At the Antalya Summit in Turkey, in the wake of the Paris attacks and the 500 causalities and loss of life, Obama hit new lows in defending his policies by brazenly lying again in answer to questions related to the critics of his failed Isis policies including his refusal to send ground troops to fight Isis which everyone agrees is the only way Isis can be destroyed.
First, that Obama's policies have failed and failed from the very beginning is not in dispute by anyone, Democrat or Republican or the U.S. military. The only one who doesn't claim its failed is Obama. Which shows both how deeply in denial he is and how his ego always comes first.
Then he invoked what many on the Tea Party Left invoke when it comes to using the military for the purpose for which it exists -- protecting American citizens, their safety, their well being and way of life from a foreign enemy. They yell "Vietnam!" and "Iraq!", the constant neurotic paralysis, stupidity and ignorance every time the use of military force comes up seemingly not able to tell the difference between two wars the country was lied into and the legitimate use of military force to destroy an enemy intent on inflicting as many casualties on us and the Europeans as they can.
In defense of his not using ground troops to destroy Isis, Obama, along with invoking Vietnam and Iraq as mistakes said at the press conference that no one ever presented a plan of what they would do
militarily. Not true. But something he was clearly trying to use as an excuse for not using ground troops.
Obama said "not a single one of my top military advisors ever advocated for ground troops to fight Isis. Not one." As you will see also not true.
He then went on to contemptuously suggest that anyone who thinks we should send ground troops doesn't know what they are talking about because they couldn't have the intelligence he does to make these decisions. In other words, to paraphrase past Obama wisdom, he claims that those who criticize his policy are the junior varsity.
Obama's problem is he ignored Woody Allen's line that when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything.
Obama always hopes that journalists and others are either too weak or intimidated to call him out when he clearly lies or if one wants to soften it, his intentional self serving misrepresentations. Obama claimed that "not one of my top military advisors ever advocated ground troops to fight Isis. Not one". Not one. How about maybe General Martin Dempsey, Obama's former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Do a Google search on "General Dempsey ground troops Isis". This is the first thing that what will come up but there is more.
Obama said "not a single one of my top military advisors ever advocated for ground troops to fight Isis. Not one." As you will see also not true.
He then went on to contemptuously suggest that anyone who thinks we should send ground troops doesn't know what they are talking about because they couldn't have the intelligence he does to make these decisions. In other words, to paraphrase past Obama wisdom, he claims that those who criticize his policy are the junior varsity.
Obama's problem is he ignored Woody Allen's line that when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything.
Obama always hopes that journalists and others are either too weak or intimidated to call him out when he clearly lies or if one wants to soften it, his intentional self serving misrepresentations. Obama claimed that "not one of my top military advisors ever advocated ground troops to fight Isis. Not one". Not one. How about maybe General Martin Dempsey, Obama's former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Do a Google search on "General Dempsey ground troops Isis". This is the first thing that what will come up but there is more.
Nov.13, 2014 -" General Dempsey open to ground troops in Iraq to retake
territories lost to Isis in Iraq. (the italics because of Obama's
dismissal of retaking territory lost to Isil as important when he said at the press conference "sure we can retake
territories and hold it but so what"?) Dempsey at the time said 80,000 troops
would be necessary to be effective."
Dempsey didn't pull that figure out of a hat. Obviously military planners at the Pentagon at Dempsey's direction took months to devise a plan of attack using ground troops to destroy Isis and had concluded the number that would be needed was 80,000 troops "to be effective". So much for Obama's claim that not one military commander ever recommended or considered ground forces to defeat Isis.
Obama also lied when he said in the press conference that he meets with his
military leaders all the time and that they said ground forces "would be a
mistake". That the Pentagon did a study and worked out a plan at the behest of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proves Obama was lying. But there is
more.
General Dempsy actually testified before congress
that he believed ground forces would be needed to destroy Isis.
NBC News - Nov. 13, 2014
Dempsey testifies in front of congressional committee that he is
considering recommending sending ground troops to Iraq to fight against
Isis,
THE HILL -- Sept 17,2014.
Top Army General: ground troops needed to fight Isis militants.
THE NEW YORK TIMES - Sept 16, 2014
U.S. General Open to Ground Forces in Fight Against Isis in Iraq
CNN - Nov 13, 2014
Dempsey Leaves Door Open for U.S. Ground Troops.
THE GUARDIAN - Nov 13, 2014
U.S. military considers sending combat troops to battle Isis forces.
FOX NEWS - Nov. 13, 2014
Dempsey: U.S. troops could fight along side Iraqi forces in war against
Isis, Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee. "We are at war against
Isil" Dempsey said.
It's probably no coincidence that Dempsey, who held those views in spite of
Obama's policies, ultimately quit as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joining three
previous Secretaries of Defense who quit when Obama rebuffed their advice to
destroy Isis in the beginning by arming the moderate Syrian rebels 3 years ago. Which led to Obama's now famous comment and shining example of his judgement by dismissing Isis as "the junior
varsity".
It's one thing to disagree and attempt to present a cogent argument that
supports your position . Its another thing to repeatedly and
blatantly lie about your policies that has cost
lives and created the Syrian refugee crisis because you don't have a cogent argument to
make and you have no facts to back you up.
It was only the Friday morning before the Paris attacks but after Isis attacked in Beruit then bombed a Russian airliner killing 224 that Obama said Isis had been contained.
It is probable that the biggest reason Obama won't send ground forces now to destroy Isis is because he knows he could have destroyed them three years ago in their infancy by arming the moderate Syrian rebels. Which means sending U.S. ground forces now would mean every U.S. casualty would be paying for his mistake. And he doesn't want to deal with that.
The irony is America has paid a steep price because leaders have lied to them about matters of war and peace. General Westmoreland lied to
Lyndon Johnson repeatedly about Vietnam. Nixon lied about Vietnam. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with
help from the New York Times, lied the country into a dishonest and
disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq. And now Obama is lying to the country and the world
about using military power to destroy Isis but for the opposite reason -- so he doesn't have to make a decision to fight a
war it's obvious we have to win. Which, until we do, will continue to cost
innocent lives. The only question is whose and how many.
When political neurotics on the far Left like those at MoveOn and ThinkProgress cry " Vietnam" and " Iraq" to defend their argument, they miss the point that the real problem from the beginning was the lie. The consequences of the lie and the price we paid came later.
When Obama says none of his military commanders ever recommended or considered ground troops to destroy Isis, when he says that every one of his military commanders said using ground troops would be a mistake, he is lying. Period. The decision to not use ground troops has been solely his in spite of recommendations by his military commanders. It has been Obama's lack of resolve or commitment to destroy Isis that has led to his typical half way ineffective measures. And, like Bush did after Iraq, Obama tries to put the onus on others for his decisions instead of admitting they are his and his alone.
Whether it's Obama's well justified lack of confidence in his own decision making where doing nothing is safer than doing something that might not work, an approach that has defined his entire 18 years in elected office, he has placed the rationale for his own decision making dishonestly on to his military when its been his own refusal to act that is the real issue as we and the world saw with his reneging on his pledge to use a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons.
It's really about only one thing -- is there a real commitment to destroy the 30,000 Isis fighters in Iraq and Syria or not?
When Obama says none of his military commanders ever recommended or considered ground troops to destroy Isis, when he says that every one of his military commanders said using ground troops would be a mistake, he is lying. Period. The decision to not use ground troops has been solely his in spite of recommendations by his military commanders. It has been Obama's lack of resolve or commitment to destroy Isis that has led to his typical half way ineffective measures. And, like Bush did after Iraq, Obama tries to put the onus on others for his decisions instead of admitting they are his and his alone.
Whether it's Obama's well justified lack of confidence in his own decision making where doing nothing is safer than doing something that might not work, an approach that has defined his entire 18 years in elected office, he has placed the rationale for his own decision making dishonestly on to his military when its been his own refusal to act that is the real issue as we and the world saw with his reneging on his pledge to use a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons.
It's really about only one thing -- is there a real commitment to destroy the 30,000 Isis fighters in Iraq and Syria or not?
Dempsey said it would take 80,000 U.S. troops. It doesnt have to after the Paris attacks. If the United States actually had a leader there could be a coalition of allies contributing 100,000 or more ground troops, 25,000 each from the U.S., France, Russia,the UK with an additional force from Canada who has indicated they are willing to join the fight, and just go in to take them out. Jim Acosta at CNN asked why we don't do exactly that at the press conference in Turkey which led to Obama's misrepresentations of the truth in trying to defend his own failures and failings.
For now, it doesn't matter whether you think ground troops are necessary
or you don't. It doesn't matter whether you think you know what you're talking
about and know the right thing to do or you don't. What matters is
the reality that every time America has been lied to regarding the use of military force one way or the other it was a big mistake and we paid a big price. And no matter what side of the argument
you are on, there is no doubt Obama has lied and continues to lie about relevant and important facts.
Nixon and Bush lied about why they were sending troops to fight a war. Obama is lying about why he's not.
There are hypocrites like those on the Tea Party Left like MoveOn and ThinkProgress who railed over past Nixon, Bush and Cheney lies about war but have no problem with Obama's lies because he lies about something they approve of which is to do nothing.
But in the end it's really about one unmistakable conclusion. Obama can't be trusted. Not trusted to tell the truth . And not trusted to make the right decision based of the facts. Which is why it's going to take Democrats in congress to take control and force his hand. Because no matter what the lie is now or the lies were then, always doing the opposite of the lie is going to be the right thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment