robert66-I have to disagree-it does matter what the president does. When Bush went into Iraq he was accused of going it alone . The action was approved by congress and he had some 40 countries allied with the USA. Conversely, Obama is struggling to get 8 or 9 countries to go along in helping to defeat ISIS but since he has emphatically stated that there would not be any US COMBAT BOOTS on the ground the other countries are loathe to commit any of their troops. Obama has been so wishy washy in the past that heads of States do not trust him. They are afraid he will get them involved and then pull out leaving them high and dry, bearing the brunt of ISIS and unable to defeat them. Then we have mixed messages coming from the president and his Secretary of State- they are not ISLAM and IT IS NOT WAR. That kind of rhetoric does not lend itself to eng****ring confidence in the administration's so called plan. ISIS declared war on us and the UK by beheading our citizens. They are Islamist terrorists even though neither Obama nor Kerry can say those two words-ISLAMIST TERRORISTS. The question is, do we eliminate them in their backyard or do we wait until they blow up some of our people in our backyard ? Most Americans do not want war as it is costly in lives, injuries and fiscally. However, sometimes it is essential that we be pro-active as opposed to re-active. The American people have to be convinced that eliminating ISIS is in their best interest in order for them to support military action. The limited plan proposed by the administration will not do the job. To many of our people, Iraq and Syria are far away and do not pose a direct threat to them. What is to prevent ISIS from coming into the USA ? You mentioned the Korean war, and I remember it well. That conflict and Vietnam were two wars that the USA could have won militarily but politics got in the way. Now we are facing ISIS and once again politics is in the way. Obama wants pin pricks until after the Nov e******n so that democrats do not have to v**e for war even though we are already embroiled in exactly that. Meanwhile ISIS has grown to over 31,000 and by the time Obama acts they will have grown to a much larger number. So, what the president does or does not do will determine the fate of the country. According to the polls, most Americans feel the president is derelict in the performance of his duties. Good Luck America !!!

robert66-I have to disagree-it does matter what the president does. When Bush went into Iraq he was accused of going it alone . The action was approved by congress and he had some 40 countries allied with the USA. Conversely, Obama is struggling to get 8 or 9 countries to go along in helping to defeat ISIS but since he has emphatically stated that there would not be any US COMBAT BOOTS on the ground the other countries are loathe to commit any of their troops. Obama has been so wishy washy in the past that heads of States do not trust him. They are afraid he will get them involved and then pull out leaving them high and dry, bearing the brunt of ISIS and unable to defeat them. Then we have mixed messages coming from the president and his Secretary of State- they are not ISLAM and IT IS NOT WAR. That kind of rhetoric does not lend itself to eng****ring confidence in the administration's so called plan. ISIS declared war on us and the UK by beheading our citizens. They are Islamist terrorists even though neither Obama nor Kerry can say those two words-ISLAMIST TERRORISTS. The question is, do we eliminate them in their backyard or do we wait until they blow up some of our people in our backyard ? Most Americans do not want war as it is costly in lives, injuries and fiscally. However, sometimes it is essential that we be pro-active as opposed to re-active. The American people have to be convinced that eliminating ISIS is in their best interest in order for them to support military action. The limited plan proposed by the administration will not do the job. To many of our people, Iraq and Syria are far away and do not pose a direct threat to them. What is to prevent ISIS from coming into the USA ? You mentioned the Korean war, and I remember it well. That conflict and Vietnam were two wars that the USA could have won militarily but politics got in the way. Now we are facing ISIS and once again politics is in the way. Obama wants pin pricks until after the Nov e******n so that democrats do not have to v**e for war even though we are already embroiled in exactly that. Meanwhile ISIS has grown to over 31,000 and by the time Obama acts they will have grown to a much larger number. So, what the president does or does not do will determine the fate of the country. According to the polls, most Americans feel the president is derelict in the performance of his duties. Good Luck America !!!

I could have sworn we were going to war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

But the president, a well-known theologian, has informed us that despite what the Muslims of ISIS say, the Islamic State "is not Islamic." So I guess we're in a war against SIS -- the State of Iraq and Syria. But it still is a war, isn't it, Mr. Secretary Kerry?

"I think that's the wrong terminology," he sniffed yesterday. "What we are engaging in is a very significant counterterrorism operation."

Does that make it ... a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?



It's all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing ... crickets.

Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?

Have you see a single "No Blood for Oil" sign in Cambridge?

To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: "Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?"

Wh**ever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven't seen an "EndLESS War" bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counter-terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it's "r****m." If you speak t***h to power in the Obama era, they call it h**e speech. The IRS will audit you.

Obama's media sycophants described his prime-time speech as "nuanced." I'd call it ragtime.

I thought the moonbats didn't want the U.S. "going it alone." You hear that phrase on the networks now about as often as you hear the words "full employment."

And why is the president so outraged about a couple of beheadings? When a Muslim terrorist yelling "Allahu akbar!" murdered 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Obama shrugged it off as "workplace violence."

Now Obama's suddenly "all wee-wee'ed up" about non-Muslim Muslims murdering Americans.

F**g-draped coffins at Dover AFB are no longer a feature of the nightly news. Remember Wolf Blitzer's nightly trumpeting of Bush's plummeting approval ratings?

Now the polls are so bleak for the Kenyan Katastrophe, CNN doesn't even mention them anymore. I'm surprised they ran the Kerry soundbite even once about how we're not really at war against SIS, or is it SIL?

Can I get me a "War Is Not the Answer" bumper sticker here? Not in Cambridge I can't.

Anyway, I always knew Kerry was mentally deficient, but now he has proven it. They are not Islamist? Then why, pray tell, are they forcing Christians to change to Islam or die?
If this is not war, then what do you call it? They are k*****g people in a strategic and purposeful way. One faction against another.
Kerry is making Joe Biden appear to be a genius.

robert66-I have to disagree-it does matter what the president does. When Bush went into Iraq he was accused of going it alone . The action was approved by congress and he had some 40 countries allied with the USA. Conversely, Obama is struggling to get 8 or 9 countries to go along in helping to defeat ISIS but since he has emphatically stated that there would not be any US COMBAT BOOTS on the ground the other countries are loathe to commit any of their troops. Obama has been so wishy washy in the past that heads of States do not trust him. They are afraid he will get them involved and then pull out leaving them high and dry, bearing the brunt of ISIS and unable to defeat them. Then we have mixed messages coming from the president and his Secretary of State- they are not ISLAM and IT IS NOT WAR. That kind of rhetoric does not lend itself to eng****ring confidence in the administration's so called plan. ISIS declared war on us and the UK by beheading our citizens. They are Islamist terrorists even though neither Obama nor Kerry can say those two words-ISLAMIST TERRORISTS. The question is, do we eliminate them in their backyard or do we wait until they blow up some of our people in our backyard ? Most Americans do not want war as it is costly in lives, injuries and fiscally. However, sometimes it is essential that we be pro-active as opposed to re-active. The American people have to be convinced that eliminating ISIS is in their best interest in order for them to support military action. The limited plan proposed by the administration will not do the job. To many of our people, Iraq and Syria are far away and do not pose a direct threat to them. What is to prevent ISIS from coming into the USA ? You mentioned the Korean war, and I remember it well. That conflict and Vietnam were two wars that the USA could have won militarily but politics got in the way. Now we are facing ISIS and once again politics is in the way. Obama wants pin pricks until after the Nov e******n so that democrats do not have to v**e for war even though we are already embroiled in exactly that. Meanwhile ISIS has grown to over 31,000 and by the time Obama acts they will have grown to a much larger number. So, what the president does or does not do will determine the fate of the country. According to the polls, most Americans feel the president is derelict in the performance of his duties. Good Luck America !!!

What do you suggest ? A nuclear bomb ? So we k**l a few hundred thousand civilians in one day and poison half the world , hey we had to protect our interests. Is this what the strongest country in the world wants to encourage ? You other guys might as well airmail your sh*t over here because that's how we roll. We ain't pin pricking anymore we're going to take big chunks and if millions of innocent people are affected , sorry. Oh wait , Isn't that what ISIL does ? It works for them so I guess we should do it. What would ISIL do if they had more fire power? They would use every bit of it . Their goal is to take us to their level because that is the level they can win on. I thank God we have someone in charge that thinks things out a little further. Proceed with caution and escalate only if necessary makes more sense in these days than it did 70 years ago. Like it or not politics are part of war and maybe a bigger part than they've ever been. The last president was not successful with a more aggressive strategy. I've been watching the news daily. Every day some other country is jumping on board with the US. Where have you been ? Has it occurred to you or any other conservative that these other countries are tired of the war crap ? Is it possible that's why they are hesitant ? They might not even get Fox news where you get all your latest ways to blame it on the president.

~~~~~

Robert, I read both your replies to this post...

I don't quite know what say to your points of view...

I'm not sure if I should YELL & SCREAM, or just laugh at the absurdity of your thinking and statements...

No one that I know seriously thinks we should A-Bomb them...

That does have it's merits however, there are untold millions of virgins waiting for their opportunity to serve their new masters, so the BIG boy bomb would get the 'martyrs' there fast...

So I'll close with don't forget your Med's... Don D. (P.S. Yes I just took mine!)