Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Are you saying it is legal to discriminate against non citizens? There are many legal aliens in this country. I believe that they are protected by the Constitution.
Of course not; anyone in America is protected by our laws. But; entry into the country has historically been regulated by the country for reasons of security; disease; economics; etc. Our Constitution does not guarantee free entry through the US border for anyone or everyone.
OK, then it is not a citizen vs. non citizen situation at all. Two things about that. 1. No matter how you look at it, it is discrimination by religion. Banning all Muslims sounds good, but there are Muslims in most countries in this world. Do we keep them out? Remember, Trump said ALL Muslims. There are Muslims living in countries that are our allies, like Great Britain and France. 2. There are many non citizen Muslims already in this country. Do you deport them? Do you see the slippery slope here?
We are not debating the merits of the proposal just its constitutionality. It is entirely constitutional to ban all Muslims, some Muslims or no Muslims. Rather than by religion a sounder idea is to put a morratorium on immigration visas granted to certain regions which are known to be deeply infiltrated by radicalized jihadists with case by case exceptions for those facing certain death (such as Christians from Iraq Syria and Sudan) I guarantee this is what Europe will be doing very shortly if it isn't already.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Are you saying it is legal to discriminate against non citizens? There are many legal aliens in this country. I believe that they are protected by the Constitution.
Of course not; anyone in America is protected by our laws. But; entry into the country has historically been regulated by the country for reasons of security; disease; economics; etc. Our Constitution does not guarantee free entry through the US border for anyone or everyone.
OK, then it is not a citizen vs. non citizen situation at all. Two things about that. 1. No matter how you look at it, it is discrimination by religion. Banning all Muslims sounds good, but there are Muslims in most countries in this world. Do we keep them out? Remember, Trump said ALL Muslims. There are Muslims living in countries that are our allies, like Great Britain and France. 2. There are many non citizen Muslims already in this country. Do you deport them? Do you see the slippery slope here?
Believe it or not I was merely discussing the Constitutionality. Not quite sure the details of how to secure our borders - just the need to
I understand. My point was that this is a little more complex than Trump or anyone else believes. The constitutionality would be decided by the Supreme Court who are far better versed on the Constitution than any of us. IMO, this goes against the principles on which this country was founded.
The Supreme Court HAS ruled on this and there is no "right" for any foreigner to come to this country period. This country expanded by immigration that served its economic interests. While it is true that xenophobes opposed immigration of Eastern and Southern Europeans a century or so ago saying they would not fully assimilate this has clearly been shown to be false. Today there is a serious problem in the Western world (not just here) of whole populations who cannot or will not assimilate into the Western culture in which they live. This is where the jihadists are recruited from. There are no easy answers but being an Ostrich is probably the worst idea of all.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Neither facts nor the Constitution matters to Obama and his minions.
Do you support a ban on Muslims entering the United States? Everyone knows how much you hate Obama and anyone on the left. What of the topic of the thread?
Trump (who I think is a clown) did not say he wants to ban all Muslims, round up any Muslims or deport American Muslims. He said until we get the problem of how to keep out jihadists he would freeze any further immigration of Muslims. I would not support this policy. However I do not think the Obama administration is doing a blessed thing to vet anyone we are admitting and I have NO confidence that it will change under his administration. SO we have a dilmena. A dilemna no Democrat is willing to face as they won't even ADMIT that there is a problem in Islam and seem to believe that Christian terrorism is a bigger problem (I have actually had someone tell me that).
A dilemna no Democrat is willing to face as they won't even ADMIT that there is a problem in Islam and seem to believe that Christian terrorism is a bigger problem (I have actually had someone tell me that).
You just lie, and lie, and lie.
I just can't wrap my head around why some people think it is easier to stop gun violence by jihadists than it is to stop everyday gun violence by the mentally ill or domestic disputes or gangs or right wing groups or left wing groups or children or or or or or or.
we haven't been able to stop gun violence in this country in a long long time, WHY IS IT BELIEVED TO BE SO EASY TO STOP JIHADIST GUN VIOLENCE?
[Edited on 12/16/2015 by LeglizHemp]
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Neither facts nor the Constitution matters to Obama and his minions.
Do you support a ban on Muslims entering the United States? Everyone knows how much you hate Obama and anyone on the left. What of the topic of the thread?
Trump (who I think is a clown) did not say he wants to ban all Muslims, round up any Muslims or deport American Muslims. He said until we get the problem of how to keep out jihadists he would freeze any further immigration of Muslims. I would not support this policy. However I do not think the Obama administration is doing a blessed thing to vet anyone we are admitting and I have NO confidence that it will change under his administration. SO we have a dilmena. A dilemna no Democrat is willing to face as they won't even ADMIT that there is a problem in Islam and seem to believe that Christian terrorism is a bigger problem (I have actually had someone tell me that).
________________________________________________________________________
Yes, the point of Trump’s statement was to bring into the public discussion the fact that the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven unwilling to actively protest the U.S. from Islamic Extremist Terrorism. Trump stated the facts in the latter part of his statement which is the part that the left leaves out of the discussion as they are unwilling to admit the truth.
- For reasons of political correctness and fear or bad public relations the social media of the San Bernadino Islamic Extremist Terrorists was ignored by “secret policy” by the Obama administration which resulted in the murder of many American citizens on U.S. soil.
- Obama Administration more concerned about a civil liberties backlash and 'bad public relations,' than National Security:
- Agents reportedly blocked by secret US policy from looking at social media of visa applicants
- A SECRET US POLICY that prohibits officials from reviewing the social media messages of foreign citizens applying for US visas — such as those of San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik — was kept in place by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson over fears of a civil liberties backlash and 'bad public relations,' ABC News reports.
- http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325
The Obama administration has stated that they did three “complete” background checks on Tashfeen Malik before giving her a visa to enter the U.S. The only thing complete the Obama administration did was to completely blow it.
The Islamic Extremist Terrorist attacks continue on U.S., kill American citizens and the Obama and his lame administration has been not only ineffective but spend most of their time ignoring the problem, calling it anything but what it is and chastising the American people about discrimination.
- Obama never called the Ft. Hood massacre an Islamic Extremist Terrorist attack instead calling it “work place violence”
- Obama still refuses to call the Chattanooga killings an Islamic Extremist Terrorist attack but his FBI Director has, twice.
- The Obama administration ignored the warnings that the Tsarnaev brothers were terrorists which resulted in 5 deaths and 280 injured. Obama refused to call the bombing a terrorist attack.
Obama has shirked his first responsibility as president; National Security. He chooses to follow the liberal’s political correctness and not even recognize the threat of Islamic Extremist Terrorism that, on his watch, is killing Americans at will.
This is almost the same mind-set of the Clinton administration whose refusal to act against Al Qaeda resulted in almost 3,000 deaths, on American soil, on September 11, 2001.
The pattern is clear. Democrats are ineffective against those who wish to kill Americans.
FBI Says San Bernardino Suspects Did Not Pledge to Wage Jihad on Social Media
By VICE News and Reuters
December 16, 2015 | 1:50 pm
At a press conference in New York on Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey said that no evidence had been found to indicate that the couple who massacred 14 people in San Bernardino, California, on December 2 were members of a terrorist cell or had any contact with overseas militant groups. Most notably, he said that Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and his 29-year-old wife, Tashfeen Malik, had expressed support for "jihad and martyrdom" in private communications but never did so on social media.
The statement appeared to contradict a report that appeared in the Los Angeles Times citing two unnamed federal law enforcement officials who said that Malik "sent at least two private messages on Facebook to a small group of Pakistani friends in 2012 and 2014, pledging her support for Islamic jihad and saying she hoped to join the fight one day." The messages were reportedly written in Urudu, a common language in Pakistan. One of the officials was quoted as saying the messages were "her private communications."
"We have found no evidence of a posting on social media by either of them at that period of time or thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom," Comey said. "I've seen some reporting on that. That's a garble. Alright? The investigation continues, but we have not found that kind of thing. These communications are private, direct messages, not social media messages."
[Edited on 12/16/2015 by LeglizHemp]
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/republican-debate-factcheck/index.html
Reality Check: Cruz, Fiorina and Huckabee claim social media checks were prohibited or willfully ignored in visa cases
By Laura Koran, CNN
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: "It's not a lack of competence that is preventing the Obama administration from stopping these attacks. It is political correctness. We didn't monitor the Facebook posting of the female San Bernardino terrorist because the Obama DHS thought it would be inappropriate. She made a public call to jihad and they didn't target it."
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina: "The bureaucratic processes that have been in place since 9/11 are inadequate, as well. What do we now know? That DHS vets people by going into databases of known or suspected terrorists. And yet, we also know that ISIS is recruiting who are not in those databases. So of course, we're going to miss them. And then we now learn that DHS says, "No, we can't check their social media." For heaven's sake, every parent in America is checking social media and every employer is as well. The government can't do it? The bureaucratic procedures are so far behind."
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: "I just want to make sure that everything we use is going to be effective. We're spending billions of dollars, let's make sure it's effective. Let's use every tool, but let's also check out the Facebook posts, let's look at Twitter accounts. My gosh, we were told we couldn't do it because it might invade somebody's privacy. This lady who came over here and shot up San Bernardino was posting things on Facebook, yet, we were restricted from looking."
CNN Reality Check Team: There is no State Department policy prohibiting social media checks by consular officers, who interview prospective visa recipients and make the final call on whether they qualify for a visa, State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters Monday.
These consular officers are free to check any and all publicly available information on an applicant, including their social media postings.
That said, they aren't required to do so with every applicant.
The Department of Homeland Security -- which runs background checks on foreign applicants as part of the interagency process -- also allows social media checks, but again, they aren't required. In fact, in recent months the United States has begun to take steps to review social media postings of visa applicants from certain countries.
The value of these social media searches is limited, since terrorist sympathizers can conceal their identities online or use privacy settings to hide their posts.
In fact, San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik obscured her identity when making pro-jihad comments on social media sites and used enhanced security settings, U.S. law enforcement officials told CNN this week.
Some of Malik's postings were only visible to a small group of friends, which runs in direct contrast to Cruz's suggestion that Malik made the statements publicly.
Verdict: False
[Edited on 12/16/2015 by LeglizHemp]
A treaty cannot be put in place by "executive order" That's what makes it a treaty. It must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.
So Doug are you saying President Obama was not bound by Bush's SOFA?
Why should we be held to an agreement to remove our troops signed by a US President? I guess what Mule and Doug are saying is that because congress didn't sign off on it Bush's agreement and signature don't mean anything and Bush's word is meaningless. Of course the agreement to end the Korean War was signed by a US lieutenant general and not even a US President, and congress wasn't involved at all, so apparently these agreements mean more when signed by generals than presidents.
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. Bush's agreement to remove our troops in a certain way in a certain time was not a treaty and did not have to be approved by Congress.
Exactly, that's my entire point. Bush signed an agreement to remove the troops by a particular date. Congress did not need to be involved. Obama had nothing to do with the decision on the date to remove the troops, that agreement was made between Bush and the Iraqi government. If you don't like that the US pulled out of Iraq, you should blame the president who signed that agreement, and that president was not Obama.
A treaty cannot be put in place by "executive order" That's what makes it a treaty. It must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.
So Doug are you saying President Obama was not bound by Bush's SOFA?
Of course he is not and he has not acted for one moment like he is bound by anything including laws passed by Congress that he signed.
You keep saying this. Would you mind providing some examples?
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Neither facts nor the Constitution matters to Obama and his minions.
Do you support a ban on Muslims entering the United States? Everyone knows how much you hate Obama and anyone on the left. What of the topic of the thread?
Trump (who I think is a clown) did not say he wants to ban all Muslims, round up any Muslims or deport American Muslims. He said until we get the problem of how to keep out jihadists he would freeze any further immigration of Muslims. I would not support this policy. However I do not think the Obama administration is doing a blessed thing to vet anyone we are admitting and I have NO confidence that it will change under his administration. SO we have a dilmena. A dilemna no Democrat is willing to face as they won't even ADMIT that there is a problem in Islam and seem to believe that Christian terrorism is a bigger problem (I have actually had someone tell me that).
Trump said he wants to ban all Muslims. On occasion he revises it and then backtracks. It is clear to everyone want he means
The rest of your post is nonsense. You don't seem to understand the vetting process.
In "All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others" by Angie Nolan she finds that the level of Republican falsehoods far exceed those committed by Democrats.
Statements and claims made that are mostly false are worse
The leading GOP candidates
Carson 84% of the time
Trump 76% of the time
Cruz 66% of the time
The leading Democratic figures
Sanders and Clinton are at 28% and Obama is at 26%.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Neither facts nor the Constitution matters to Obama and his minions.
Do you support a ban on Muslims entering the United States? Everyone knows how much you hate Obama and anyone on the left. What of the topic of the thread?
Trump (who I think is a clown) did not say he wants to ban all Muslims, round up any Muslims or deport American Muslims. He said until we get the problem of how to keep out jihadists he would freeze any further immigration of Muslims. I would not support this policy. However I do not think the Obama administration is doing a blessed thing to vet anyone we are admitting and I have NO confidence that it will change under his administration. SO we have a dilmena. A dilemna no Democrat is willing to face as they won't even ADMIT that there is a problem in Islam and seem to believe that Christian terrorism is a bigger problem (I have actually had someone tell me that).
Trump said he wants to ban all Muslims. On occasion he revises it and then backtracks. It is clear to everyone want he means
The rest of your post is nonsense. You don't seem to understand the vetting process.
In "All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others" by Angie Nolan she finds that the level of Republican falsehoods far exceed those committed by Democrats.
Statements and claims made that are mostly false are worse
The leading GOP candidates
Carson 84% of the time
Trump 76% of the time
Cruz 66% of the timeThe leading Democratic figures
Sanders and Clinton are at 28% and Obama is at 26%.
I think it's interesting that the frontrunners in the GOP field are the ones that lie the most. The only Republicans that tell the truth over 40% of the time are Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and Chris Christie. Both Clinton and Sanders are over 50%.
[Edited on 12/16/2015 by 2112]
I think it's interesting that the frontrunners in the GOP field are the ones that lie the most.
Indeed. I can't help but think that the psychology behind this premise is the same psychology that makes conservative radio so popular. And FoxNews #1. I'm certain it is not a coincidence.
Today's most popular conservative heroes are those that say the most outrageous things.
And appeal to the lowest common denominator of followers. As a practical example, all one has to do is read posts as expressed by the subset of representation on this web site.
Seems everyone is going off about Donald Trump claiming he said he wants to keep all Muslims out of the U.S.
What he actually said:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.The last half of the sentence got dropped along the way.
The “government” aka the Obama administration has been repeatedly proven incapable of vetting pretty much anyone. But hey, Obama does not want us to “discriminate” against Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
Which is more dangerous: Donald Trump’s perceived over-reaction or Obama’s actual under-reaction?
Easy. Trump's plan in unconstitutional.
Actually it's not.
Agreed! The issue is citizens vs non-citizens. Believe the constitution protects only citizens. Immigration and travel for non-citizens is a different matter
Neither facts nor the Constitution matters to Obama and his minions.
Do you support a ban on Muslims entering the United States? Everyone knows how much you hate Obama and anyone on the left. What of the topic of the thread?
Trump (who I think is a clown) did not say he wants to ban all Muslims, round up any Muslims or deport American Muslims. He said until we get the problem of how to keep out jihadists he would freeze any further immigration of Muslims. I would not support this policy. However I do not think the Obama administration is doing a blessed thing to vet anyone we are admitting and I have NO confidence that it will change under his administration. SO we have a dilmena. A dilemna no Democrat is willing to face as they won't even ADMIT that there is a problem in Islam and seem to believe that Christian terrorism is a bigger problem (I have actually had someone tell me that).
Trump said he wants to ban all Muslims. On occasion he revises it and then backtracks. It is clear to everyone want he means
The rest of your post is nonsense. You don't seem to understand the vetting process.
In "All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others" by Angie Nolan she finds that the level of Republican falsehoods far exceed those committed by Democrats.
Statements and claims made that are mostly false are worse
The leading GOP candidates
Carson 84% of the time
Trump 76% of the time
Cruz 66% of the timeThe leading Democratic figures
Sanders and Clinton are at 28% and Obama is at 26%.
_________________________________________________________________________
You refer to a N.Y.Times opinion piece and consider it an accurate and creditable source?
This the newspaper that is all in for Hillary Clinton?Man you are desperate.
I’ll stick with the national poll, by a respected independent polling organization that asked:
Q.) What is the first word that comes to mind when thinking about Hillary Clinton?
The number one answer by far was Liar.
You lose Muleboy. The Republicans are the liars. Just start saying, President Clinton, 5 times a night before you go to sleep. It will make the transition that much easier.
Liberal’s ISIS Strategy:
[Edited on 12/17/2015 by Muleman1994]
Yet you just said the liberals/democrats have not introduced a bill to do anything about it.... so what is it?
What does gun control have to do with an ISIS strategy? You seem to really be losing it.....
Branco your go to cartoon now? You sure post a lot of them..... too bad it's from a right wing source... 😛
[Edited on 12/17/2015 by Sang]
i've have never doubted Mule's conservative beliefs or values, but it seems to me he is abandoning them to be led by the nose to the darkest part of the right wing. where he is today is very far from where he was a few years ago IMO. maybe i'm wrong, not 1st time, but he seems to have picked up some very dirty idea's that are being pushed by the internet. he has gone beyond neocon ideals.....far beyond. his dislike of obama has been manipulated into pure radical fascist hatred. he is not alone, it seems there is a small and growing portion of the population experiencing this.
i've have never doubted Mule's conservative beliefs or values, but it seems to me he is abandoning them to be led by the nose to the darkest part of the right wing. where he is today is very far from where he was a few years ago IMO. maybe i'm wrong, not 1st time, but he seems to have picked up some very dirty idea's that are being pushed by the internet. he has gone beyond neocon ideals.....far beyond. his dislike of obama has been manipulated into pure radical fascist hatred. he is not alone, it seems there is a small and growing portion of the population experiencing this.
I think he has been beaten down badly on here by facts that he can't change. So he has doubled down on everything he can, bringing up anything that he can use to attack. Whether it has any credibility or not has nothing to do with why he posts it. He is just so misanthropic and miserable that all he wants to do is attack people. The more he attacks, the more he gets thrown back at him. It has spiraled out of control.
he is a stronger man than that, to let an internet post room drive his beliefs.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of Defense.
Hagel says he OK’d plan to strike Damascus after 'red line;' Obama told him stand down
Published December 18, 2015 - FoxNews.com
Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel revealed in an extensive interview published Friday that he had approved plans to strike Damascus with Tomahawk cruise missiles after Syria’s Bashar al-Assad crossed the “red line” by using chemical weapons – but President Obama told him to stand down.
The interview with Foreign Policy comes nearly a year after his acrimonious exit from the Obama administration. Still smarting from the circumstances of his departure, Hagel told Foreign Policy that the White House tried to “destroy” him even after he resigned.
The interview explored the tensions between Hagel and others on Obama’s team, but offered particularly revealing details about the backstory to the president’s decision backing off his “red line” with Assad.
The former Pentagon chief said that decision in 2013 dealt a big blow to U.S. credibility.
“Whether it was the right decision or not, history will determine that,” Hagel told Foreign Policy. “There’s no question in my mind that it hurt the credibility of the president’s word when this occurred.”
While it is well-known that Obama chose not to go forward with any military action against Assad in 2013 despite drawing that line – and instead pursued a diplomatic path to have Assad hand over his chemical weapons stockpile – Hagel described the military option as robust up until the moment Obama nixed it.
According to the article, on Aug. 30 of that year, Hagel spent the day giving the OK to plans for a “barrage” of missile strikes on Syria’s capital. Naval destroyers also reportedly were awaiting orders to strike.
But then, while Hagel was at dinner with his wife in northern Virginia, the White House called to connect him with Obama.
The president, according to the piece, told Hagel to stand down and that the U.S. would not take military action.
“A president’s word is a big thing, and when the president says things, that’s a big deal,” Hagel said in the interview.
A senior administration official defended the decision to Foreign Policy, saying Obama was not prepared to take military action without consulting Congress first – and the diplomatic deal that had Assad relinquish his weapons resulted in a Syria “free of its chemical weapons program.”
In the interview, Hagel also complained about the allegedly extensive and meandering deliberations over Syria policy, including hours-long meetings that “were not productive.” He agreed with the reluctance to dispatch a large ground force to the region, but voiced frustration over the confusion about how far the U.S. would go to back rebels in Syria.
Meanwhile, Hagel fumed over how “certain people” were “vilifying me in a gutless, off-the-record kind of way” as he left the administration.
This was a reference to White House officials criticizing him anonymously to news outlets, including saying he didn’t speak up at key meetings.
“They already had my resignation, so what was the point of just continuing to try to destroy me?” he told Foreign Policy.
- Just another one of those pesky facts the liberals deny.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of Defense
Taking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of DefenseTaking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
__________________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The U.S. has the air power to take Assad and his troops out without putting one boot on the ground.
But that of course require having a president with the guts to do what he promised to do in the first place.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of DefenseTaking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
__________________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The U.S. has the air power to take Assad and his troops out without putting one boot on the ground.
But that of course require having a president with the guts to do what he promised to do in the first place.
I think you missed Swifty's point entirely. Sure, we have the resources to take out Assad but the problem is if we do that what will replace his regime? Without one boot on the ground we wouldn't have much influence on what comes next and we've already seen the consequences of that approach. It's the primary cause of our current problems with ISIS.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of DefenseTaking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
__________________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The U.S. has the air power to take Assad and his troops out without putting one boot on the ground.
But that of course require having a president with the guts to do what he promised to do in the first place.
I think you missed Swifty's point entirely. Sure, we have the resources to take out Assad but the problem is if we do that what will replace his regime? Without one boot on the ground we wouldn't have much influence on what comes next and we've already seen the consequences of that approach. It's the primary cause of our current problems with ISIS.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama and Hillary have always favored The Muslim Brotherhood.
They tried to install them when they tried regime change in Libya and Egypt.
Of course that didn't work out well but Obama and Hillary just run to the TV cameras and claim victory.
Some even buy it.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of DefenseTaking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
__________________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The U.S. has the air power to take Assad and his troops out without putting one boot on the ground.
But that of course require having a president with the guts to do what he promised to do in the first place.
I think you missed Swifty's point entirely. Sure, we have the resources to take out Assad but the problem is if we do that what will replace his regime? Without one boot on the ground we wouldn't have much influence on what comes next and we've already seen the consequences of that approach. It's the primary cause of our current problems with ISIS.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama and Hillary have always favored The Muslim Brotherhood.
They tried to install them when they tried regime change in Libya and Egypt.
Of course that didn't work out well but Obama and Hillary just run to the TV cameras and claim victory.Some even buy it.
We were talking about Syria were we not? The Muslim Brotherhood's party was elected in Egypt and then over thrown by the military. Regime change and the arming of militants in Libya was conducted with the full cooperation of republicans. The Libyan version of the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to put together a transitional government. The situation is very different in Syria.
You are obviously not putting much effort into this exchange outside of trying to get in your usual propaganda points.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of DefenseTaking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
__________________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The U.S. has the air power to take Assad and his troops out without putting one boot on the ground.
But that of course require having a president with the guts to do what he promised to do in the first place.
I think you missed Swifty's point entirely. Sure, we have the resources to take out Assad but the problem is if we do that what will replace his regime? Without one boot on the ground we wouldn't have much influence on what comes next and we've already seen the consequences of that approach. It's the primary cause of our current problems with ISIS.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama and Hillary have always favored The Muslim Brotherhood.
They tried to install them when they tried regime change in Libya and Egypt.
Of course that didn't work out well but Obama and Hillary just run to the TV cameras and claim victory.Some even buy it.
We were talking about Syria were we not? The Muslim Brotherhood's party was elected in Egypt and then over thrown by the military. Regime change and the arming of militants in Libya was conducted with the full cooperation of republicans. The Libyan version of the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to put together a transitional government. The situation is very different in Syria.
You are obviously not putting much effort into this exchange outside of trying to get in your usual propaganda points.
________________________________________________________________________
"Regime change and the arming of militants in Libya was conducted with the full cooperation of republicans. "
- where did you glean that load of crap?
The Regime change and arming of the militants in Libya was solely an Obama/Hillary scheme which blew up in their faces.
Islamic Extremist Terrorists now control Libya.
If Obama had listened to his Sec. of Defense ISIS and the Syrian refugees wouldn't be a problem.
But Obama of course chose to do nothing and fired yet another Sec. of DefenseTaking out Assad would have involved a US occupation. Without such an occupation ISIL would have taken advantage of the vacuum and expanded its influence in Syria.
__________________________________________________________________________
Wrong again.
The U.S. has the air power to take Assad and his troops out without putting one boot on the ground.
But that of course require having a president with the guts to do what he promised to do in the first place.
I think you missed Swifty's point entirely. Sure, we have the resources to take out Assad but the problem is if we do that what will replace his regime? Without one boot on the ground we wouldn't have much influence on what comes next and we've already seen the consequences of that approach. It's the primary cause of our current problems with ISIS.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama and Hillary have always favored The Muslim Brotherhood.
They tried to install them when they tried regime change in Libya and Egypt.
Of course that didn't work out well but Obama and Hillary just run to the TV cameras and claim victory.Some even buy it.
We were talking about Syria were we not? The Muslim Brotherhood's party was elected in Egypt and then over thrown by the military. Regime change and the arming of militants in Libya was conducted with the full cooperation of republicans. The Libyan version of the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to put together a transitional government. The situation is very different in Syria.
You are obviously not putting much effort into this exchange outside of trying to get in your usual propaganda points.
________________________________________________________________________
"Regime change and the arming of militants in Libya was conducted with the full cooperation of republicans. "
- where did you glean that load of crap?
The Regime change and arming of the militants in Libya was solely an Obama/Hillary scheme which blew up in their faces.
Islamic Extremist Terrorists now control Libya.
Note the word Congress and not President Obama in the transfer of billions of dollars in funds to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya.
In Libya, Sen. McCain would like the U.S. to move away from an “incremental escalation of pressure on Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi in favor of a more decisive course of action.” He said he would like to have U.S. strike aircraft “back into the fight” to destroy the Libyan leader’s command-and-control sites and have the American government recognize the transitional national council in Benghazi as “the legitimate voice” of the Libyan people. Congress would soon transfer billions of dollars in Qaddafi’s frozen assets to the Libyan people, he said, dismissing the concern that Libyan opposition leaders such as the Muslim Brotherhood or others could be terrorists-in-waiting. “If these people are al-Qaida my friends, then I am a liberal Democrat,” Sen. McCain said.
http://www.usip.org/publications/sen-john-mccain-us-must-sustain-momentum-arab-spring
When I was in Libya during the "Western"attack, I was able to view a report of the foreign intelligence services. It stated that, on February 4, 2011 in Cairo, NATO organized a meeting to launch the "Arab Spring" in Libya and Syria. According to this document, the meeting was chaired by John McCain. The report detailed the list of Libyan participants, whose delegation was led by the No. 2 man of the government of the day, Mahmoud Jibril, who abruptly switched sides at the entrance of the meeting to become the opposition leader in exile. I remember that, among the French delegates present, the report quoted Bernard-Henry Lévy, although officially he had never exercised functions within the French government. Many other personalities attended the symposium, including a large delegation of Syrians living abroad.
Who Then is Senator McCain?
But John McCain is not just the leader of the political opposition to President Obama, he is also one of his senior officials!
He is in fact President of the International Republican Institute (IRI), the republican branch of NED / CIA [12], since January 1993. This so-called "NGO" was officially established by President Ronald Reagan to extend certain activities of the CIA, in connection with the British, Canadian and Australian secret services. Contrary to its claims, it is indeed an inter-governmental agency. Its budget is approved by Congress in a budget line dependent of the Secretary of State.
It is also because it is a joint agency of the Anglo-Saxon secret services that several states in the world prohibit it from any activity on their territory.
JPEG - 21.8 kb
Accused of plotting the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, the two employees of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in Cairo, John Tomlaszewski (second right) and Sam LaHood (son of US-Lebanese, Ray LaHood, a democratic government Transportation Secretary) (second left) took refuge at the embassy of the United States. Here they are along with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham at the preparatory meeting of the "Arab Spring" in Libya and Syria. They would be released by Brother Mohamed Morsi when he became President.
The list of interventions by John McCain on behalf of the State Department is impressive. He participated in all the color revolutions of the last twenty years.To take only a few examples, ever in the name of "democracy", he prepared the failed coup against constitutional president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, [13] the overthrow of constitutionally elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti [14], the attempt to overthrow the constitutional President Mwai Kibaki in Kenya [15] and, more recently, the ousting of the constitutional president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.
In any state in the world, when a citizen takes initiative to topple the regime of another State, he may be appreciated if successful and the new regime proves an ally, but he will be severely condemned when his initiatives have negative consequences for his own country. Now, Senator McCain never was harassed because of his anti-democratic actions in states where it has failed and who have turned against Washington. In Venezuela, for example. That is because, for the United States, John McCain is not a traitor, but an agent.
And an agent that has the best coverage imaginable: he is the official opponent of Barack Obama. As such, he can travel anywhere in the world (he is the most traveled US senator) and meet whoever he wants without fear. If his interlocutors approve Washington policy, he promised them to continue it, if they fight it, he hands over the responsibility to President Obama.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html
Here is an interview with John McCain in Benghazi. Funny how all this is being blamed on Hillary Clinton.
[Edited on 12/19/2015 by Swifty]
[Edited on 12/19/2015 by Swifty]
You seem to think that if Sen. McCain says something and two left-wing activist sites misrepresent his words as they spin that represents what “Republicans think”?
Sen, McCain was doing what all politicians do, talking. He also knew very well that at the time, Harry Reid ran The Senate and anything coming from a Republican or the House would never see the light of day.
The fact remains that Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya and it blew up in their faces. It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that ran arms to the terrorists. .It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that attempted regime change and overthrow the governments in two Muslim countries and screwed it up.
Then of course Obama and Hillary Clinton, standing next to the coffins of Amb. Stevens and three other Americans, lied to the American people that they died because of some obscure internet video.
If you continue to get information from politically motivated activist sites your view of the world will continue to be that of Obama which is distorted and naïve.
Is Obama’s Egypt and Libya experiences the reason why he failed to act in Syria?
You seem to think that if Sen. McCain says something and two left-wing activist sites misrepresent his words as they spin that represents what “Republicans think”?
Sen, McCain was doing what all politicians do, talking. He also knew very well that at the time, Harry Reid ran The Senate and anything coming from a Republican or the House would never see the light of day.
The fact remains that Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya and it blew up in their faces. It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that ran arms to the terrorists. .It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that attempted regime change and overthrow the governments in two Muslim countries and screwed it up.
Then of course Obama and Hillary Clinton, standing next to the coffins of Amb. Stevens and three other Americans, lied to the American people that they died because of some obscure internet video.
If you continue to get information from politically motivated activist sites your view of the world will continue to be that of Obama which is distorted and naïve.
Is Obama’s Egypt and Libya experiences the reason why he failed to act in Syria?
You again did not read the articles. The money that was released to the Libyan militants had to be approved by congress. McCain was not running around the Middle East like a fluff puff. He was involved in league with Obama and congress in arming the rebels. If you want to ignore the actual data to spin your fantasies that's fine. My objective was simply to point out again you are nothing but a propaganda machine to any lurkers that may stop by.
You may be one of the most programmed dittoheads Rush has ever sent out to spread his gospel.
You seem to think that if Sen. McCain says something and two left-wing activist sites misrepresent his words as they spin that represents what “Republicans think”?
Sen, McCain was doing what all politicians do, talking. He also knew very well that at the time, Harry Reid ran The Senate and anything coming from a Republican or the House would never see the light of day.
The fact remains that Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya and it blew up in their faces. It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that ran arms to the terrorists. .It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that attempted regime change and overthrow the governments in two Muslim countries and screwed it up.
Then of course Obama and Hillary Clinton, standing next to the coffins of Amb. Stevens and three other Americans, lied to the American people that they died because of some obscure internet video.
If you continue to get information from politically motivated activist sites your view of the world will continue to be that of Obama which is distorted and naïve.
Is Obama’s Egypt and Libya experiences the reason why he failed to act in Syria?
You again did not read the articles. The money that was released to the Libyan militants had to be approved by congress. McCain was not running around the Middle East like a fluff puff. He was involved in league with Obama and congress in arming the rebels. If you want to ignore the actual data to spin your fantasies that's fine. My objective was simply to point out again you are nothing but a propaganda machine to any lurkers that may stop by.
You may be one of the most programmed dittoheads Rush has ever sent out to spread his gospel.
_______________________________________________________________________Like welfare ron, you claim to be well informed about Rush Limbaugh. Just how many hours a day do you listen to his show? Personally I've never heard his show.
On the rest of your post you are just another liberal liar. Not a fact in sight.
I did read the two articles written by left-wing spinners and posted on liberal activist websites that have zero credibility.
The congress you refer to that appropriated and approved the money was by a democrat controlled Senate aka Harry Reid.
Sen. McCain had no role in arming the rebels. That was exclusively done by Obama and Hillary Clinton.
What “actual data”? You posted no links to creditable sources to back up you spin.
You have nothing.
The fact remains that Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya and it blew up in their faces. It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that ran arms to the terrorists. .It was Obama and Hillary Clinton that attempted regime change and overthrow the governments in two Muslim countries and screwed it up.
If you don’t think so prove me wrong.
