Forget Ebola. Get yourself checked out for Obama Derangement Syndrome. It mutated from the same family as Bush Derangement Syndrome, but seems to be far more virulent.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063952749 said:Do you have proof of that? There is verifiable proof Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not only do they have their people funding terrorism, they have their people participating in killing Americans and the Iranian government directly funds Hamas and Hezbollah.
Khobar Towers bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BO's strategy for ISIS has failed.....moreover we are not making an ally out of Iran. CPW already pointed out one very good reason we can't be. Iran is a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
If other Leaders overseas don't believe it a good nuke deal.....why would the Left here think it is?
Big Regional Power against IS.....yet at the same time they are arming the Shia. Who have been assassinating, kidnapping, and killing Sunni Arabs.
Why is Obama so keen to reach a compromise with a guy responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans who sponsors terror on a global scale, but not with Republicans? Who does he think are his enemies?
They are indeed. Remind me again how the Green Movement, when that westernized populace came out, worked out again?
I think you may want to do some more research on Twelver Shi'ism.
You may have accidentaly written this twice - but the response is the same. Yes, they do. They simply want to be the ones in charge of it.
Iran's mullah's were supported against their people by the Obama administration. Literally as they were being pulled by the Basij into unmarked black vans they were chanting "Obama you are with us or you are with them" and we decided we were with them because the administration wanted to prove that only idiotic cowboys like George Bush believe in all that naive "freedom" stuff.
Yeah, I was listening to Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence committee, this morning on the radio and he was mentioning that there have been zero meetings between the House Int. committee and the White House in 6 years (even under Dem control). He said it would be nice if they could get a secret letter from the White house now and then.
I particularly like the authority with which you speak. It's as if you are in those top secret security meetings and everything. Face it, you are so desperate to slam obama its to the point where it's obvious that your comments on the topic exceed your knowledge on the topic... no matter how authoritatively you put it.
Obama backed the mullahs? link?
Yup. When the Green Movement hit it's peak, and students were being dragged into the black vans to "disappear", and Iranian security forces were engaging in a mass rape/torture intimidation campaign (we found out, for example, that gang rape is simply part of being inprocessed to Iranian prisons if you are a young woman), they reached out to us for support, they but we were too busy in secret meetings with Ahmadenijads' foreign policy people and so we chose instead to trust that process (which fell apart).
Because, you know, that neocon-democracy-stuff is just so George Bush. :roll:
The problem is that if these top secret meetings are happening then they are in an increasingly small circle of Obama confidants, and not involving Congress.
You are changing your story. First you said:
Iran's mullah's were supported against their people by the Obama administration
This implies an active role played by the Obama administration against Iran's green movement.
If you are going to change your story to the latter of the Obama administration not backing the democracy green movement, fine... I'd like to ask what you proposed America should've done? Start dropping bombs in Iran? Boots on the ground in Iran? Drone strikes in Iran? Funneling weapons of war into Iran?
Proof of this shrinking meetings theory?
I particularly like the authority with which you speak. It's as if you are in those top secret security meetings and everything. Face it, you are so desperate to slam obama its to the point where it's obvious that your comments on the topic exceed your knowledge on the topic... no matter how authoritatively you put it.
And that is correct, we did.
No it doesn't. It implies that we continued to support the Iranian government as they were suppressing the Green Movement, who had asked us for help.
Our response was to issue a mealy-mouthed statement that all sides should eschew violence, and then hurridly signal to the Iranian government that we didn't mean anything by it, we wanted negotiations to continue, etc. We made it clear to the Iranian regime that they had the greenlight from us so long as those negotiations continued, and so that is how they were able to exercise complete freedom of movement against the protestors, knowing that the one country that might make trouble for them if they did so had already told them they wouldn't.
In his finest tradition, the President here acted by voting "present" when the demand instead was for action.
Communications Gear would have been better. Any kind of support whatsoever would have been better. Obama appearing on television with a green tie and announcing mere solidarity with those who struggle for freedom against thuggish theocratic rapists would have been better.
Who would be the strong horse at the negotiation table? Barrack Obama or the Iranian Ayatollahs?And we have a winner... DING DING DING!!!!
The next scandal in the Obama Administration. I want to know how this got out and... more importantly what the terms of "cooperation on the Islamic State" are. As well as what exactly this has to do with Iran and it's Nuclear Program?? How are the two even remotely connected in anyway? Unless...Iran is funding the Islamic State. But that's just conjecture on my part. Otherwise it looks like agenda-driven political nonsense from the leader of this nation. We've come a long way from let's never negotiate with terrorists. Also, why does this not seem to be within the best interests of the United States?? Hmmmm
This needs repeating. And any Democrats should take notice.Why is Obama so keen to reach a compromise with a guy responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans who sponsors terror on a global scale, but not with Republicans? Who does he think are his enemies?
Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also Leon Panetta, from Newsweek:
“It was clear to me - and many others,” Panetta wrote in his memoir, “Worthy Battles,” “that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.”
Such arguments were rejected at the time inside the White House, where the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.
Who would be the strong horse at the negotiation table? Barrack Obama or the Iranian Ayatollahs?
You are still throwing stones and cannot even admit that there is a difference between active support that you implied and that not doing anything that actually happened.
And all you've done is pretty much start a war with Iran. Great job!
From your article that you are quoting.. (that I googled up)
The National Security Council staff, which coordinates U.S. defense, diplomatic and intelligence policy from inside the White House, has nearly doubled in size on his watch. It has gone from about 50 under George H.W. Bush to 100 under Bill Clinton, 200 under George W. Bush and about 370 under Obama.
So the meetings are growing in size but shrinking at the same time?
Oh and the finality to it.....until they come up with a new plan.
Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria.....
Western Iraq saw more brutal bloodshed this weekend after the Islamic State massacred 322 people of the Albu Nimr tribe, a Sunni group, including women and children. The Iraqi government confirmed the attack in the Anbar region, which began on Saturday and continued into Sunday, and was described as "systematic killings."Beyond the lives lost, the success of these "systematic killings" will have a long-term impact on the struggle between ISIS and the Iraqi government. "The fall of the village dampened the Shi'ite-led national government's hopes the Sunni tribesmen of Anbar—who once helped U.S. Marines defeat al Qaeda—would become a formidable force again and help the army take on Iraq's new, far more effective enemy," noted Reuters's Michael Georgy.
In Syria, the United States faced another setback in its battle against terrorist groups, when weapons distributed to anti-government rebels ended up in the hands of an al-Qaeda splinter group, Jabhat al-Nusra. The weapons provided by the United States included GRAD rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles. It is unclear if the moderate rebels who had been trained by the United States surrendered or defected to the terrorist group. The Independent reported that a U.S.-backed rebel group, Harakat Hazm, surrendered on Saturday night "without firing a shot" after al-Nusra attacked the villages it controlled. Some soldiers apparently defected, and the Syrian Revolutionary Front, another group receiving U.S. support, was driven from its strongholds.....snip~
Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria
It seems so remarkably conspiratorial but the question is raised ever more frequently as to whose side this really is on.Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also Leon Panetta, from Newsweek:
“It was clear to me - and many others,” Panetta wrote in his memoir, “Worthy Battles,” “that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.”
Such arguments were rejected at the time inside the White House, where the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.
This is the tragic consequence of electing a bumbling leader with no foreign experience, little domestic experience and no experience at governing. Why the electorate ever gave this bumbler a second term will be questioned for generations to come.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?