• 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!

Obama on 60 Minutes

... that's how our entire political culture works. Relations between political rivals are similar to relations between toddlers kicking over each other sand castles on the playground.

Your right but there are times when it has not been that way. Sadly this is not one of them.
 
Perhaps that is a problem of yours not Obama's. Prejudice is an insidious master. The truth is that Obama has done a far better job than his predecessor under difficult conditions.


When are you lefties going to stop blaming President Bush? 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years......when are you and your daddy Obama going to accept some of the blame? It really gets old.
 
He's the Kwisatz Haderach and can do no wrong. Sure he drops turds all the time - and when he does we should all applaud them.


I can't think of too many instances when he admitted fault. That is his pathological narcissism. He simply can't. Even when he talked about the shovel ready jobs saying that "shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected", he giggled like a school girl while saying it. It isn't so mystifying that he does it as the fact that Americans will still go to the mat to defend the guy for doing it.
 
Wow, someone got word of the day toilet paper.

For a segment of you guys, it is literally impossible for the man to do anything without you guys complaining.


Wow.....People from an opposing party talking about a President and Politics on a political site. Just to much to handle for ya......huh? Go figure! :roll:
 
When are you lefties going to stop blaming President Bush? 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years......when are you and your daddy Obama going to accept some of the blame? It really gets old.

We will never blame Obama for the mess in Iraq, it was not his war. Bush is 100% at fault for that blunder and for the turmoil in the region that resulted from the upset of the balance of power there. Things are actually better now that Maliki is gone. At least there is hope for a stable govt. Bush left another sectarian dictator to replace the other one. What good was that?
 
In this case, he didn't say he was left out of the loop. He merely said his Administration (specifically, the CIA) under-estimated the ISIS/ISIL threat and the Iraqi military's ability/willingness to fight against the threat. That's different from claiming he knew nothing about it. Besides, what exactly was he suppose to do about it anyway?

I know how most people (Republicans) feel about not leaving a U.S. residual force in Iraq, but the bottom line is ISIS/ISIL likely would have formed whether we were there or not. And since we weren't there it wasn't our fight to deal with. Iraq and Syria initially were the only two countries who were at risk from ISIS/ISIL. It wasn't until the beheadings did they pose a risk to the U.S. or any Western ally.



Well he did say AQ Core was decimated.....Correct?


Thomas Joscelyn, an editor of The Long War Journal and scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider that Khorasan consists of members of "core Al Qaeda" who were dispatched to Syria by Ayman Al Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden's successor as head of the international jihadist group.

"These are basically senior operational guys within Al Qaeda who are operating in Syria, and using the fertile recruiting ground of Syria to identify potential terrorist operations in the west," Joscelyn told Business Insider. The operatives are embedded within Nusra's leadership structure, and take their name from the Khorasan Shura, an advisory council within Al Qaeda central. Senior Obama administration officials said the group's operatives have fought in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The group was portrayed as a known threat, one that a senior US official said had forced the US to contemplate taking action for quite some time.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-khorasan-terrorist-group-thats-151300221.html


Oh, and Team BO knew they posed a risk back in June of this year......as a matter of fact on July 1. Bo raised the security threat to High. So BO did consider them to be a risk.....long before the beheadings started.
 
You would be correct, my statement was in general - BO claiming to find out about other issues in the media.

BO knew about ISIS last year but yet he blamed Clapper, instead of taking responsibility himself. Why did BO blame Clapper, when his intelligence team was reporting about ISIS in his daily reports.

"Nearly eight months ago, some of President Obama’s senior intelligence officials were already warning that ISIS was on the move. In the beginning of 2014, ISIS fighters had defeated Iraqi forces in Fallujah, leading much of the U.S. intelligence community to assess they would try to take more of Iraq.

Other senior intelligence officials have been warning about ISIS for months."
Why Obama Can

It wasn't until the ugly be-headings that BO was forced to do something. ISISL was multiplying in those 8 months and continues to grow daily.

Again, it's not that he didn't know about ISIL. It's very obvious that the President was very much aware of ISIS' movements within northern Iraq and likely with Syria as well. But again I ask:

What was he suppose to do about it when at the time ISIS posed more of a threat to Iraq's national security than that of the U.S.?

Again, we're talking about sectarian violence in a country we all knew was riff with sectarian violence even while our military forces were there. IMO, whether Pres. Obama or VP Biden didn't work hard enough to foster a strong SOFA that was more in the USA's favor is irrelevant when kept in the context of "democracy" and the "sovereignty" of an independent nation whose government forcefully stated they could deal with the problems within their borders themselves. So, what exactly was the President of the United States suppose to do against a group of militants who at the time posed no direct threat to the U.S.? I get that many within the political and intelligence communities had been issuing warnings about this for quite some time (i.e., Senators McCain and Graham), but how was the President to square our values for self-governance, democracy and sovereignty with combating a militancy on foreign soil in a country whose government stated for all practical purposes they could handle their county's security matters themselves? Forget the rhetoric on either side, i.e., residual force -vs- anti-war time president. How exactly was he suppose to deal with a situation that wasn't his to handle?
 
Well he did say AQ Core was decimated.....Correct?


Thomas Joscelyn, an editor of The Long War Journal and scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider that Khorasan consists of members of "core Al Qaeda" who were dispatched to Syria by Ayman Al Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden's successor as head of the international jihadist group.

"These are basically senior operational guys within Al Qaeda who are operating in Syria, and using the fertile recruiting ground of Syria to identify potential terrorist operations in the west," Joscelyn told Business Insider. The operatives are embedded within Nusra's leadership structure, and take their name from the Khorasan Shura, an advisory council within Al Qaeda central. Senior Obama administration officials said the group's operatives have fought in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The group was portrayed as a known threat, one that a senior US official said had forced the US to contemplate taking action for quite some time.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-khorasan-terrorist-group-thats-151300221.html


Oh, and Team BO knew they posed a risk back in June of this year......as a matter of fact on July 1. Bo raised the security threat to High. So BO did consider them to be a risk.....long before the beheadings started.

In short, Al-Qaeda was fractured, splintered, and their senior membership left Afghanistan and Pakistan and tried to set up camp in other countries, principally Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and eventually Syria. They couldn't get a strong enough foothold in Yemen, Iraq or Somalia. So, they settled for Syria which we all agree is a BIG cluster (fill in blank).

Thus, what the President said was true. Core Al-Qaeda was dismantled. But as they say about terrorist and terrorism "you cut off the head of the snack, but another head will eventually crop up somewhere else". Take out one terrorist leader, another turns up to take his place. Destroy one terror group, one terror cell and another will eventually spring up somewhere else.

The only way to kill terrorism is to change minds and conditions among the populations. But in the meantime, you're gonna need a lot of body bags.
 
In short, Al-Qaeda was fractured, splintered, and their senior membership left Afghanistan and Pakistan and tried to set up camp in other countries, principally Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and eventually Syria. They couldn't get a strong enough foothold in Yemen, Iraq or Somalia. So, they settled for Syria which we all agree is a BIG cluster (fill in blank).

Thus, what the President said was true. Core Al-Qaeda was dismantled. But as they say about terrorist and terrorism "you cut off the head of the snack, but another head will eventually crop up somewhere else". Take out one terrorist leader, another turns up to take his place. Destroy one terror group, one terror cell and another will eventually spring up somewhere else.

The only way to kill terrorism is to change minds and conditions among the populations. But in the meantime, you're gonna need a lot of body bags.



He also said decimated.....which they weren't. He also said Afghanistan was the War to fight and to prevent AQ from having any safehavens. That which he was always so worried about.

Also BO was the one to designate AQAP as the most dangerous faction of AQ. Which he knew.....ISIL's top people were coming from AQ and from AQAP. He also knew they were back in Iraq.....just as they are now back in Afghanistan. Yet he has fought the invisible war in Yemen.....and now has had to pull out due to the Shia going after the Sunni Government there.

Yes sometimes it takes a lot of body bags.....but what do you think is the most effective way to affect the future generations to come?
 
Perhaps that is a problem of yours not Obama's. Prejudice is an insidious master. The truth is that Obama has done a far better job than his predecessor under difficult conditions.

It is. I find it somewhat interesting that, for example, according to the left, the DIA lied regarding WMD during the Bush administration and was not to be trusted. Now I have discovered that the left considers their pronouncements sacrosanct and absolutely truthful. Seems the prejudice is all related to for whom the defense department works. They're evil when they work for a republican president, and a veritable shining light of truth when they work for a democrat president. It's amazing.
 
He also said decimated.....which they weren't. He also said Afghanistan was the War to fight and to prevent AQ from having any safehavens. That which he was always so worried about.

Also BO was the one to designate AQAP as the most dangerous faction of AQ. Which he knew.....ISIL's top people were coming from AQ and from AQAP. He also knew they were back in Iraq.....just as they are now back in Afghanistan. Yet he has fought the invisible war in Yemen.....and now has had to pull out due to the Shia going after the Sunni Government there.

Yes sometimes it takes a lot of body bags.....but what do you think is the most effective way to affect the future generations to come?

Just so I'm clear, which is your prevailing argument? That..

Core AQ was dismantled/decimated.

Pres. Obama ignored ISIL as a threat to U.S. national security.

AQ splinter groups are dangerous factions of core AQ.

War on Terror was the just war on terrorism to fight.

I was unnecessary to fight the off-shoot of AQAP in Yemen to prevent them from gaining a foothold in that country.

I'm having a difficult time following you because the goal post keeps moving.
 
Just so I'm clear, which is your prevailing argument? That..

Core AQ was dismantled/decimated.

Pres. Obama ignored ISIL as a threat to U.S. national security.

AQ splinter groups are dangerous factions of core AQ.

War on Terror was the just war on terrorism to fight.

I was unnecessary to fight the off-shoot of AQAP in Yemen to prevent them from gaining a foothold in that country.

I'm having a difficult time following you because the goal post keeps moving.


Well OV. :2wave: We know it wasn't even tho BO stated it was. So never dismantled or decimated.

Yes BO ignored the threat of ISIL which would be a threat to US Security and or our Interests.

Well all know now.....how the factions came from Core membership.

You stated they, meaning AQ couldn't get a strong enough foothold in Yemen. I was just pointing out that's exactly what they did.

Not really as I stated earlier in the thread.....BO had his chance to clean up with Maliki and the SOFA. It was In Nov of last year. Wherein BO was told directly that ISIL was back in town.....so to speak.
 
Wow, someone got word of the day toilet paper.

For a segment of you guys, it is literally impossible for the man to do anything without you guys complaining.

So your happy with Obama? OK..... back in the real world.

58585e4.jpg
 
Well OV. :2wave: We know it wasn't even tho BO stated it was. So never dismantled or decimated.

Yes BO ignored the threat of ISIL which would be a threat to US Security and or our Interests.

Well all know now.....how the factions came from Core membership.

You stated they, meaning AQ couldn't get a strong enough foothold in Yemen. I was just pointing out that's exactly what they did.

Not really as I stated earlier in the thread.....BO had his chance to clean up with Maliki and the SOFA. It was In Nov of last year. Wherein BO was told directly that ISIL was back in town.....so to speak.

Let me just counter with this and then I'll set this issue aside and allow moss to grow over it as it richly deserves.

Core AQ operated out of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan (AfPak). By all accounts, all but one of its primary leaders have been killed or captured. Moreover, AQ no longer operates out of Afghanistan or Pakistan as their primary base of operations. Your quoted commentary in post #33 even validates much of this.

These are basically senior operational guys within Al Qaeda who are operating in Syria, and using the fertile recruiting ground of Syria to identify potential terrorist operations in the west.

So, if core AQ wasn't "decimated, dismantled, weakened", why would they leave AfPak and try to set up safe haven in Yemen? And if efforts to go after the AQ spin-offs wasn't effective, why would their "senior operational guys" leave there to establish their new base of operations in Syria? Your argument would be valid if the old AQ was still in tact operating out of AfPak and new terror cells were popping up in other countries OR even if new AQ spin-offs were setting up shot in other countries and being highly affective, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening. The evidence shows something different. These groups are on the run trying to set up shot wherever they believe they might be able to gain a foothold particularly in countries that have no central government or national defense to stop them.

Furthermore, it's false to claim in one post that the President "ignored" ISIL as a viable terrorist threat but then state firmly that he "raised the threat level" because he was aware of the threat they posed. Again, from your post #33:

Team BO knew they posed a risk back in June of this year......as a matter of fact on July 1. Bo raised the security threat to High. So BO did consider them to be a risk.....long before the beheadings started.

As much as people try to paint such a bleak picture of how the President is handling global terrorism, I think too many people look at things through ideologically tinted glasses. I'm not saying he's handled everything right, but I'm a long way from saying he ignored the problem or has done nothing to try to remedy the situation where AQ or its spin-offs are concerned.
 
Let me just counter with this and then I'll set this issue aside and allow moss to grow over it as it richly deserves.

Core AQ operated out of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan (AfPak). By all accounts, all but one of its primary leaders have been killed or captured. Moreover, AQ no longer operates out of Afghanistan or Pakistan as their primary base of operations. Your quoted commentary in post #33 even validates much of this.

So, if core AQ wasn't "decimated, dismantled, weakened", why would they leave AfPak and try to set up safe haven in Yemen? And if efforts to go after the AQ spin-offs wasn't effective, why would their "senior operational guys" leave there to establish their new base of operations in Syria? Your argument would be valid if the old AQ was still in tact operating out of AfPak and new terror cells were popping up in other countries OR even if new AQ spin-offs were setting up shot in other countries and being highly affective, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening. The evidence shows something different. These groups are on the run trying to set up shot wherever they believe they might be able to gain a foothold particularly in countries that have no central government or national defense to stop them.

Furthermore, it's false to claim in one post that the President "ignored" ISIL as a viable terrorist threat but then state firmly that he "raised the threat level" because he was aware of the threat they posed. Again, from your post #33:

As much as people try to paint such a bleak picture of how the President is handling global terrorism, I think too many people look at things through ideologically tinted glasses. I'm not saying he's handled everything right, but I'm a long way from saying he ignored the problem or has done nothing to try to remedy the situation where AQ or its spin-offs are concerned.



Well the only Moss I might watch is Carrie.....especially if she is wearing that Latex and Spiked heels.

They still operate out Afghanistan and Pakistan. Note it said Senior Operational Guys....now we all know the Z Man isn't Operational.

Well if you have been reading any of AQ Ideology and read what they have said.....they have always been about spreading to other countries. Also there have been New Terror cells popping up. Which is why the Z-man announced their new Chapter in India.

Moreover.....Bin Laden's Driver, Core AQ was the one to create the Ansar Al Sharia factions.....Which range from Yemen to Libya.

Like you mentioned about cutting off the head of the serpent.....except the concept was Hydra not serpent. Which means Morph.....which they did. The Invisible Sheik was answering to AQ prime in the beginning. ISIL - AQ in the Levant.

Not at all with the threat level.....which the links showed why. At that time.....before then he would be told directly from Maliki that ISIL was more of threat than just in Iraq. Which was Nov of last year. But BO denied assistance.


Obama Meets Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki As Terror Rages Across Country.....

President Obama's proud political boast is that he ended the Iraq war, but on Friday, he will come face-to-face with a man who is still fighting it -- Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Iraqi leader visits the White House as Al-Qaeda sows terror in Iraq's Shiite community, with a surge of suicide and car bombings, drawing analogies to the darkest days of sectarian bloodletting during the US occupation. Two years after the last US soldier left Iraq, Americans have largely moved on from a war which killed nearly 4,500 US troops, tens of thousands of civilians and drained the US Treasury. But the carnage in Iraq -- where more than 700 people have died in violence this month alone -- is stirring fears the country may again slide into an abyss exacerbated by the brutal war rending Syria next door. "The security situation is not only bad... it not only could reverse all of the gains of 2008, it could tear the country apart if both Maliki and the United States do not act quickly," said James Jeffrey, until last year, the US ambassador to Iraq, who is now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Maliki, blamed by some Iraq watchers in Washington for marginalizing Sunnis and sinking a well of sectarian anger for extremists to exploit, is blunt about the challenge. "The terrorists found a second chance," he said in a speech in Washington Thursday, warning Al-Qaeda and allied groups were a "virus." Maliki has a wish list of US military hardware, including attack helicopters to go with already ordered fighter jets to help his ill-equipped military battle insurgents. There is a certain irony in his request -- given the failure of Iraqi and US negotiators to agree legal immunity for US troops that would have allowed a residual American force to stay behind in Iraq. Iraq's slide back into violence has revived questions here about the wisdom of the complete US withdrawal, the Maliki government's conduct since and America's future relationship with a nation it invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.....snip~

Obama Meets Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki As Terror Rages Across Country
 
I would love to see Obama takes the blame when something goes wrong.
 
I would love to see Obama takes the blame when something goes wrong.

Hey NP....can you name one time that GWB ever accepted blame for anything? oh...that's right.....he gets a pass from you because of the (R).
 
Hey NP....can you name one time that GWB ever accepted blame for anything? oh...that's right.....he gets a pass from you because of the (R).

2005 -

GWB said:
It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we’re doing just that . . . . My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision” because he was deemed a threat and that regardless, “We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator.”

Want more?
 
2005 -



Want more?

Actions speak louder than words. This quote is like Reagan "confessing" that he lied about Iran/Contra - "My heart wants to believe that I didn't lie to the American people, but the facts say otherwise". Saying "I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq" and then saying "it was the right decision"....is not accepting responsibility....it is attempting to take credit. There is a big difference that I would suspect that even you can see.
 
Actions speak louder than words. This quote is like Reagan "confessing" that he lied about Iran/Contra - "My heart wants to believe that I didn't lie to the American people, but the facts say otherwise". Saying "I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq" and then saying "it was the right decision"....is not accepting responsibility....it is attempting to take credit. There is a big difference that I would suspect that even you can see.

What part of "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," do you not understand? So I call your bluff and give you an answer, then you claim the answer isn't good enough. Here's another...

GWB said:
President Bush on Tuesday acknowledged "serious problems" in the government's response to emergencies, and accepted responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to the disaster.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said during a news conference.
CNN.com - 'People making decisions hesitated' - Sep 13, 2005

Let's put it into perspective: The current president claims he gets his information from the nightly news, and throws everyone (the most recent person - Clapper) under the bus. Since you're so critical, perhaps you can provide 2 examples (as I've provided 2) of Obama taking responsibility as YOU claim Bush failed to do. :lamo
 
I watched him on 60 minutes tonight and has this guy ever admitted fault in six years of office? Does he know anything going on or does he find out everything in the Newspaper. Its so frustrating to never hear him accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong and when something goes right (Bin Ladens death for example) he is quick to accept credit for that.

Not only that he keeps blame shifting for everything that goes wrong (do note that he had no trouble throw the Intelligence agencies under the bus for 'underestimating ISIS / ISIL, when he can't be bothered to attend the daily intelligence briefing with any regularity - he golfs more hours than attending hours), he's also spouting false and spun facts to make himself look better.

I have lost all respect for Steve Croft and 60 Minutes. Not only did Steve hold the Obama Clinton love fest interview with nary a challenging question, he's pretty much done the same in this interview. So chalk up 60 Minutes as yet another Obama political propaganda venue.
 
Back
Top Bottom