bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Yep, damn right it's gotten worse, remember this is the J.V. team!

"I don't think the approach is sufficient for the job," said Feinstein, a top ranking Senate Democrat who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "I'm concerned that we don't have the time and we don't have years. We need to be aggressive now." ... "What I'm saying is this has gone on too long now and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse," [Feinstein said].


One key point she makes is that ISIS' footprint is expanding to countries beyond Syria and Iraq; she cites Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. She might have also added Afghanistan. Obama's former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is also criticizing the president's hands-off approach, effectively calling for ground troops to beat back the terror army's advance:

“I think the U.S. has to lead in this effort, because what we’ve learned a long time ago is that if the United States does not lead, nobody else will,” Panetta said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Panetta also called on the U.S. to commit additional resources to the fight against the radical Islamic terrorist group. He said air strikes will not be enough to slow ISIS’s territorial expansion in Syria. “Look, air strikes are great, you know, we’re hitting some targets, but air strikes alone are not going to win here,” Panetta said. “We’ve got to take that territory away from them,” he added. “It’s been a year. They’re still in Mosul, they’re still in Ramadi, they’re still in Raqqa, those are areas we have to go after in order to be able to defeat ISIS, ultimately.”


Panetta added that partnering with the Russians in this effort may be a good idea in theory, "but I don't trust them...at this time." He has ample cause for deep mistrust, but that hasn't stopped Team Smart Power from ritually humiliating itself in front of Putin. Panetta mentioned that airstrikes aren't sufficient to seize and hold ISIS-controlled territory. After the Paris attacks, some Americans wondered why the French military had so many juicy, obvious ISIS bombing targets to choose from. What have we been doing this whole time? A partial answer, perhaps (via the Free Beacon):

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress. Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State...[Obama's zero civilian casualties rules of engagement regime] is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended. “Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.” And the same goes for Russians, he said, adding, “They don’t care at all about civilians.”


Taking pains to avoid collateral damage is the admirable and morally-correct course of action. This should be a major goal in any military endeavor; the United States targets bad actors, not innocent people. But at what point do extremely restrictive American rules of engagement directly benefit the enemy and constrain our military's ability to carry out its mission? A new CBS News survey broadly reflects other polling regarding President Obama's handing of foreign policy and national security matters: Just 23 percent of respondents say Obama has a clear plan to handle ISIS, with two-thirds saying the opposite. Half of the country now backs "boots on the ground" to combat ISIS, a shifting political reality that has tied Hillary Clinton into knots. Left-leaning columnists from Ron Fournier to Frank Bruni to Eugene Robinson have criticized the president's absentee leadership and misplaced priorities. Battered from all sides amid sliding poll numbers, Obama has ramped up his vitriol against the only enemies he truly relishes attacking:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

http://youtu.be/GAtu6hwgjJs

robmull Loc: florida

I believe one night while "WE" slept, 32, our "SLP" government switched sides on US. American weapons and heavy military equipment have been quietly exchanged to the terrorist enemy even well-before B******i. Emptying all the Americans out of Iraq certainly made the job much easier, especially that there's still a lot of "'splanin'" to do about the "stand-down" orders that are only legitimately given by the most senior person [or commander] "in-the-loop." Hummmmmm.

Well, anyway, just because Ambassador Stevens happened to walk-in on a VERY delicate exchange of weapons to the enemy, Mr. Stevens HAD to be k**led. Can you imagine if THAT [exchange] had leaked out just before the 2012 p**********l e******n. Whew, no way Jose. For what, 12, 13 hours Mr. Stevens and the other 3 patriot SEALS who were assassinated [and tortured], defenders of our American Consulate in B******i, Lybia, were calling for much-needed back-up to what could only now be explained as an "enemy within." Why were those four courageous American patriots denied assistance from the MANY other patriots who could EASILY have saved their lives??? Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall. Why IS that???

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

They are all traders and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

poppabear42

32;
Am I wrong to think that only congress actually has the power to declare war?
And after the declaration to go to war, congress maintains the war with funding, etc., and meetings with congress, the president, and other involved officials, are held to decide what strategies are needed to win the war.
If this is the correct procedure, when does congress become involved with what we are faced with right now?
No one person, not even the president, should have to shoulder that much responsibility alone.
Because when the body bags start rolling in, because of that decision, everybody responsible for making that decision, should be ready to explain why their family member is in the coffin ( As if they don't already know).
But there will be some family members, that did not want the war in the first place, that will blame whoever started the war for the death of their family members.
So no, this is not the time for a one person comittment , but a decision that should be made by everyone that was elected to make these decisions.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Agree and what really pisses me off is these Congress and House people went right along with it doing everything in their power to help him.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Obama used the War Powers Resolution and did a half assed job. He has never seeked a declaration of war because he doesn't want to be seen as a war president but a president of peace and look where it go us!

poppabear42

32;
It is true, that he has a preset amount of time to take the actions that he did.
What he did was to try to help the people that were being slaughtered, and gassed.
That time has passed, so when does congress come in to do their part?
Remember this, republicans had made a vow to do everything, but help Obama, and they have kept their vows. Actually, it would be very hard for me to trust a group of people with that attitude.
Personally, I think it is time for republicans to drop the childish game they are playing, and man up, and do the job they were elected to do.
However, the situations we are faced with at the present time, needs everybody to do their part, instead of complaining about what has been done, and make things right, and not make those mistakes again.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

And just what Obama done?

He funded the Muslim Brotherhood through Morsi, $400,000,000.00 to Hamas of tax payer money, he has funded the Anti-Bibi Campaign with tax payer funds. He has aided ISIS by sending troops into harms without approval of Congress.

poppabear42

32;
The president can not spend money without the approval of congress, especially the amounts that you mentioned, so where did he get the money?
The only people that congress gives money, has to be able to buy e******ns.
I do not think he could pulled that kind money out of his hip pocket, or his change purse, or even if his wife were to check her bra, I really don't think what you say makes any sense at all.
So wise up, if what you say is true, congress is screwing us again.
Congress amazes me...They set their own salaries, and raises...Set their own work schedule...Take vacations whenever they choose, and set the duration of these government supported vacations...And on top of all of this, they can sit back, and contradict, and disrupt everything that the president attempts to do.