Either ISIS is an imminent threat or Obama is a liar.

Loading

ISIS

Barack Obama will address the nation tonight about his plans for ISIS now that he finally seems to have found a strategy. In an article this morning Politico writes that the President’s job will be “threading a needle.”

President Barack Obama has to thread a needle in his speech Wednesday night: addressing an American public increasingly fearful about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant while trying to offer some perspective on a threat critics say he has long understated.

New polls show a majority of Americans now support broadening U.S. military airstrikes against ISIL, also known as ISIS, to combat the threat evident in recently released videotapes showing fighters from the group beheading two American journalists.

However, some analysts believe that the current public sentiment exaggerates the danger posed by ISIL, while others say Obama should not assume that publicity-driven poll numbers equate to long-term commitment by the U.S. populace to a broad campaign against the brutal militant group.

The public sentiment exaggerates the danger posed by ISIS? How’d that happen? It was SecDef Hagel who said the threat posed by ISIS was “beyond anything we’ve seen.”

Is ISIS a threat to America?

But in a thorough presentation on Sept. 3 at the Brookings Institution, outgoing director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, presented a less scary picture. ISIS has no cells in the U.S., Olsen said, “full stop.” Further, Olsen said, “we have no credible information” that the group “is planning to attack the U.S.” ISIS, Olsen said “is not al Qaeda pre-9/11.”

So is the group a direct threat to Americans at home, and is Obama right to increase military action against the group?

Holder says the danger comes from the combination of westerners joining ISIS and the expert bomb-makers working for the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). It is not clear what if any evidence exists of such collaboration yet. On the one hand, AQAP has issued statements in support of ISIS, and both groups are active in Syria and Iraq; on the other, al Qaeda and ISIS split in the last year after a debate over tactics and territory.

It appears that the administration position is that ISIS is not an imminent or actual threat to the US. But…

That said, ISIS doesn’t have to threaten Americans at home to warrant military action against them abroad, U.S. officials argue.

That’s interesting.

Yesterday Obama had something to say about the strikes against ISIS:

President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists.

Uh, yes he does. Who said so? Senator Barack Obama.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Further, Candidate Obama added:

In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

If there is an actual or imminent threat to the US from ISIS, then President Barack Obama does not require Congress’s approval to bomb ISIS. If they are not, then President Obama does not have the authority to bomb them, according to Candidate Obama. If ISIS is an actual and imminent threat, then it is reasonable to be fearful.

So which is it? President Obama needs to make it clear to Candidate Obama- and us. I’m sure President Obama wouldn’t want to be remembered as a lousy liar.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The answer is “yes” to both options in the headline.

As far as relying on the Brookings Institute to give an accurate assessment of the terrorist threat, you might as well ask the terrorists themselves. Brookings received $14.8 million from Qatar, a Muslim Brotherhood sponsor.

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/09/07/brookings-institute-in-the-tank-for-qatar/

However, some analysts believe that the current public sentiment exaggerates the danger posed by ISIL, while others at other times they say Obama should not assume that publicity-driven poll numbers equate to long-term commitment by the U.S. populace to a broad campaign against the brutal militant group.

Same analysts.
In their 1st analysis they take the actuarial view that we are safer from ISIS than we are from a lightening strike.*
In their 2nd analysis they take the political winds view that Obama acting rather than dithering carries risks of him losing support over time.
In both cases these ”analysts” are on the same side: Obama’s side.
The side of dithering.
The side of worrying about public sentiment, politics and such as opposed to dealing with a real problem.

*24,000 people are killed by lightning strikes around the world each year……2nd-hand smoke kills more per year (3,000) than 9-11-01 attacks ( 2,977), for instance.

ISIL has murdered two U.S. citizens in a brutal and highly public fashion. That represents a threat to the United States that has been demonstrated and which remains more than hypothetical. Does such a threat cease to be imminent between accomplished outrages?

Whether there’s imminent danger of a terrorist attack by ISIL within the borders of the United States itself is a different question. It’s possible that question might honestly be answered no, given all intelligence that’s currently available. In my opinion Obama would still have the authority to quickly order the airstrikes against ISIL as he has done, without first seeking Congressional approval.

If Congress has the collective will, they can directly address this specific threat with legislation. They could also address and clarify what a president can and cannot do without first obtaining Congressional authority. Instead, Congress seems to be content to ask him to ask them, and then complain if he doesn’t.

“He really ought to ask for our support, whether or not he may think he’s authorized to do what he intends to do. I think it’s in his best interest,” McConnell told a reporter.

McConnell’s rhetoric was the strongest by a GOP leader to date in support of congressional authorization for the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Across the Capitol, Speaker John Boehner hasn’t committed to holding a vote authorizing military action.

Apparently they’re going to let Obama decide what to do about ISIL, and then will most likely criticize him for acting without authorization, and criticize his actions as being too much or not enough, as well as overdue.

@Greg:

In my opinion Obama would still have the authority to quickly order the airstrikes against ISIL as he has done, without first seeking Congressional approval.

Present for Greg. 🙂

@Greg:Whether there’s imminent danger of a terrorist attack by ISIL within the borders of the United States itself is a different question. It’s possible that question might honestly be answered no, given all intelligence that’s currently available.

Really?
A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.

Francis Taylor, under secretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS, told senators during a hearing that ISIL supporters are known to be plotting ways to infiltrate the United States through the border.
Taylor:

“If I gave the impression I thought the border security was what it needed to be to protect against all the risks coming across that’s not what I meant to say.”

Other U.S. officials have warned ahead of President Obama’s speech this evening that ISIL is growing in strength and seeking the capability to attack America directly.

People shredded Bush for OVERstating the threat in Iraq.
People will shred Obama for UNDERstating the threat in Iraq, Syria, etc.

@Nanny G, #5:

I’m not arguing whether or not there’s an imminent threat of an ISIL attack within the borders of the United States because I simply don’t know. What I’m saying is that it would be possible to answer that question no, while still recognizing an imminent danger to the nation. A twice-demonstrated willingness to publicly murder captive U.S. citizens abroad more than meets the definition.

Given the rising levels of insanity among organized extremist groups disposed to acting out violently, and given the number of seriously disturbed individuals who might identify with them even though not directly affiliated with them, I think attacks here in the U.S. are all but inevitable.

@Wordsmith, #4:

The question isn’t only one of what degree of authority a president believes he or she has to act, but what he or she chooses to do with that authority.

This clearly shows Obama is indecisive. While the talk may be tough tonight, it’s another matter of doing. It’ll need to be more than 150 airstrikes over 32 days. And, it’ll need to be more than arming “vetted” Syrian rebels.

@David, #8:

Obama has acted. Any ISIL fanatics on the receiving end of a recent U.S. airstrike would probably have concurred. Congress has done what, exactly?

@Greg: Why don’t you ask that of Hairy Weed. He seems to be a bit of a bottleneck to actually forcing Barrack Hussain Obama to OBEY the Constitution. Under the Constitution, as there CURRENTLY NO THREAT to the USA from ISIS, well at least none yet no thanks to BHO, Barry cannot act on his own under the Constitution. Again, call up Hairy Weed and ask him what he and his Dims are going to do. I’d guess they’re kicking a can around.

We are being led and lied to by a delusional community organizer elevated to a level way beyond his ability by fools who will support and fawn over him as he tears the fabric of a great country.

Under the Constitution, as there CURRENTLY NO THREAT to the USA from ISIS…

What is the United States, if not its people? Two of whom were recently publicly slaughtered by ISIL. If that’s not a imminent threat to the nation clearly and unmistakably demonstrated, I don’t know what the hell would be.

If Obama had elected to wait for Congress to authorize retaliatory airstrikes, he would still be waiting. It’s not particularly hard to imagine what the right would be saying about him for that.

@Greg: Airstrikes are the usual “I’m doing something without doing something” answer from the left. It’s imposing the will of the U.S. without risking much. Bush did it right: Congress and the Senate agreed to go to War with Iraq, because it was a threat to the U.S. as it is now.

But I just can’t get by the leftest hypocrisy. What standards applied to Bush do not apply to Obama.

@Greg: Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. When you start your reign by steamrolling a large chunk of Congress (and it’s constituency), you have already burned bridges you should not have. Obama took office and made it clear that any Rep politician could not have a voice. That’s not how our government works.

He’s reaping what he’s sown, and the whole “Blame Congress” propaganda is getting thin.

He’s incompetent, and I don’t understand how he can be so inconsistent. We’ve killed American citizens without a fair trial. We didn’t followup fully on an embassy assault that left several American’s dead (mired now in coverup, but that’s just politics, right?).

Now you imply Obama is somehow noble for using the Clintonian method of “throw bombs at ’em” and he’s clearing protecting our people both here and abroad?

It just doesn’t add up.

He’s a lame duck President, and any real US foreign policy will have to wait until 2016 when (hopefully) the thoughtful constituency of the U.S. can vote in a real President rather than a cardboard cutout demagogue. But there’s still of lot of poor people, minorities, and indignant white people to exploit, so Obama may represent the official end of a truly democratic America.

Last night Obama opened with his biggest lie then went on from there.

“First of all, ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

Well……
It depends on how your religion defines the term, ”innocent.”
NO infidel is an “innocent,” according to the koran and all Islamic holy books, and public teachers.
Any ”fellow” Muslim you disagree with on sectarian grounds is also not an ”innocent.”
So, THESE groups may be killed by Muslim fighters with absolutely no guilty conscience.
The only people Islam say cannot be killed without punishment are fellow believer Muslims.
If one of these is killed by an infidel the infidel MUST be put to death.
If one of these is killed by another believing Muslim blood money must be paid OR the killer can be hunted down and murdered by the dead one’s family.

Talking out of both sides of his mouth comes naturally to Obama:
Last month:

“It’s always been a fantasy, this idea that we could provide light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially a (Syrian) opposition made up of former doctors, farmers and pharmacists.” Aug 8th, 2014

.

Last night:

“In Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition….We must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL.”

@#16NannyG

The fact these people actually hunt (any) person or persons down to physically attack with a end threat, or kill them without impunity is really a grave concern. It is being done all the time. They are a network of killers.

It is time to kill or be killed. They only recognize force. Being or playing nice (Obama and the left) is not cutting it…time to get serious.

Yes. Obama is a Liar. It’s the Muslim/Islamic way.

Either isis is an imminent threat or obama is a liar.

The side you are rooting for is NEVER a threat. The other side is the threat. Which side do people think obama is on?

@Wordsmith: #4

Present for Greg. 

That is actually a brilliant move by obama’s people. If they use the same tactics as Bush did, and they fail, they can still say, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

@Greg: #3
I noticed you are a true follower of your leader. Even isis calls themselves isis, but you and your leader are the only two who call it isil. Do you know why your leader won’t call it isis?

@Greg:

ISIL has murdered two U.S. citizens in a brutal and highly public fashion. That represents a threat to the United States that has been demonstrated and which remains more than hypothetical. Does such a threat cease to be imminent between accomplished outrages?

Make no mistake, wantonly beheading Americans because they are Americans is a terrorist attack and should be answered. However, it does not warrant a war, even if this administration refuses to call it such. That being said, ISIS leaves no doubt about their intentions to attack, sooner or later, our homeland. Threats of this nature, I believe, justify a preemptive attack, when the threat can be located.

So, in his past statements, Obama was simply wrong.

It’s possible that question might honestly be answered no, given all intelligence that’s currently available.

It’s more likely the answer is “gee, I’m not sure”. This administration has outed operatives, double-crossed our sources, killed rather than interrogated leading terrorists and, after running out on Iraq, gave up probably our most valuable and reliable source of terrorist intelligence. Throughout this administration, they have benefitted more from the ineptitude of the terrorists themselves than on any case-breaking due to intelligence gathering.

Instead, Congress seems to be content to ask him to ask them, and then complain if he doesn’t.

Obama is the “Constitutional scholar”; he should know. However, as is apparent by the comparison of his statements on the matter (the Constitution seems to morph depending on which side of the Oval Office door Obama is standing), that Obama just wants it to be how he feels at any given time.

Air strikes, Greg, are what are known as “air support”, meaning they support something. I agree that, with the Kurds and possibly some Iraqis, if they are encouraged by successes, we can rely on some regional help to carry the water on the ground. However, it will eventually become absolutely necessary for US armed forces to be on the ground engaging the enemy. In that, Obama, more afraid of his mamby-pamby base than ever before, has really boxed himself into a precarious corner.

This is really an improper time to rub it in (I truly hope whatever Obama does in this is 100% successful), but how does it feel to see him (and have to yourself) do a complete 180 on everything you complained about Bush on? Lots of old wounds could be healed if the left would simply be able to admit that they have been largely wrong on all of this.

@Greg:

It’s possible that question might honestly be answered no,

Uh – Ya ever hear of the World Trade Center? It was a couple buildings used to be in NYC (New York City) –?
Do some research!

Meanwhile — how are things in Rio Linda?

@Wordsmith:

Present for Greg. 🙂

That is a set-up so that no matter what happens – or who criticizes anything — it will ALL still be Bush’s fault.

I predict a reissue of the “Bush lied – people died” bumper stickers any time soon now — and through the 2016 election! Greggie probably already has one on his bumper!

@Nanny G:

Really?
A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.

Francis Taylor, under secretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS, told senators during a hearing that ISIL supporters are known to be plotting ways to infiltrate the United States through the border.
Taylor:

These people are a bunch of abject liars and / or just plain stupid (probably on purpose) With the rampant moo-slime immigration over the last twenty years I can assure you that they are already here! I live in Seattle and there are areas around here that you would swear that you were in Somalia —

@Greg:

Obama has acted. Any ISIL fanatics on the receiving end of a recent U.S. airstrike would probably have concurred. Congress has done what, exactly?

Thanks for providing a crystal clear illustration of liberal insanity and hypocrisy! Bush had the go-ahead from both parties and both houses of congress yet was berated for years as a “go-it-alone cowboy” >> he also HAD a REAL (that means actually existed)coalition of allies!

@Greg:

If Obama had elected to wait for Congress to authorize retaliatory airstrikes, he would still be waiting. It’s not particularly hard to imagine what the right would be saying about him for that.

Hey! meathead! — where was your friggin messiah all last spring on this — ??? All he had to do was call his buddie reid and ask for a joint session — take time off the golf course and ask for authorization.

It’s not particularly hard to imagine

I’ll help ya out here Greggie — The TRUTH does not HAVE to be imagined. Can be hard to find though when it seems so many have a vested interest in covering it up.

@Nanny G:

Last night Obama opened with his biggest lie then went on from there.

“First of all, ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

Combining that with Bush’s “Islam is a religion of peace” lie and we are really being played – er, SCREWED!

Saying that the religion of the sword is a “Religion of peace” is in the same ballpark as saying that the light of day doesn’t come from the sun or that moonlight is created by the moon rather than being reflected sunlight! or that the earth is flat — all are absolute FALSEHOODS!

@Smorgasbord: Hey — ya beat me to it — see my post #23>

I bet we’ll see “Bush Lied – People Died” bumper stickers before the end of this year!

That is actually a brilliant move by obama’s people. If they use the same tactics as Bush did, and they fail, they can still say, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

It is illustrative also of the depths of depravity this administration and the communist pukes behind the scenes are – that they will not (I believe willfully – no incompetence needed) actually do anything that is a move in a positive direction to actually deal with the ‘Islam’ problem — The Bushies’ ties with the Saudis have compromised this country since the 1970’s. I suspect it was influence from GHWB and possibly Kiss-a$$-enger (behind the scenes) that kept Reagan from a meaningful response to the Beirut Barracks bombing — then ya get the Marxist klintoon a$$holes who just kept kicking the can down the road – using the moo-slimes as shock troops to ‘eff with the country — then more Bush who actually tried to do the right things but was stymied at every step and turn by the rotten demo-commie-cRATs in congress – along with help from the uber RINO MuckStain — which brings us up to the reign of Obama the Magnificent!

Mark my words: Obama == THE 12th IMAM!

And before anyone gets snarky with some Sunni vs Shiite nonsense re Obama being Sunni and the Iranians being Shiite and the 12th Imam being from an Iranian well — ask yourself three questions:

1) The Koran instructs believers to lie and deceive — why would Obama not pretend to be one if not the other? After all he is pretending to be Christian – hell even the damn klintoons were better at that ruse — old BJ coming outta a church clutching a bible!

2) In 6 years – what have you heard outta the SOB re any of Iran’s BS — huh? — he is buying time for the I-rat’s nuclear program.

3) What support or encouragement have you heard from the SOB re Israel?

Heaven help you if you do not KNOW the answers. And, YES, Greggie there really are TRUE answers to these questions.

@Budvarakbar: #28

It is illustrative also of the depths of depravity this administration and the communist pukes behind the scenes are – that they will not (I believe willfully – no incompetence needed) actually do anything that is a move in a positive direction to actually deal with the ‘Islam’ problem….

I believe that obama is one of them, and wants to see the USA as a muslim country.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/35983084@N07/11460675386/

Mark my words: Obama == THE 12th IMAM!

I agree. What obama doesn’t seem to understand is that he is nothing without the ones pulling his strings. He has lived a wealthy and pampered life. How many times have you seen him where his nose isn’t stuck high in the air? He thinks he is so far above everyone.

What support or encouragement have you heard from the SOB re Israel?

What support have we heard from obama for America and the other free countries? He idealizes the dictators of the world, and wants to be one. He even hosted a party for the black African dictators, has had known muslim terrorists visit him in the white house, and is doing all he can so he can be the dictator of obamaland, or whatever he wants to name his new kingdom that used to be the USA.

Why is it that obama doesn’t wear his watch or ring during the muslim celebration of ramadan? Each year they disappear during the event. Is it just a coincidence that the muslim religion forbids the wearing of jewelry during the event? Is it a coincidence that obama’s watch is being repaired, and that his ring is being cleaned during the event EVERY YEAR.?

@Budvarakbar, #28:

Hey! meathead! — where was your friggin messiah all last spring on this — ??? All he had to do was call his buddie reid and ask for a joint session — take time off the golf course and ask for authorization.

Possibly he was distracted by the various investigations the worse-than-useless idiots you people elected were attempting to focus all national attention on—none of which has ultimately accomplished or proven anything.

@Greg: Actually they have probably finally realized that the childish “Blame Bush” excuse was not holding any water any more!

Not to worry — they are closing in on the SOB’s!

@Greg:

Possibly he was distracted by the various investigations the worse-than-useless idiots you people elected were attempting to focus all national attention on—none of which has ultimately accomplished or proven anything.

Then he should have NO time for golf or vacations.

Each and every investigation is due to a scandal of his (HIS) own making. Further, if he would simply provide the information demanded (since he has done nothing wrong), the investigations would be concluded. If, on the other hand, Obama doesn’t have the time to deal with the aftermath, he should avoid doing things contrary to the laws of the land and the Constitution.

You should read out loud to yourself some of the excuses you come up with, Greg. You would avoid a lot of personal embarrassment.

@Greg: Greggie the proof will come. The investigations, and they are legitimate, are being hampered at every step!! THIS is what your Messiah has been doing rather than lead our country. It is hard for him to keep out ahead of his own lies. If you like your health insurance and/or doctor you can keep them “period”!! He referred to ISIS as a JV team which demonstrates his lack of understanding of our world!!

@Common Sense:

He referred to ISIS as a JV team which demonstrates his lack of understanding of our world!!

Oh No! You are the one that is misunderstanding! — He understands perfectly – he IS running interference for the damn islamists —

@Common Sense: #33

He referred to ISIS as a JV team which demonstrates his lack of understanding of our world!!

What if obama is A PART OF the JV team? Wouldn’t he try to downplay the fact that they are actually World Bowl quality, and intend to win the game? I am reading more articles that have come to the conclusion that obamas is actually HELPING the JV team, especially when it was found out that obama doesn’t wear his ring or watch during the the muslim event of ramadan, and that the wearing of jewelry is forbidden during the event.

Keep in mind that this is the same ring that he wore during his college years, and that it has the first part of the islamic declaration of faith, the shahada, which means, “There is no god but allah.”

Obama’s ring: ‘There is no god but Allah’

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334703

Keep in mind that this is the same ring obama wore in college. He did not replace it with a wedding ring at his wedding. A wedding ring is SUPPOSED to represent a lifetime commitment to one person. Why didn’t Michele want obama to replace the ring he wore since college with a wedding ring? If your lifetime partner-to-be didn’t want to exchange a ring for a wedding ring, wouldn’t you get suspicious of their loyalty to you? It makes me wonder about Michele’s ring.

@Smorgasbord: All this “wondering” really amazes me! What part of “here I am” “I am in your face” don’t people see or hear?

@Budvarakbar: #36

All this “wondering” really amazes me! What part of “here I am” “I am in your face” don’t people see or hear?

The ones who want the free stuff don’t care who gives it to them. Others aren’t paying much attention, and the rest are players in the game. Why hasn’t ANY republican gone after obama on:

Fake birth certificate and Selective Service registration.
Supreme Court appointments.
Stopping illegals (including terrorists) from walking into the USA.
Letting obama ignore laws, and make up his own.
Many other things that anyone can add to the list.

I have heard some republicans TALK ABOUT doing stuff, but no action yet. Could it be that they are in on it? For example, I have asked ALL OF MY FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES (who are all republican) if they have LOOKED at obama’s fake birth certificate. NOT ONE OF THEM REPLIED BACK, even though they replied to EVERY other request for a reply I asked for. Ask your politicians if they have looked at the fake certificate, and see if you get a reply.

@Greg: Yep and your so called “you people” will control the Senate after the next election. We people meaning the USA!! Thanks for the acknowledgement Greggie!! Why is it that this is happening Greggie?? Have you seen the recent polling for your Messiah and how he is handling things?? Can’t wait!! HOPE for AMERICA!! If the obstruction by the Democrats and 0-blama would stop less time would be utilized to get to the TRUTH!!