No it doesn't. It implies that we continued to support the Iranian government as they were suppressing the Green Movement, who had asked us for help.This implies an active role played by the Obama administration against Iran's green movement.
Our response was to issue a mealy-mouthed statement that all sides should eschew violence, and then hurridly signal to the Iranian government that we didn't mean anything by it, we wanted negotiations to continue, etc. We made it clear to the Iranian regime that they had the greenlight from us so long as those negotiations continued, and so that is how they were able to exercise complete freedom of movement against the protestors, knowing that the one country that might make trouble for them if they did so had already told them they wouldn't.
In his finest tradition, the President here acted by voting "present" when the demand instead was for action.
Communications Gear would have been better. Any kind of support whatsoever would have been better. Obama appearing on television with a green tie and announcing mere solidarity with those who struggle for freedom against thuggish theocratic rapists would have been better.If you are going to change your story to the latter of the Obama administration not backing the democracy green movement, fine... I'd like to ask what you proposed America should've done? Start dropping bombs in Iran? Boots on the ground in Iran? Drone strikes in Iran? Funneling weapons of war into Iran?
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
“It was clear to me - and many others,” Panetta wrote in his memoir, “Worthy Battles,” “that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.”
Such arguments were rejected at the time inside the White House, where the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
Do you even keep up on what BO peep has going on or is doing overseas? What do you think I need to read his personal messages to know whether strategy and tactics against an enemy is working? Face it.....if I wanted to slam BO I could use all his time here in Chicago where Democrats didn't even care if he existed at the time.
Here let me show why my knowledge preceeds any comments I make on a topic. Wherein all that you just said.....gets put into its Right and proper place.
Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S......
Iraq's Sunnis won't fight ISIS for the U.S. says NIQASH, a non-profit media organization operating out of Berlin. Without Sunni support, America's war in Iraq cannot succeed. Here's why.
According to NIQASH, a source at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said there have been secret negotiations between various Sunni Muslim armed factions, via Arab and Iraqi Kurdish intermediaries, for the past three months. At the request of U.S. diplomats and military personnel, Shia officials from the Iraqi government have also been meeting with the leaders of these groups in Erbil, Kurdistan and Amman, Jordan.
The Sunnis seem to be choosing a middle ground, one which does not serve America's interests. According to a 1920s Revolution Brigades (Sunni militia) leader, various militias came to the decision "not to support the international coalition against ISIS. They also decided not to cooperate with ISIS either. If the [Iraqi] army or the [Shia] militias attack [Sunni] areas they control though, they will fight both groups."....snip~
Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S.*|*Peter Van Buren
Now.....lets see how Bright you are and why don't you explain to all here that know about Foreign Policy. What this exactly means.....and how this brings BO's strategy to an end.
Oh and the finality to it.....until they come up with a new plan.
Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria.....
Western Iraq saw more brutal bloodshed this weekend after the Islamic State massacred 322 people of the Albu Nimr tribe, a Sunni group, including women and children. The Iraqi government confirmed the attack in the Anbar region, which began on Saturday and continued into Sunday, and was described as "systematic killings."Beyond the lives lost, the success of these "systematic killings" will have a long-term impact on the struggle between ISIS and the Iraqi government. "The fall of the village dampened the Shi'ite-led national government's hopes the Sunni tribesmen of Anbar—who once helped U.S. Marines defeat al Qaeda—would become a formidable force again and help the army take on Iraq's new, far more effective enemy," noted Reuters's Michael Georgy.
In Syria, the United States faced another setback in its battle against terrorist groups, when weapons distributed to anti-government rebels ended up in the hands of an al-Qaeda splinter group, Jabhat al-Nusra. The weapons provided by the United States included GRAD rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles. It is unclear if the moderate rebels who had been trained by the United States surrendered or defected to the terrorist group. The Independent reported that a U.S.-backed rebel group, Harakat Hazm, surrendered on Saturday night "without firing a shot" after al-Nusra attacked the villages it controlled. Some soldiers apparently defected, and the Syrian Revolutionary Front, another group receiving U.S. support, was driven from its strongholds.....snip~
Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria
The National Security Council staff, which coordinates U.S. defense, diplomatic and intelligence policy from inside the White House, has nearly doubled in size on his watch. It has gone from about 50 under George H.W. Bush to 100 under Bill Clinton, 200 under George W. Bush and about 370 under Obama.
So the meetings are growing in size but shrinking at the same time?
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.