• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fact Checkers Confirm That What Obama Said About ISIL Being Contained Is True

Kobie said:
Wow, there's an argument. :roll:
Click to expand...



well it is if you have creative thinking skills, but I will be happy to spoon feed you in easy to read sentences.


Bush had his mission accomplished moment, which according to serving officers the banner was for the ship. liberals went ape **** over it, lampooning it, mischaractarizing it, etc. here you have something very similar. and without even a thought towards possibly looking like raging hypocrites you all make the same excuses the republicans made...


but lets take this claim regarding what he meant by contained via territory, shall we?


https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/un-isis-expanding-in-libya/
The Rise of ISIS: 'Remaining and Expanding' - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

seems some people like the UN think ISIS is not contained.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
well it is if you have creative thinking skills, but I will be happy to spoon feed you in easy to read sentences.


Bush had his mission accomplished moment, which according to serving officers the banner was for the ship. liberals went ape **** over it, lampooning it, mischaractarizing it, etc. here you have something very similar. and without even a thought towards possibly looking like raging hypocrites you all make the same excuses the republicans made...


but lets take this claim regarding what he meant by contained via territory, shall we?


https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/un-isis-expanding-in-libya/
The Rise of ISIS: 'Remaining and Expanding' - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

seems some people like the UN think ISIS is not contained.
Click to expand...

See previous post, understand the concept of context, get back to me.

And yes, the freak-out over Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was overblown. However, this was on a TV show, not a ****ing aircraft carrier.
 
tres borrachos said:
You didn't misspell it. Misspelling would be "partisna" or something like that. You used the wrong word.

I watch MSNBC, CNN, and BBC news regularly, often watch C-Span and PBS, and read the WSJ and the Washington Post, and the Union Leader. The only shows I watch on Fox are Cavuto and Bret Baier on occasion. I don't read Liberal sites for "Real Liberal Politics" news. I leave that stuff to Liberals such as yourself.
Click to expand...

I do the same......and all the RW media sites too............I read from all...........And if I can share some of what I have found.....If you really want to know what's going on in this country.....read the foreign press
 
I guess it depends on how desperate you are to continue your fantasy that President Obama is competent and intelligent.

Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee claims that she's seen the intelligence reports and flat out says that ISIS isn't contained or weakened.

ISIS is setting up shop in Afghanistan now - is that containment?

ISIS steps up recruitment in Taliban territory - CNN.com

The Paris attacks were orchestrated from Syria, through Belgium and France - is that containment?

ISIS is setting up shop in Libya - and using that to filter "refugees" into southern Europe - is that containment?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/africa/libya-isis-executions-ethiopian-christians/index.html

Containment is in the eye of the beholder. If a media outlet's pronouncements helps you sleep at night, well good for you.
 
Kobie said:
Thereby confirming my original comment. You're welcome.

Was, or was not, Obama referring to ISIS' territorial expansion in Iraq and Syria with his "contained" comment, answering a question specifically addressing that from Stephanopolous? It's a yes or no question. There are no other acceptable answers other than "yes" or "no."

Maybe there's a reason Politifact finds Republicans to be lying so much more other than "bias." Maybe it's because the GOP is a bunch of shameless ****ing liars. Obama is too, btw, but there's a lot more Republicans making public statements. As in, for starters, the 37 clowns who think they can be president.
Click to expand...



yes those wascally weepublicans always not honest like democrats....
 
Kobie said:
See previous post, understand the concept of context, get back to me.

And yes, the freak-out over Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was overblown. However, this was on a TV show, not a ****ing aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...




that's one way of avoiding inconvenient truth's I guess...
 
imyoda said:
Fact Checkers Confirm That What President Obama Said About ISIL Being Contained Is True

Fact Checkers Confirm That What President Obama Said About ISIL Being Contained Is True


Republicans are trying to make hay out of a sound bite of President Obama saying ISIL is contained. But as I explained yesterday, the full context of his quote made it quite clear that anyone doing this is being dishonest. He was asked specifically about Iraq and Syria and he was correct in his response. Today I learned that PolitiFact agrees.


Looking back at Obama’s interview where he made this comment, it is quite clear that it’s within a narrowly defined scope: ISIS’s territorial expansion in Iraq and Syria. He did not rule out the potential for a terrorist attack, and he also made it clear that the United States’ anti-ISIS efforts are a work in progress.

References or suggestions that Obama claimed ISIS no longer presents an active threat are incorrect.

Experts agree that the President was correct, though his choice of words wasn’t great, given some people’s inability to understand stateless terrorism.

Perhaps the problem is that the people jumping to conclusions aren’t able to keep up with the President’s nuanced, in-depth understanding of fighting stateless terrorism, and only understand delusional bumper sticker slogans that make them feel better, in spite of not actually addressing the problem at all.

Speaking today at a press conference at the Kaya Palazzo Resort in Antalya, Turkey, President Obama demonstrated a remarkable grasp of how to fight ISIL (aka, ISIS). But it wasn’t just his prepared remarks, it was the agile, nuanced answers he gave to complex questions.

In fact, President Obama’s answers were so long that I can only fit one full response in this post. Read it in full and compare it to every single Republican presidential candidate’s “solution”. For that matter, compare it to each Democratic presidential candidate’s.

For a clear understanding of this one is required to read the entire report to understand what5 the President actually said…………….

Rather than relying upon Faux Noise providing an accurate and unspun report……
Click to expand...

Do you get EVERYTHING from that website? Sheesh.

Once again, yes, if you interpret Obama's remarks in a narrow scope, as even that "Real Liberal Politics" website's POLITIFACT link endeavored to do, then he can claim they are contained in the sense that they're not gobbling up territory at the pace they had been.
So if you consider that as a victory, congratulations, you're a winner.

But even in that narrow scope it can't be proven since Obama also said ISIS goes in and out of territory.
The problem is that he's suggesting his strategy is working as planned.
That's not demonstrable and he, his Party, and his Defense Secretary noted that it needed to change.
 
bubbabgone said:
Do you get EVERYTHING from that website? Sheesh.

Once again, yes, if you interpret Obama's remarks in a narrow scope, as even that "Real Liberal Politics" website's POLITIFACT link endeavored to do, then he can claim they are contained in the sense that they're not gobbling up territory at the pace they had been.
So if you consider that as a victory, congratulations, you're a winner.

But even in that narrow scope it can't be proven since Obama also said ISIS goes in and out of territory.
The problem is that he's suggesting his strategy is working as planned.
That's not demonstrable and he, his Party, and his Defense Secretary noted that it needed to change.
Click to expand...

Isis, a year of the caliphate: 4 maps that show how far and fast the group has spread | Middle East | News | The Independent
 
Kobie said:
Ah yes, anecdotes are better than ... actual facts?
Click to expand...

Why are you calling the recognition of recent attacks anecdotes? Tell me, how is ISIS contained if we can't even identify not just one, but many heads of this snake?
True, a few attacks were thwarted. But do we call that containment when we are hopelessly retroactive on so many other fronts?
I would love to agree with Obama, but I am also a realist, and that is regardless of who is in office.
The situation(s) are clearly escalating.
 
bubbabgone said:
Do you get EVERYTHING from that website? Sheesh.

Once again, yes, if you interpret Obama's remarks in a narrow scope, as even that "Real Liberal Politics" website's POLITIFACT link endeavored to do, then he can claim they are contained in the sense that they're not gobbling up territory at the pace they had been.
So if you consider that as a victory, congratulations, you're a winner.

But even in that narrow scope it can't be proven since Obama also said ISIS goes in and out of territory.
The problem is that he's suggesting his strategy is working as planned.
That's not demonstrable and he, his Party, and his Defense Secretary noted that it needed to change.
Click to expand...

Not a narrow scope...............its from what the man said..........It is all in the body of the article provided.............You mean you did not bother to read it?

And if you have any problems......take it up with the Fact Checker who said Obama statement was taken out of context
 
imyoda said:
Not a narrow scope...............its from what the man said..........It is all in the body of the article provided.............You mean you did not bother to read it?

And if you have any problems......take it up with the Fact Checker who said Obama statement was taken out of context
Click to expand...

Oh geezuz.
The Politifact link said narrow scope.
Looking back at Obama’s interview where he made this comment, it is quite clear that it’s within a narrowly defined scope:
Click to expand...
Of course I read it, that's how I know what it said and just posted it here.
Looks like YOU didn't read your own link.
Don't start this crap again.
It's been beaten to death.
 
Lovebug said:
Why are you calling the recognition of recent attacks anecdotes? Tell me, how is ISIS contained if we can't even identify not just one, but many heads of this snake?
True, a few attacks were thwarted. But do we call that containment when we are hopelessly retroactive on so many other fronts?
I would love to agree with Obama, but I am also a realist, and that is regardless of who is in office.
The situation(s) are clearly escalating.
Click to expand...

The context of Obama's statement was limited to territorial gains and losses in Iraq and Syria. I cannot make this more clear, and it's supported by the video or transcripts from the interview.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh geezuz.
The Politifact link said narrow scope.

Of course I read it, that's how I know what it said and just posted it here.
Looks like YOU didn't read your own link.
Don't start this crap again.
It's been beaten to death.
Click to expand...


Are you threatening me? And when did you get appointed to decide when a string is done?
 
Kobie said:
That's one way of arguing your way out of using memes as an argument, I guess.

Grow up.
Click to expand...


wait, my point goes completely over your head because your partisan blinders are weighing you down but you demand I "grow up"?

hubris!!!! :lol:
 
Can't we just agree that this a very very serious matter, one that should not be minimized by vicious political bickering. Can't we show a united front against ISIS instead of attacking each other about something that is a mere theory, or at best a profitable opinion?
Why does it matter if ISIS is somewhat contained or not, when people have died, and more will likely be dying?
Do you win a prize for being right? Will it matter? Isn't the safety of every man, woman and child more important than mere words?
 
imyoda said:
Faux Noise lies............
Click to expand...

I always find it funny when people say this just because they disagree with what that person is saying. Shows partisanship. (especially shown by saying "faux noise")

In any case, I don't watch Fox News. Most of the time I hear about stuff here first and if I'm interested I look up various news articles online. I don't even watch regular TV. I use hulu and Netflix and DVD's for shows/movies that I want to watch. Far less commercials and far less idiocy this way. ;)
 
imyoda said:
As someone said above.................."Obama's "ISIS is contained" comment was regarding territorial expansion in the Middle East. It was not addressing the threat of external terrorist attacks."


Do you see how Faux and the RW media spun the story........and ..........how do I say this...............Lied to yall

Context is your friend.
Click to expand...

Bold: Seriously, if this doesn't proved that you lied about your lean I don't know what does. Only partisan liberals state such things.

And if ISIS is still capable of committing terrorist acts outside of the ME then they are not contained. To say differently is to try and downplay their threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom