, “I’ve spent four and one-half years working to end wars, not to start them”?

Pardon me, Obama; you just, literally, started a war.

What the heck is going on?

Why must there be perpetual war for perpetual peace?

“If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” (from Obama’s statement)

Can you see that is dramatic rhetoric?

Because he is such a weak leader, that statement was made to make him appear all tough. We recognize it because we heard (or something very, very similar) those words from Bush after 9/11. And, he was a man with a plan and he was tough.

What Obama’s doing by making that statement is using the Clinton-pointing-a-finger trick…I’m powerful, I’m just not rude and powerful…I’m just nice and I’m powerful. What Obama’s hoping is that we ‘re not smart enough to know that when politicians point their fingers when making emphatic statements it means they’re lying to us. Obama just made a false threat to ISIS for our benefit. But, he still is not delivering a solution to the problem to the American people.

Why? Because the suggested solutions are eerily similar to the causes of the problem.

“Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground.” (from Obama’s statement)

Isn’t that what we have been doing? In fact, we have been supporting the terrorists and the forces on the ground. That’s nothing new. Look, we, America, trained ISIS and we armed them and we created the conditions under which they are thriving and flourishing…by doing what they’re doing now. Does Obama think we cannot see that almost every single facet of this has been caused by the policies that he’s now avowed to further roll out.

“…Now that those teams have completed their work, and Iraq has formed a government, we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq.” (from Obama’s statement)

First, are these additional service members part of the air strike? I don’t think so. So, what he is saying he is putting boots (military) on the ground; right?

Second, didn’t he tell us that the Iraqi government perpetrated serious human rights abuses through air strikes of various civilian districts which increased support for ISIS? And, despite this we plan to strengthen the Iraqi army?

Hey, don’t we already have boots on the ground in Iraq? So, he’s committing roughly 1,600 after the additional 475 troops. Carrying out Obama’s new “strategy of destroying” ISIL (which now refers to itself as an “Islamic State”) could mean thousands more. Cartoonist Guy Varvel captured the absurdity of the administration’s rhetoric best when he depicted two U.S. soldiers swapping their boots for golf shoes to adhere to Obama’s “no boots on the ground” policy.

If we consider it, if we train ourselves to think that just because we hear Iraqi Government, we cannot say, “oh, isn’t that nice…I like the idea of an Iraqi government” —— “Iraqi Government” means the administrators we put there after we deposed their leader in order to prevent the very things from happening that are happening now. AND, we cannot trust them…not by virtue of their language or their current flag. We just cannot trust them.

…these American forces will not have a combat mission; we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” (from Obama’s statement)

(Democratic discussion: “We don’t want to get dragged into another ground war.”

  “Oh, but how will I countenance that?

“Just say, ‘It’s not a ground war in Iraq and it’s not a combat position’.”)


This just published by CNN:   (apologies…the link didn’t work; if you have not read the news posted yesterday, please copy/paste the address url to the address bar and press the Enter key.)


“But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment.” (from Obama’s statement)

Wake up….that’s exactly the same thing we did last time!

“It will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL.” (from Obama’s statement)

First…notice he can’t say ISIS. He calls it ISIL? Want to know why? The president and “his personal staff” have been joking — ISIS, ISIL, what’s the difference? You say tomato; I say tomato. Well, it makes a big difference because of this: ISIL includes Levant, which includes the area we like to call Israel.

Second…Oh come on! A cancer?!  A cancer???  Isn’t that about as stupid a statement as a Catholic priest suggesting they do another mass.

Archbishop: “Shall we do another mass?”

Our foreign policy, and the policy of our allies, echoes that idea of air strikes….

“Well, how did that work out?”


“Oh, well, we’ll come back in a week.”

“But, what’s your plan?”

“It’s air strikes. We’ll be trying more air strikes.”

“And, any time we take military action, there are risks involved.” (from Obama’s statement)

LOL…There certainly are and thank you for making the obvious so clear, Obama. With rigid certainty, we know what the outcome will be. This will further destabilize the region; this will create more antipathy; this will radicalize more people in that region; this will cause more people in our country and the countries of our allies to feel threatened and it will make “them” (the Islamists) feel threatened and outcast and ostracized —we know what’s going to happen.

This is like saying (and we know this because Americans are intelligent): 1. You like those conditions and 2. There’s another issue that you are not telling us about.

“…especially to the service men and women who carry out these missions. But, I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” (from Obama’s statement)

Well, that will be nice because, you know, it seems to Americans and anyone who has been in the military and those in the branches of the service today that it might be exactly the same!

What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that we Americans know what the unexpressed and important reason for this “new war” is and that is that ISIS is no longer reliant on foreign donations from countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it taxes the people it rules —they’re a state now — and it sells oil from the fields it holds to Iraq and Syria. Stopping ISIS’ funding largely means depriving it of that territory.

ISIS: So, you’re going to take the territory where there is oil? You’re sure you’re not doing this because you want that oil?

Indignant US President: Ahh! Ahh! The fact that you would say that shows that you are the one with the problem! How could you even think that? Us! Us! The people who don’t ever do resource-based wars…I’m not even going to talk to you….I won’t even dignify that with an answer!

Doesn’t that sound like the type of an argument of someone in a relationship?  LOL

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~~ Santayana

“It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be…..” (from Obama’s statement)

Oh…it’s not war, it’s counter-terrorism campaign. LOL….

War…uh! what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! 

Can now be sung:  Counter-terrorism Campaign … uh! what is it good for? Countering terrorists!  say it again…. 

lol….no, that doesn’t quite work does it?  But, this is war. He told us that with his opening statement, didn’t he?

“…to a relentless, steady effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for support forces on the ground.” (from Obama’s statement)

But, this is not war – lol!!!  It’s the air power and the support forces on the ground that caused this problem… We don’t like seeing our people come home in coffins with flags draped over them, so by telling us this is not war is Obama promising the Americans no one will die…but wait a minute! Didn’t he just tell us that “…any time we take military action, there are risks involved”???

We asked for a plan…not a continuation of past and current actions…we are at the point now where we’re saying, “You know what? Can you just stop? Stop doing that because we’re sick of seeing our people going there and getting killed just for you and some rich people to have access to more resources.

If you don’t want brutal reaction and retaliation, then stop being brutal. That seems obvious to even a child.

“The strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.” (from Obama’s statement)

Yemen and Somalia? You mean we were doing a war over there?

Well, yes, we were secretly doing a war over there but we didn’t want to worry you…

lol…He let out a bit of a secret there…but you caught that, right?

“…and it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year…to use force against anyone (said with emphasis) who threatens America’s “core” interests.” (from Obama’s statement)

What?  America’s core interests? We have core interests? What are they?

Don’t take my word for this but just look at how this country is run; look at the people who benefit most, look at how legislation and trade agreements are set up here and around the world, look at our allies, look at the things that seem to be important to the few, then we will see what our “core interests” are. Now, check yourself and see whether you agree with these “core interests”.

Our homeland security has categorically said ISIS is not a direct threat to America. So, when Obama says “core American interests” we have to think about what he means —it means America’s financial interests.

“…and God bless our troops; and God bless the United States of America.” (from Obama’s statement)

God will. But, what Obama is doing is endangering troops and Americans with his negligent, repetitive (and, is it also psychotic) foreign policy.

The job of our elected officials is to favorably resolve the problems we’re confronted with…not to pursue their own agendas relentlessly in spite of the damage and harm it produces to the people of the world and our own country.

Obama offered no solutions to the underlying political causes of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria. He didn’t.

The REALITY of what Obama has pledged America to do in Iraq is assist in sheer subjugation of the Sunnis by US bombing of Sunnnis’ villages, towns, and cities.

The American military will also ensure the Kurds will keep the oil fields they seized this past summer in Iraq…effectively strangling the Sunnis economically.  In return, the Sunnis, in existential desperation, will give their full support to the “Islamic” state.

Look, as long as we are shackled with the debilitating psychosis of 9/11 and the resulting moral weakness of our elected officials, the middle east will be full of targets for our bombs, Iraq and Syrian mothers and fathers will raise children destined to kill and be killed. I think I read that somewhere, so this is a paraphrase of what I read.

Isn’t it clear that the cowardice evinced by Obama is directly proportional to the never-ending 9/11 fear mongering that continues to paralyze and retard our country.

In reply to the deliberate provocation by the Islamic State through the ghastly executions of journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, this leader of United States has fulfilled the Islamic State’s wishes by committing to add more violence to the uncontrollable cycle of violence that has already authored the deaths of 700,000 Iraqis and Syrians.

Pressured by the panicked and hysterical cries of members of Congress, Obama offered no solutions to the underlying political causes of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria. Instead he obligated us, America, to a renewed partaking and sharing in the bloodshed and slaughter along the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.

Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves, is American military force really the smartest way to address the threat we face from ISIS? Or, ISIL…remember, Obama has now included Israel (Levant).

The clear answer to the above question is no.

Can American bombs eliminate the threat of ISIS? I can’t find anyone who believes they will and bombing may indeed make the conflicts in Iraq and Syria worse and harder to solve.

Don’t we have alternatives? Yes, and, while they lack the immediacy of bombing, they are ultimately far more effective in keeping America safe, protecting innocent lives, and crippling violent extremists.

Instead of going back to war in the Middle East, Obama should announce the alternative and more effective ways to degrade ISIS. Here are a few of the points Obama touched on in his address. I wasn’t writing quickly enough to capture all of them…maybe you remember more of the alternatives he listed.

1) Hit ISIS where it hurts: the wallet

2) Crack down on ISIS’s supply routes and weapons supply

3) Address the underlying political grievances of local populations

4) Provide humanitarian aid and assistance

5) Lead a truly multilateral international response
(ISIS thrives because of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, which are fueled by foreign interests. Resolving these conflicts ultimately depends on American diplomacy – not American bombs – involving all the parties including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others.)

The challenge will be to press for an emphasis on these non-military approaches over Obama’s plan of more arms, bombs, and troops — an approach we already know is likely to make matters worse.

At moments like this, we would do well to remember Santayana’s famous adage: those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I reserve the right to delete any and all COMMENTS that contain “hate”, that attack me or any Commentor rather than addressing the content, that are threatening to me or any Commentor, that express prejudice based on nationality, race, religion, politics, sex, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s