Obama: “I” got Bin Laden but “they” underestimated ISIS

Loading

obama-narcissist

I don’t believe you’ll ever find a video of George Bush claiming he got Khalid Sheik Mohammed, nor will you find him incessantly bragging about it. The vocabulary of Barack Obama, on the other hand, sees two words used far more than any others.

“I” and “me.”

From Yahoo answers in 2009:

Why does Obama use the word “I” so many times in his speeches?

The “Best answer”?

That is what an arrogant narcissistic person does….

2010: The I’s Have It: Obama Uses ‘I’ 43 Times in Baltimore

2012:

2014: ‘I,’ ‘Me,’ ‘My’—Obama Uses First Person Singular 199 Times in Speech Vowing Unilateral Action

“I” ended the war:

“I” got Bin Laden

It’s always that way. Me, me, me, I, I, I.

Until something goes awry. Then the Obama pronouns change to “they.”

President Obama largely blamed the United States’ intelligence community in an interview broadcast Sunday for giving an incorrect assessment of the capabilities of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Obama said on CBS’s “”60 Minutes.”

Obama said ISIS, also known as ISIL, went “underground” when United States forces fought al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.

The problem is that we do know Obama has been receiving briefings on ISIS for some time.

A former Pentagon official confirms to Fox News that detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of ISIS was included in the PDB, or the President’s Daily Brief, for at least a year before the group took large swaths of territory beginning in June.

Maybe if Obama had attended those security briefings he would have know about ISIS. Barack Obama is a narcissist – and I’ll say it again- he’s so self-consumed that I also believe he is a sociopath.

First to take credit, first to dodge blame.

And you have to love this:

Obama: “I got Bin Laden BUT YOU didn’t Build that Business”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@George+Wells:
First, polygamy is going down, soon.
But it may not be soon enough for you, depending on your old lady’s state of health.
Second, have you followed the outrage in the gay community over the two straight New Zealanders who married so as to win free plane tickets to their country’s rugby competitions in the UK?
Your plan to marry is no less mercenary than theirs, yet they have been getting death threats for going through with it.

Now, can we please get this thread back on target?
A Wisconsin man has just gone to a Kurdish area, joined with the Kurdish military and is fighting ISIS.

@Randy: There were 2 flag raisings on Surabachi. The first of a smaller flag with picture taken by James Lowery. The 2nd of a larger flag, the iconic photo of the 5 Marines and corpsman Bradley taken by A.P. photog Joe Rosenthall.
Suggest all read Flags Of Our Fathers written by Bradley. Semper Fi

@Nanny G #51:

I’m VERY sorry if I gave you the impression that I had ANY interest in marrying twice.
I don’t. I’m already comfortable ENOUGH.
I brought the LEGAL ISSUE to Retire05’s attention because I think that the current state of disparate marriage laws that are currently peppering the nation with conflicting opportunities to keep lawyers employed indefinitely are not in anyone’s best interest, and she does not seem to share that opinion.

Regarding your Wisconsin man fighting with the Kurds against ISIS:
I hope that when this Wisconsin man gets himself caught and someone is threatening to behead him, our government doesn’t risk the lives of our servicemen and women rushing to rescue him at taxpayer expense. Independent mercenaries engage in foreign combat at their own peril, whether on the side that the United States supports or against it.

@Richard Wheeler#52:

Thanks for your very succinct corroboration of my lengthy explanation to the same effect. I felt it necessary to give the fuller account, as people here seem not to be of the trusting sort.

@George+Wells:

I brought the LEGAL ISSUE to Retire05’s attention because I think that the current state of disparate marriage laws that are currently peppering the nation with conflicting opportunities to keep lawyers employed indefinitely are not in anyone’s best interest, and she does not seem to share that opinion.

Did you not say that you had filed an income tax return with your “husband?” If so, that is a legal federal document and if you marry again, and file for Social Security benefits you would be subject to a whole myriad of laws, such as falsifying federal documents or perpetrating fraud.

That is why the one man-one woman system should stay in place.

Interesting that you would even consider adding “gold digging gigolo” to your resume. It simply reaffirms my low opinion of you.

#55:

Did I say anywhere that I was “considering” this.
No, I didn’t think so.

The question came up. I thought that you might see the problem that currently exists. Maybe I was wrong…

The Federal Income Tax falls under one set of laws, and Social Security falls under a different set of laws. There are overlaps, such as instances when Social Security payments are considered taxable income, but the two things are filed for separately.

In the scenario that I outlined to you, I would not be legally married to two people in either state (Maryland wouldn’t recognize the second one). I COULD be considered to be illegally married to two people in some of the states that allow gay marriage, but I would not be filing any documents in those states, and they would have no reason or way to prosecute me. Since the Federal Government currently accepts the State’s “opinion” per Social Security, there’s no fraud there. And since filing income tax returns as “married” results in a “marriage penalty”, not a “benefit”, there’s no fraud there. (If I intentionally misspell my first name on a tax return, but get the social security number right, I don’t get charged with fraud. The falsified entry is economically moot, and so does not constitute fraud and does not get prosecuted.) And there is no concern regarding health benefits since the second marriage – presumably the “illegal” one – would not change the eligibility of that benefit.
There simply isn’t a law that covers this. That’s why it needs to be fixed. The opportunity for this sort or arrangement should not exist, but it does.

@George+Wells:

The Federal Income Tax falls under one set of laws, and Social Security falls under a different set of laws.

Just because laws fall under different categories, it doesn’t mean you cannot be prosecuted for violation of both of them.

There are overlaps, such as instances when Social Security payments are considered taxable income,

Moot point.

but the two things are filed for separately.

See above.

In the scenario that I outlined to you, I would not be legally married to two people in either state (Maryland wouldn’t recognize the second one). I COULD be considered to be illegally married to two people in some of the states that allow gay marriage, but I would not be filing any documents in those states, and they would have no reason or way to prosecute me. Since the Federal Government currently accepts the State’s “opinion” per Social Security, there’s no fraud there. And since filing income tax returns as “married” results in a “marriage penalty”, not a “benefit”, there’s no fraud there.

Your income tax return and any claim for Social Security benefits, are federal documents, not state. To represent yourself as married to two people, simultaneously, on federal documents would constitute either fraud, or intent to fraud.

It would be the federal government, not the state, that you would be prosecuted by.

@George+Wells:

Apart from the purely political motivation, Obama might also be considering the potential consequences of starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims.

As usual Georgie throws out a ludicrous false premise. Going to war against ISIS aka ISIL (or even al Queda for that matter,) is not starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims (especially as those fanatical terrorist organizations are killing fellow Muslims), but is only going to war against that minority of Muslims who are members and/or partnered with that organization. If Georgie boy has proof that these two radical Islamic terrorist organizations have all 1.6 billion of the world’s Muslims behind them, he needs to provide it (which he can’t because it’s nothing but typical GW B.S.).

#57:

“To represent yourself as married to two people, simultaneously, on federal documents would constitute either fraud, or intent to fraud.
It would be the federal government, not the state, that you would be prosecuted by.”

I WOULD be married to two people simultaneously, but I would not be representing that. I would not be representing to either department that I was married to two people simultaneously, and I would not be filing ANYTHING simultaneously.

The tax filing to the IRS would represent the Maryland marriage, a representation that would gain the US Treasury several thousand dollars thanks to the marriage penalty. The IRS would have no reason to prosecute that representation, as a judgment in their favor would gain them nothing.

The Social Security filing would represent the Virginia Marriage, which would be the only one that Virginia recognized, so the Soc.Sec. would have no reason to argue with the state of Virginia over my married status, and the Soc. Sec. wouldn’t care about the Maryland marriage as long as I remain in Virginia, where it isn’t legal.

This is the legal advice I received. Maybe you’re a better lawyer. That’d be a stretch, after your stint playing Florence Nightengale. But as you seem to know that I WOULD be prosecuted by the Federal Government, maybe you could give me a hint at what the Feds would be trying to recover? Surely not my paid marriage penalty. And until the Virginia spouse died AND IF I filed for survivors benefits, and ONLY then would Social Security have any reason to look into the matter.

Both marriages would continue to exist side-by-side for at least as long as both spouses remained alive. The Federal Government would have nothing to gain even if it WAS cleaver enough to discover the duplicity. Which it probably isn’t.

@Ditto #58:

I love you too, Sweet Ditto!

I guess that in your rush to urinate all over me, you failed to notice that I was speculating on what Obama MIGHT be thinking! (read it again.)

When I said “Obama might also be considering the potential consequences of starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims,” it doesn’t mean that I think that a ground war against ISIS would start ANY kind of a war with 1.6 billion Muslims.

Or do you think that I am REALLY Obama, writing under a pen name?
Well, I’m not Obama.

Obama really MIGHT be thinking that attacking ISIS on Muslim soil would inflame all 1.6 billion Muslims enough for them ALL to join in resisting the GREAT CRUSADE of the REIGN of OBAMA. I really don’t know what he’s thinking, and that’s probably because we don’t think alike. You probably don’t know what he’s thinking either, for the same reason.

But put it back in your pants, Ditto. I’m not your enemy here.

As I said before, I think that Obama’s – and ALL Democrats’ – first priority is to NOT get drawn into another ground war ANYWHERE. They will ALL wait and let a Republican president do that, because and ONLY because they believe that the American public overwhelmingly DOESN”T WANT ANOTHER WAR! That’s what the polls tell them, and until the polls tell them differently, the Democrats aren’t going to war on the ground. They’ll let the Republican president start one and take the blame for the returning body bags. No, it isn’t right. But that’s how this game of politics is being played.

@George+Wells:

This is the legal advice I received.

I suggest that pro-bono (free) advise you received was not worth the gas you used to get to the attorney’s office, or the time you wasted on the phone call. Bigamy, or in your case, polygamy, is illegal in all states.

@George+Wells:

I’m VERY sorry if I gave you the impression that I had ANY interest in marrying twice.

Yeah, because everyone knows that is normal for people to consult an attorney over an action they don’t plan on taking.

Up your meds, George.

#62:
“Yeah, because everyone knows that is normal for people to consult an attorney over an action they don’t plan on taking. Up your meds, George.”

But everybody – including you – doesn’t know that I “consulted” no attorney. I was at a dinner with friends in Richmond, a purely social affair. We were having a spirited discussion of the Norfolk, Virginia Gay Marriage case – the “Bostic” one – and the irregular fabric of marriage laws across the nation came up. I was curious – JUST curious – about whether or not the hypothetical scenario I described above was legal.

It seemed like the legal patchwork we now have might get tied in a logical knot over it, and so I brought the question up at the dinner. One of the guests was an attorney, and it was he who speculated at length about the legal implications of my hypothetical case. The attorney thought that the case I described would be effectively considered legal, and he thought that the partners in his firm would be interested in pursuing a defense of such a case on a pro-bono basis because there would be valuable publicity to be had.

I didn’t have any plans of taking any “action”.
It was just a social visit.
The question was just hypothetical.
I thought that you would be interested in the confused logic of the hypothetical case.
It is a potential legal knot that won’t be unraveled until there is one single law covering marriage for the whole country.

#62:
I am being as respectful to you as is possible.
I call your attention to issues that I think you may be interested in.
I ask you questions in good faith, and I answer your questions as best as I can .
A decent person would conduct their half of this conversation with the same deference that I have shown you.
So you tell me to “up my meds.”
If you simply don’t want to communicate, why not just say so?

@George+Wells:

First, you said:

At the moment there is an older woman who would like to marry me in the state of Virginia so that I could gain access to her Social Security Survivor Benefits and easily inherit her assets upon her death.

That is a statement of fact; affirmative. Not a hypothetical.

Then you say:

But everybody – including you – doesn’t know that I “consulted” no attorney.

but go on to say:

It seemed like the legal patchwork we now have might get tied in a logical knot over it, and so I brought the question up at the dinner. One of the guests was an attorney, and it was he who speculated at length about the legal implications of my hypothetical case.

Now originally you never said the issue was hypothetical (see above) and mentioned it as fact. Then you admit it was you who brought up the issue to an attorney, requesting an opinion on your originally non-hypothetical issue. Asking an attorney for his legal opinion is, in fact, George, a “consultation”, and it doesn’t matter if it was in his office, in the men’s room or in your own home. You “consulted” an attorney for a legal opinion on what you now claim was a hypothetic situation, although through a number of posts, never said the issue was hypothetical.

So, once again, as has happened numerous times, you are changing your story, or at least having trouble keeping your story straight.

Bottom line; if the government accepts your marriage in one state for the purposes of income tax, an attempt to claim marriage in another state for the purpose of Social Security benefits would constitute fraud, or attempt to defraud, in the eyes of the Federal government which does not have to go through the state to prosecute you for fraud or attempt to defraud. That is why we have federal attorneys and federal courts in every state in the union.
You cannot claim more than one spouse on federal records, no matter how many states are involved. And you seem to think that the state would trump the federal government. In this issue, it would not.

An easy enough case to bring as both income tax records and Social Security records are based not on your name, your address or your state, but on your Social Security number.

Up your meds so you can keep your stories straight; and find a better lawyer.

#65:
The “story” isn’t changed.
The Woman’s interest in marrying me is real. When SHE made the offer, I immediately declined, explaining that such an arrangement would not be fair to Paul by any number of different measures, and that it would likely be illegal. That was my first and continuing opinion on the matter. You cannot show where it was otherwise.

As this offer, although declined, seemed to be germane to the casual conversation we were having in Richmond, and one of the participating guests was known to be a lawyer, I asked about the legality question. The answer I got was not what I expected, but it never-the-less didn’t change my first position on the offer.

You might want to warp the significance of that question into some context in which you can consider it a “consultation,” but as there were no fees negotiated or paid, and no agreement – written or verbal – was reached, there would be no legal significance and no contractual understanding associated with the conversation. And as the question was from a position of curiosity as opposed to from a position of interest in pursuing a course of action, the “consultation” did not answer a request for advice, it only answered a request for information about a subject on which I was ignorant. When you ask Google (or your doctor) the question “What is a stroke?” It isn’t a “consultation,” it’s just a question.

“Up your meds”
What was it you said about being “snarky”?

I brought this question to you in good faith, because I thought that you might have an opinion that was worth hearing. You are proving me wrong.

@George+Wells:

You said:

I was curious – JUST curious – about whether or not the hypothetical scenario I described above was legal.

Claiming the scenario was hypothetical. But then you said:

The Woman’s interest in marrying me is real. When SHE made the offer

Then it was NOT a hypothetical issue. as you just recently claimed.

I immediately declined,

Again, an affirmative statement of a non-hypothetical situation.

You might want to warp the significance of that question into some context in which you can consider it a “consultation,” but as there were no fees negotiated or paid, and no agreement – written or verbal – was reached

Why would there be fees. You stated earlier that it was "pro-bono." One does not need a contract, agreement, or settlement of fees to seek "pro-bono" advise (consultation) from an attorney.

I brought this question to you in good faith, because I thought that you might have an opinion that was worth hearing. You are proving me wrong.

Were you not the one that was just gritching about “snarky?” Double standard much?

When you ask Google (or your doctor) the question “What is a stroke?” It isn’t a “consultation,” it’s just a question.

But you asked for an opinion on a legal outcome on a hypothetical scenario involving yourself. That IS a consultation.

#67:
“I brought this question to you in good faith, because I thought that you might have an opinion that was worth hearing. You are proving me wrong. ”
Were you not the one that was just gritching about “snarky?” Double standard much?”

I don’t think that my statement was “snarky”.
You HAVE proven me wrong.
You’ve spent more time quibbling over whether or not I “got” a “consultation” than you have spent explaining how Federal Law would be broken in the given scenario and why the Federal Government would choose to prosecute the case.

I was interested in the legal question, not whether or not a “consultation” was occurring.

I UNDERSTAND that the duplicity would involve a measure of fraud. That isn’t in question. Try to absorb that.

The question asks what law would be broken, what event would initiate prosecution and what damages would the Federal Government seek. If and when the Social Security Administration was asked to pay survivors’ benefits, that would be a fraudulent claim under your interpretation of the law. If I were to (HYPOTHETICALLY) decline to apply for such benefits, there would be left no reason for the SSA to prosecute, just as there would be no reason for the IRS or the Treasury to prosecute, because there would be nothing to recover.

This point is not imagined. I need no medications to appreciate the fact that the various departments of the Federal Government very underfunded and cannot afford to be pursuing crimes of definitional interpretation that cost the United States nothing.

This is a grey area of the Law, and one that the SCOTUS will likely clarify at some point in the near future.

@George+Wells:

The question asks what law would be broken,

Intent to defraud.

If I were to (HYPOTHETICALLY) decline to apply for such benefits, there would be left no reason for the SSA to prosecute, just as there would be no reason for the IRS or the Treasury to prosecute, because there would be nothing to recover.

The woman in question is required by law to inform the Social Security Administration of any changes in her status, and that would include marital status. If she is currently drawing SSA benefits on a deceased husband, it could, and probably would, affect her monthly benefits to have a new spouse. Failure to comply with the law is not an excuse for absolution from the law.

Also, under inheritance laws, if she has any remaining family members (including third cousins) they would/could have a claim against you for abuse of a senior and her mental capabilities could be brought into question in a court of law.

because there would be nothing to recover.

Wrong. A judgment against you in a federal court would impose court costs (recoverable) and all fines (recoverable) and could include jail time. Recovery of court costs and fines could be levied against your personal property.

There is nothing grey in the area of fraud.

#69:

The woman in question was never married.

“Intent to Defraud” isn’t a Law.

The government doesn’t prosecute people for falsifying their reported eye color or weight, as these qualities have no bearing on paid benefits.

The government might choose to go after people who receive benefits fraudulently, but in the case we’re talking about, no benefits would be fraudulently obtained.

Why would the government waste time and money prosecuting this case?
They have much bigger fish to fry.

I already agreed that the scenario would constitute a “measure of fraud.” (See #68)
But that “fraud” would not rise to the first definition of “fraud.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Definition of FRAUD. 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

The double marriage would not be prosecuted until I attempted to receive Social Security payments from the wife’s account, and even then, the issue would be in question because the Soc. Sec. is held to the definition of marriage in the state of residence.

I’m sure that in the state of Texas you could find plenty of lawyers who would agree with you, but interestingly, in the “purple” state of Virginia there is at least one lawyer who DISAGREES with you. There are probably more.

@George+Wells:

“Intent to Defraud” isn’t a Law.

It is a violation of a law.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00948.htm

#71:
But to prevail in it’s prosecution, the government must show that there was a purpose to the fraud, that some harm has been or would be suffered as a result of the fraud. For example, the courts have overwhelmingly agreed that it isn’t enough to simply contend that gay marriage “harms” society or that it “harms” children. It must show what that harm is, and the opponents of gay marriage have failed to do that.

In this case, it isn’t enough to simply say that the “arrangement” is “fraudulent.” I stipulate that it is. But for such a case to avoid being thrown out of court, it would have to show what harm the Government or the People would incur from allowing the arrangement to exist.

Note the part of YOUR linked material on “fraud” that says “with intent that these illicit objectives be achieved”. What are the “illicit objectives” in my hypothetical case? It isn’t good enough to say that the defining characteristic of “perpetrating fraud” is that it has the illicit objective of perpetrating fraud. That’s circular reasoning at its worst.

As I pointed out before, neither the US Treasury nor the IRS has a dog in this race. It is a zero-net-sum issue, and they would not pursue it. The same goes for the Social Security Administration, which in this case is obligated to honor Virginia’s current definition of marriage.

The fraud perpetrated is moral, not financial. The government makes a heroic effort to stay out of the business of policing morality for reasons of religious freedom. Until it this arrangement started to cost the government money, they wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

@George+Wells:

My link also says:

(“Proof that someone was actually defrauded is unnecessary simply because the critical element in a ‘scheme to defraud’ is ‘fraudulent intent,’ Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 .

Even if the U.S. attorney’s office did not prove their case, you would have still been indicted, and had the burden of the expenses of legal representation.

The fraud perpetrated is moral, not financial.

You are thick headed, aren’t you? It doesn’t matter if fraud is immoral, or financial, it is still ILLEGAL.

. The government makes a heroic effort to stay out of the business of policing morality for reasons of religious freedom.

there would be no religious claim.

Until it this arrangement started to cost the government money, they wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Then push your luck. Hope you look good in black and white stripes.

#73:

“Even if the U.S. attorney’s office did not prove their case, you would have still been indicted, and had the burden of the expenses of legal representation.”

Pro bono, remember?

Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 ?

REALLY?
That’s the BEST you can do?

Durand v. US was an 1896 case that prosecuted a man who had attempted to bilk money out of people. THAT was the fraud that Durand was convicted of. You DID read up on the case, didn’t you?

The “critical element” of intention to defraud was SPECIFICALLY the intention to defraud people of their money. That was the HARM.

HARM is a very important concept in the law. You have no grounds to sue if you haven’t been HARMED. The government would have to wait for me to file for the wife’s social security before it would have standing to prosecute.

Instead of finding references that prove MY point, why don’t you find us a federal case where someone was prosecuted and convicted of filling out a federal government form incorrectly, where the error – intentional OR otherwise – resulted in no harm or cost to anyone or to anything. Find that, and I’ll concede that you’re right. Otherwise, you’re just flapping your jaws incoherently for the pure joy of it.

@George+Wells:

Pro bono, remember?

Yeah, I’m fully aware of how you are more than willing to get something for nothing, or even scam the system to your advantage.

Instead of finding references that prove MY point, why don’t you find us a federal case where someone was prosecuted and convicted of filling out a federal government form incorrectly, where the error – intentional OR otherwise – resulted in no harm or cost to anyone or to anything. Find that, and I’ll concede that you’re right.

You’re under the assumption I am interested enough in your not hypothetical/hypothetical scenario to waste any more time on it. I’m not.

Otherwise, you’re just flapping your jaws incoherently for the pure joy of it.

Well, if there is anyone here that is an expert on jaw movement, it would be you, George.

@George+Wells:

When I said “Obama might also be considering the potential consequences of starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims,” it doesn’t mean that I think that a ground war against ISIS would start ANY kind of a war with 1.6 billion Muslims.

You haven’t answered what makes you consider that Obama is so stupid as to think that going into Syria and back into Iraq would be “starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims.” We all know that isn’t a remotely possible scenario, and Obama certainly must know that as well. Neither of us is in Obama’s head, yet you created a nonsensical and illogical false scenario and opinion you suggested Obama believes without any basis for such a conclusion. I want to know your motivation and reasoning for doing so.

Obama really MIGHT be thinking that attacking ISIS on Muslim soil would inflame all 1.6 billion Muslims enough for them ALL to join in resisting the GREAT CRUSADE of the REIGN of OBAMA.

Again, a hypothetical false premise without any basis in reality. Your invocation of the Crusades changes nothing. Your argument is vapid and ridiculous as there is no way that all 1.6 billion Muslims are going to be put out at our going after al Qeada and ISIS (ISIL).

As I said before, I think that Obama’s – and ALL Democrats’ – first priority is to NOT get drawn into another ground war ANYWHERE.

Nobody wants to get drawn into another ground war. Aside from Islamic radicals, no sensible person wishes their nation to be at war unless it’s absolutely necessary. But you can’t always get what you want, and there are always those who will force others into a war situation as the only reasonable option against their violence.

They will ALL wait and let a Republican president do that, because and ONLY because they believe that the American public overwhelmingly DOESN”T WANT ANOTHER WAR!

Bullcrap. What Obama and the Democrats want to do is to meekly allow terrorism to grow and let hostile nations to cause continual strife, atrocities and flex their military might until the adults (Republicans) are put in office, so that they can thenwring their hands, count the dead, and blame it all on the GOP.

…The Democrats aren’t going to war on the ground.

We already have boots on the ground in Iraq. All the troops were not pulled out.

They’ll let the Republican president start one and take the blame for the returning body bags. No, it isn’t right. But that’s how this game of politics is being played.

Yes, Democrats do love to play “games” with people’s lives don’t they? Our rank and file military don’t consider war to be a “game.” They don’t consider the lives of themselves and their fellows to be merely “part of the game.” They don’t consider what they and their families go through physically or emotionally to be a “game.” No, in the US it is only the elite in Washington DC and twisted thinkers like yourself that considers real warfare to be a “game.”

@Ditto:

We already have boots on the ground in Iraq. All the troops were not pulled out.

And more have been sent in the last two months. And then, there’s this:

“YAHOO NEWS – The US Marine Corps plans to deploy 2,300 troops to the Middle East for a new unit designed to quickly respond to crises in the volatile region, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

It will include several aircraft and be prepared to move rapidly in the case of “contingencies,” Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters.

The idea for the task force originated in 2013 — before the current US air campaign against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria — and was not related “to the ongoing operations in Iraq,” Kirby said.

A senior Marine Corps officer said last week that the new task force for the Middle East region would be based out of Kuwait.”

I guess those Marines are being sent to the Middle East to do litter patrol, right?

@Ditto #76:
You have posed a rather interesting question to me, and I’m not sure that I completely understand it.

As it happens, I am in strong DISAGREEMENT with Obama’s handling of the Iraq War AND of his handling of the ISIS threat. His responses seem too hesitant and too timid. My speculations regarding possible motivations Obama might have for being so cautious are not meant to be supportive and should not be taken as such.

I am unable to label Obama as a “traitor” or to charge that he is intentionally attempting to destroy this country, in part because I believe that saying those things publically does damage to both the presidency and the country, and in part because I don’t believe that they are accurate assessments of the situation.

“You haven’t answered what makes you consider that Obama is so stupid as to think that going into Syria and back into Iraq would be “starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims.””

What makes me THINK that Obama THINKS this? Oh, I don’t know… Maybe that he’s not playing with a full deck and has become afraid of his own shadow?
If you are so certain that he IS playing with a full deck, then shouldn’t you be giving him enough credit to figure out that if he DOES succeed in hurting the country intentionally, it will ruin the Democratic Party?

“You created a nonsensical and illogical false scenario and opinion you suggested Obama believes without any basis for such a conclusion. I want to know your motivation and reasoning for doing so.”

Getting aggressive, are we? Oh, I don’t know. Trying to keep up a conversation? It was a guess, an uninformed and evidently worthless stab in the dark. What did you expect, that anyone who voted for Obama would have inside information?

I voted for Obama because he promised to advance gay rights, and he did. I’m sorry about his foreign policy blunders and his IRS blunders and his sloppy Affordable Care Act and a lot of other things that he has mismanaged. But keeping myself out of prison was and is my first priority. Too many Republicans think that all gay people belong in prison or worse. Until Republicans make peace with gays, they won’t get my vote.

And yes, Retire05, the country can go to Hell in the meantime. I served my country in war, worked my job and paid my taxes. I support most of the Republican agenda, but Republicans won’t get my vote until they get off my back!

“Your argument is vapid and ridiculous as there is no way that all 1.6 billion Muslims are going to be put out at our going after al Qeada and ISIS (ISIL).”

Interesting, given that Retire05 has said that we are ALREADY AT WAR WITH ISLAM. Not “ISIS”, not al Qeada… ISLAM! Did you call her vapid and ridiculous?
Oh, I thought not. That “unfair” thing again. Right…

I said:

“They’ll let the Republican president start one and take the blame for the returning body bags.”

And then you said:

“Bullcrap. What Obama and the Democrats want to do is to meekly allow terrorism to grow and let hostile nations to cause continual strife, atrocities and flex their military might until the adults (Republicans) are put in office, so that they can thenwring their hands, count the dead, and blame it all on the GOP.”

Isn’t what you said, in about three times as many words, just about exactly what I said?
I’m having a real hard time following your “Bullcrap” logic there…
If you want to disagree with me, don’t call “Bullcrap” on me and then repeat what I said.

WE could have an interesting conversation if you could tone down that anger thing…

@George+Wells:

Listen, you little weasel, leave me out of your debates with others.

#79:

“Listen, you little weasel, leave me out of your debates with others.”

No.
You added your comments to the public domain. I am free to use them.
XOXO

@George+Wells:

No.
You added your comments to the public domain. I am free to use them.

Fine. It only proves that you are not capable of winning a debate without dragging others into it. Calling you a weasel is an insult to all weasels.

XOXO

Hugs and kisses? Not in your wildest imagination. I know where your nasty mouth has been.

#81:

“Hugs and kisses? Not in your wildest imagination. I know where your nasty mouth has been”

Then I’ll blow you a kiss from behind!

@George+Wells:

Don’t waste your time. STDs are not airborne.

#83:

?Why did you pass up this one:

“Don’t waste your time, I’m too old to get pregnant.”

Epic Leftist thread drift.
But guess what?
CAIR held a rally against the Islamic State (ISIS) in Houston, Texas.
Recalling that a false story about nasty Mohammad cartoons in Denmark led to worldwide rallies of thousands of outraged Muslims and Obama saying that ISIS is NOT Islamic take a guess how many Muslims (or others) showed up.
????
This is the rally.
What was your count?

@Nanny+G:

If I were kind, I’d say 15 max.

Guess we know where CAIR members stand, and it certainly wasn’t on the street in Houston.