Obama on terrorist attacks
Technically Obama might be correct, in that no “foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland”. There have been terrorist attacks, though. At Little Rock, Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, the Boston Bombing, the San Bernadino massacre, the Orlando “Pulse” attack. There was the Detroit underwear bomber whose bomb misfired, and the Time Square bomber whose bomb also failed to detonate properly. But there was no “foreign terrorist organization” involved in those attacks.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
And, technically, he has been CiC, did pass Obamanation Care, and overseen the best economic recovery in the past 8 years.
Best? No. Longest? Again, semantics.
Only is correct, therefore ‘best’ slightly fits as there has been only one. ‘Pathetic’ might be more semantically correct. ‘Longest’ again correct as even a one day recovery would be the longest when there is only one. He has no clue that his performance as president has been nothing to brag about, given how little else he has accomplished in his lifetime. Trump has done more for the ecomony since he was elected than Obama has in almost 8 years.
The asshole has no clue that “anything” he has done has failed and he is a do nothing, know nothing, complete failure and a disgrace to the office of president!! imho
Didn’t Al-Qaida pull off 9-11?
I think the qualifier was “in the last eight years”.
Since I cannot see the video from work, I’m not sure if the Big 0 hizself qualified his remarks – implicitly or explicitly – to mean only “during the time of 0’s Presidency.”
I was trying to show how, by including the caveat “within the last 8 years” one can truthfully claim all sorts of stuff which is misleading as all get-out.
The best economic recovery of the last 8 years is still a financial disaster.
The best healthcare initiative of the last 8 years is nonetheless an abysmal failure.
The best CiC of the last 8 years is still a clown.
The best foreign policy of the last 8 years still left diplomats murdered.
The best counter-terrorist strategy of the last 8 years has, regardless, allowed terrorism to grow.
In other words – 0 is speaking and the BS flag is flapping.
But, he’s so ghettofabulous… and loves to give free shit away to his minions. And, he’s da preezy of the 57 steezy!
Millard Fillmore, your place as America’s worst President will soon be filled by a new person… Barack Obama
Naw, Millard got bumped a long time ago by jimmy who? peanut brain Carter! then as bad as peanut brain was, he lost his title to this pathetic, moronic, ignorant, FRAUD!
I’ve lost count of the number of times he’s twisted the truth to suit himself.
But… but… but his LEGACY!!!
(((Flushhhhhh)))
EVERYTIME…there that makes it easier to count!!
So what’s your solution to stopping homegrown attacks besides bitching and moaning at Obama? Arrest every American muslim? As one CIA director said, we not only have to a needle in a haystack, we have to find a piece of straw that will turn into a needle. What practical solution have you guys come up with? Just more free-floating hostility directed at Obama.
Joe – enough with the straw-man BS already.
That 0’s strategy is an abysmal failure is readily apparent.
That the problem has no easy solution is also readily apparent.
The “arrest every American muslim[sic]” line has not been suggested here with any degree of seriousness.
To further point the extent of your over-simplification: what shall we say about non-American Muslims?
What is free-floating here, apparently, is your connection with reality. Come back when you are ready to have an adult conversation. You may now return to the preschool playground.
^^^ +54!
This X 100.
I don’t quite know what makes President Obama’s strategy an ‘abysmal failure’, as the only metric I can think of by which we can measure that is the number of attacks we’ve faced.
And if that’s the measure, I’ll wager right now that President-elect Trump’s strategy, even without knowing what it is, will also be an ‘abysmal failure’.
Simply put, attacks are likely to rise. Maybe we could look at the rise in the rate of attacks, but since these things take time to grow, how we separate out what attacks were motivated due to actions taken during the Bush, Obama and Trump eras is basically impossible.
So how do we say Obama’s strategy has been a total failure? Honest question. I want to know how we’re evaluating that in an objective fashion, since clearly people who think the President is doing a decent job are going to say his strategy is decent, and people who strongly dislike the job he’s done are going to say he’s failed.
I wish you were on our side of the aisle LC.
I wish none of us identified as either ‘side’ and tried to look at each issue and action as objectively as possible.
It’s pretty hard to imagine any President, surrounded by experienced advisors, many of whom are life-long military or government officials, gets every decision wrong.
The strongest supporter of President Obama should be able to say that General Mattis is a solid, capable pick without issue. And I’d hope the strongest critic of that same President can agree that going into Pakistan to get bin Laden was the right call. That’s all it takes to get started, I think.
^5
We haven’t seen the full effect of his “we’ll take as many muslim refugees as possible” policy yet. It will take a few more years for some of them to go full-blown ‘slamonazi Jihadi on us. But then you will blame Trump and the Republicans, because that is what you leftards always do.
I can answer that. Nothing, not one thing, Baracka the Soft Tyrant has done is worthy of my gratitude or applause. And now, on his way out–at long last–we are to be nice, I guess, and let bygones be bygones. Well, phuk him, his name, his jeans, his golf game, his pen, his phone, his bicycle helmet, his Supreme Court plants, his health insurance mandate, his injecting himself into state and local issues, his beer summits, his Greek columns, his shovel-ready jobs, his devastating the military…I had better stop. I’m beginning to enrage myself thinking of all the harm that POS has done to this nation. Phuk him, his cabinet, that moron and plagiarist Biden, Baracka’s useful idiot.
And that goes for everyone who voted for him, too.
You sound similar to Democrats circa Dec 2008 regarding Bush.
I was going to try to answer you Joe. But upon reflection, just piss off.
I have an idea. Why don’t YOU tell us YOUR solution for stopping home grown attacks?
He has no answers, just pontifications. Much like his 0 hero.
Hey Joe, you remind me of a kid that attended the same grade school I did in the 70s, he was the one that ate paste & glue and wet his pants!
I am convinced that the Joe who occasionally comments here and always in moronic fashion is, in fact, Joe Biden.
I didn’t realize Creepy Uncle Joe took time off from fondling girls to try to string together a post.
Hey, Biden? How does it feel to be second string to the worst failure ever as an American President? Playing second string for the 0, that is something.
If only we could divide by zero…that would define him…he certainly could be the square root of zero…
A lot of insults, but as far a practical solutions – crickets…..
You, Mr. Vice President, are one sharp cookie! Gosh. Nothing but nothing gets by you. I hear that you haven’t ruled out a run for the Big Seat in 2020. Any comment on that?
Did you overlook Pinto Nag’s question posed to you Joe?
Here, let me make it easy for you:
“I have an idea. Why don’t YOU tell us YOUR solution for stopping home grown attacks?”
While you ponder on that question, how about you let those “home-grown’s” shack up with you.
You, sir, are an anus. But upon further reflection, an anus usefully releases shit, but you are uselessly full of it.
Here’s one for you–stop letting them in by the tens/hundreds of thousands, and those who are allowed in, get fucking put under the microscope, and nothing is off limits, like social media posts calling for jihad.
You know like the “wife” of the San Bernardino shooter, who didn’t face such scrutiny because to do something like that would have been considered “profiling”.
Here’s a crazy suggestion, Joe: How’s about you go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut after you unplug the shitter in the second grade boys bathroom?
Your “hero” has doubled the national debt. Only ONCE in 8 years has the economy grown more than 3 percent–not even enough to cover population growth. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed, wages are LOWER than 2009, unemployment (when you consider U-3 and the workforce participation rate) is HIGHER than when he took office.
These are just a few of the highlights of his presidency, and don’t even get me started on his abortion of a foreign policy.
Now go smash your face into a fucking rock already.
I know I am going to go against the grain here, but I think the question is a relatively fair one. (“Relatively” being the key, operative word.) If people have ideas, they should let them be known. HOWEVER (or a really big BUT,) the question is also akin to asking people to build a house without knowing the plans, the codes for the area and what tools are available. I think we can all agree that there are tools in the intelligence communities’ arsenal that we do not know about. How to use those tools to be more effective against terrorism is therefore out of the reach of the common man on the street (or blog as it were.) Therefore a comprehensive answer is neigh near impossible. HOWEVER (there’s always another big BUT) I do believe that there are some practical, visible steps that can be taken. First, we have to protect the technological methods of intelligence gathering. The government has to be able to walk into a courtroom and say “this is how we found this guy by having this intelligence on him,” without giving up the actual method of intelligence gathering. Once the method is known, people can construct defenses against it. The result of identifying the method means that while you may catch a guy who wants to shoot ten people, the guy who wants to kill thousands will know how you are tracking him. We have to take the stance that if you help a terrorist – either here or abroad – you are an enemy of the United States. Period. That means that if you are housing a terrorist, be prepared to be arrested in this country or shot / bombed in another country. This kind of goes back to Trump’s comment on the indiscriminate or “carpet bombing” of areas. I would be against that on many grounds but at the same time, if you are munching on falafel while chatting with a terrorist, you’re in harm’s way and should expect to die and die without warning. (In historical context, I have no problems with… Read more »
There’s a lot of good points in here and I regret I haven’t got as much time as I’d like tonight to write a lengthy reply. But I’ll focus on two things:
I agree, but I think the main issue is the can of worms it opens in terms of evidence. There’s not a lot of trust in the government these days, so giving the government the ability to say, “Oh, yeah, we totally have evidence on this, trust us!” is a bit of a concern for many people. I think we need to address that, and it’s a tricky issue to solve.
I think that’s a good idea. Much like ‘not negotiating with terrorists’, I think it should be a policy that if you attack us, there will be very well-trained people coming after you, immediately. That introduces some tactical risk, since there’s an anticipated response, but I think there’s value in the certainty of it despite that risk.
On a somewhat related note to this whole topic, you should read Doug Wise’s (former DD at DIA) open letter to Mike Pompeo regarding leadership of CIA – there’s a lot of good stuff, and this line is crystal clear: “You must refocus the Agency on what makes it unique and codified in Executive Order 12333: the aggressive, clandestine collection of intelligence.”
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column/agenda-setter/open-letter-cia-director-nominee-1091
“Oh, yeah, we totally have evidence on this, trust us!” is a bit of a concern for many people. I think we need to address that, and it’s a tricky issue to solve. There is a difference in my mind in saying “we have the evidence – trust us!” and saying “this is how we got the evidence we are presenting here.” That introduces some tactical risk, since there’s an anticipated response, but I think there’s value in the certainty of it despite that risk. I think the risk is more strategic than tactical, but we are quibbling. The fact is that if you want to plan or commit an act of terrorism, you should not be able to hide. Boundaries will not prevent us from raining fire and damnation on you and those who have supported, housed or fed you. To me, that is what and where Obama has failed at. The terrorists are not afraid of us and they should be. As a side note, one of the very few things I like about Trump is his unpredictability. People said during the campaign that not being sure of what he would do in a foreign policy crisis is a detriment. I believe it is a positive. If you know and can plan for a response, that means that you are ahead of the game. If you can’t plan for a response because your opponent / enemy is unpredictable, there is less of a threat to screw around with the US. Hillary and Obama, in my opinion, have a unrealistic view of the world which is “if we are nice to them, they will be nice to us.” Meh. If we are going to be called and be blamed for being the “Great Satan,” I would rather have Lucifer at the helm than Dora the Explorer. Finally, while as I said you question was relatively fair, it is also an really unfair debate tactic. It assumes that the person(s) to whom you are asking knows everything. It also assumes that because they do not have an answer at the… Read more »
The issue, gitarcarver, is that explaining even very generally how you got the info in question sometimes exposes enough about the method to allow an adversary to take countermeasures.
Bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda leaders reportedly ceased using satellite phones (or cut back on the use of same dramatically) after several media outlets publicized that fact between 1996 and August 1998. Published reports from the same general time period (Sep 1998) also indicated that we were in fact tracking bin Laden through his satellite phone use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994_2.html
Bin Laden’s bodyguard reportedly resumed using a satellite phone a decade or so later. Those calls were reportedly tracked, and helped us locate bin Laden in 2011.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0502/Bin-Laden-bodyguard-s-satellite-phone-calls-helped-lead-US-forces-to-hiding-place
The crickets are coming from Joe’s corner now…
The issue, gitarcarver, is that explaining even very generally how you got the info in question sometimes exposes enough about the method to allow an adversary to take countermeasures.
And once again, I am not for exposing HOW the information was obtained. Perhaps the best analogy would be to equate the methods used to a police confidential informant. Cops don’t have to say who the informant is, but can use the information in a trial.
Having to say “we were able to track Bin Laden via his satellite phone” is different than saying “we tracked Bin Laden.”
One gives the information AND the method used. The other just gives the information. I am against exposing the method as I have tried to explain (and apparently have failed).
“The information” often reveals “the method”.
“We are tracking his movement” – question becomes “how?”
“Someone told us where he we was.” – question becomes “who?”.
If you said -nothing- , the other guy will probably stay dumb. If you say “We are tracking him.”, and -he finds out-, he will -likely- say “how?” and start trying to figure it out.
This is why the information we obtained from breaking Imperial Japan’s codes was so closely held and so very, very carefully used. If the other side figures out you know something you should not, their quite capable counter-intel people will start asking the questions that lead back to “how”. Then they stop you from using that source or method. Or use it to feed you an ambush.
I really don’t know how to make this any clearer:
THE “WHO” AND THE “HOW” SHOULD BE PROTECTED.
Sheez.
Are you deliberately ignoring my point?
The information -itself- usually contains clues (or even details) about how and who.
Releasing the information, the part you demand, will -often- compromise sources and methods, the part you say we should protect. They are often, even usually, -inseperable-.
Your unwillingness to respond to my point is curious.
find the illegals…ALL of them from middle eastern countries, investigate and use surveillance on ALL mosques….arrest and detain all that have the leanings and even intentions of doing the islamists dirty work and run them out of the country, with the notice, if they come back, they will be SHOT ON SIGHT!! Thats a good start! for the morons supporting the loser in the white house, where in hell have you been, have you not been listening, paying attention, doing any research on your own? YOU ARE PATHETIC!
Here is a little something to up your BP numbers:
Caveat – it is from Breitbart and WaPo, but worth considering.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/06/obamas-pentagon-ignores-125-billion-wasteful-spending-rather-reinvest-troops-boost-combat-power/
Wait – what? WaPo isn’t defending the dork who is leaving? They’re telling the unvarnished truth?
What’s going on? Are we in the Twilight Zone?
I believe that, in some quarters of the MSM, The Enlightenment has returned.
A firefly’s glow in the bowels of the cave, but light.
Well, no matter how much he tries to spin the facts, we are still under threat as is every civilized nation on the planet. Whether or not an attack comes from within, or is from an external direction, it is still an attack and it is still a threat. No amount BS or balderdash vocabulary can change that.
But but but, all those attacks inspired by foreign entities were really just “workplace violence” or just “counter-racism attacks”, or even “anti-gay violent responses” right?
I’m just happy that my grip on reality is strong enough to know that the kind of denial we’ve seen for the past 8 years would, in another setting, be termed a mental disorder.
Everything is fine… everything is just fine… nothing is wrong… just maintain an even strain….
The status quo needs to be flushed from time to time by the blood of bureaucrats and politicians.
Whatever has not happened in the last eight years has had nothing to do with Obama’s insight or foresight regarding terrorist activities. It has had everything to do with the diligence of those we hear little about, in agencies we know little of other than their initials, who have forestalled or stopped any attacks. Those who did their jobs in spite of the arrogance and ignorance of Obama and his “friends of the religion of peace” ilk.
Al queda in Yemen trained and supplied the underwear bomber. Obama is a liar. Just because the bomb which detonated only injuries the bomber doesn’t change that.
Except Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, Chattanooga…
Don’t forget Orlando. But, but, the progies want us to believe that fundamental Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with it. According to them, it happened because of gay prejudice. We should not believe the ‘slamo killer who told the cops on the phone his Islamist motive as he was murdering people.
There has been no terrorist attack in the US by anyone wearing unmatched shoes in an orange tuxedo while walking an elephant named Slim. There, Baracka. You da man.
“There has been no terrorist attack in the US by anyone wearing unmatched shoes in an orange tuxedo while walking an elephant named Slim.”
Yet.
I often try for odd humor, or twisted irony, in my comments. Sometimes, it even works.
Yours just kinda … didn’t work there. Charitably, that was … well, post-bong-hit humor.
You could have gone with “But the Clown -did- get elected!” for some political/left irony.
Or, “Nah, terrorists are better dressers than that.” Or, “that sort of outfit is un-Prophet-able in the market.”
Try again!
Now you’ve gone and given them another idea.
Evidently the troops to whom the 0 was speaking were not impressed, either:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-troops-clap-obama-last-national-security-speech/
The video is damning, but if you just listen to the audio, it sounds like they love what he’s saying. There are a few real true believers in that audience.
“Decimated”
He keeps using that word, I would say it doesn’t mean what he thinks it means, but the literal context of it would be correct. He’s killed 1/10th of Al Qaeda in his 8 years, but makes it seem like that is a big deal.
20 years ago, there weren’t the fact check capabilities we have today where the average citizen can easily find the whole story, if they choose to.
Didja read the morning news from Mosul, Master Sergeant? It ain’t pretty.
Its like a Hydra, cut off one head, two grow in its place.
I’ve been paying attention to Iraq fairly closely. I didn’t get to Mosul, but I have too many friends frustrated by what we did to make parts of Iraq functional that were all wiped out.
We should’ve left less than 1 of 10 alive. When the Civil Affairs guy is saying kill the fuckers, the they really need to be paying attention.
A Hydra that regrows heads?
Use A-10s, cluster bombs, and napalm.
That wasn’t so hard. 8 – )
Another BP warning.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/07/internal-report-details-secret-quality-ratings-veterans/94811922/
Confirming what we already know…
Worst. Prez. Ever. I’m polishing up my AMF for Friday, 20 January2017. Just for him.
Chump…
Just on the basis of “Politically Astute Moves 101”, saying that sort of thing, with time still on the clock, is … unwise.
If anything even remotely “foreign connected” happens prior to Trump taking the Oath, Obama will go down in History as irreparably beclowned, and probably take his party down with him.
For the good of my Nation, I sincerely hope that horrid thing does -not- happen. But Obama saying that sort of thing is right up there with “Peace in our Time” or “There are no Chinese troops in Korea” if something -does- happen.
And the enemy is notoriously thin-skinned, and notorious for mega-bad timing.
Yeah, I believe that LINE OF SHIT about as much as I believe it when some candyassed donkey booger-brained twinkle-toed moonbat liberal tries to tell me that B. Hussein 0bama & Company have been scandal-free.
So, no “direct foreign involvement”. Inspired doesn’t matter I guess.
So, if we discount the foreign aspect of it, we apparently are seeing a large increase in radicalized Islamic Terrorism here in the US.
How does Barry explain that? Workplace violence, mental health, the scary black guns?
So sick and tired of the nuances, the semantics, the pretty sounding words that are nothing more than Verbal “Fabreeze”. All it does it put a thin veil of the pile of shit you are attempting to cover up.
People have been offended by me saying that it wouldn’t surprise me if 1 or more of the Orlando victims were pedophiles & or drug dealers. They’re offended because I think they know it’s possible but hate that I raise this because people were murdered & wounded in this shooting. I don’t omit ugly facts because something bad as getting murdered happened. Though posters know this, here’s why it wouldn’t be surprising if it turns out if 1 or more of the victims were gay pedophiles & or drug dealers. The life of gays & lesbians (though not always) often have bad childhood such as fact that many gays & lesbians were victims of gay/lesbian pedophiles as kids. 1. People who are victims of same sex pedophilia are more likely to turn out gay/lesbian in adulthood, copying the sexual behavior they learned. In worse cases, victims of gay/lesbian pedophiles turn out to be gay/lesbian pedophiles in adulthood. This is esp. true for gay men & wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out 1 or more of the gay men killed in Orlando had been as a boy molested by gay pedophiles such as gay Catholic priests which caused them to repeat sexual conduct they learned from their abuse & possibly even turn out to be gay pedophiles. 2. People who are victims of gay/lesbian pedophiles along with being more likely to turn out gay/lesbian are also more likely to have problems such as depression, drug junkyism & drunkardism. They’re more likely to use drugs such as Meth, Cocaine & Extasy. In some cases, junkies can sell drugs along with using them or be a drug courier or lookout for drug dealers for money. In pubs, drugs are often sold & pubs are known to get drunkards, junkies & drug dealers. Now I know this offends people with posters telling me how I’m trashing people who aren’t here to defend themselves. But ugly facts don’t change because some1 is murdered & it wouldn’t surprise me if 1 or more of the victims were pedophiles & or drug junkies + drug dealers… Read more »