Strategy and No strategy, One has it, the other? PLAYS GOLF!

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of ‘American leadership’ or ‘America winning”’ --POTUS
 
Of course, then there's the statement not taken out of context.

"If they think somehow their advisers are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them,” Obama said. “And we can have that debate. But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France. I’m too busy for that."​
 
OBAMA: “WHAT I’M NOT INTERESTED IN DOING IS POSING OR PURSUING SOME NOTION OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP OR AMERICA WINNING:”

Obama’s tone during Monday’s press conference alternated between defensive and disinterested. The two-term Democratic president repeatedly insisted that his strategy was working and scoffed at demands to change his plan to confront and defeat ISIS.

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France,” Obama said. “I’m too busy for that.”

There’s video of Obama’s chilling words in a C-SPAN clip at the Federalist. They’re the president’s equivalent of Carter’s malaise speech, only this time concerning real war, not its moral equivalent, which he and most Democrats view global warming. (And which Carter similarly viewed what in the 1970s was dubbed “the energy crisis.”)

Contrast this with a very different geopolitical strategy against totalitarianism. As Power Line’s Steve Hayward wrote in The Age of Reagan Volume II: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989, published in 1989:

Reagan wanted to do much more than simply return to a robust anti-Communist foreign policy; he had spoken openly to his aides of wanting to win the Cold War, a hitherto unthinkable notion. Most notably, he told his future national security adviser, Richard Allen, sometime in 1979 that his view of the Cold War was simple: “We win, they lose. What do you think of that?” Reagan rejected coexistence and agreed with the orthodox conservative view that containment was a losing strategy in the face of determined revolutionists. Following Lincoln’s policy on slavery, Reagan wanted to place Communism on the course of ultimate extinction.

I know which strategy I prefer. How about you? (And hey, remember when Time magazine told us that Reagan would approve of Obama?)

Related: “If he hated terrorists half as much as he hates Republicans then maybe ISIS wouldn’t control half the middle east.”
 
Unfuckingbelieveable.

He just conceded to ISIS.

that is HOW THEY see it

see teh declaration of war by OBL...he called the US a paper tiger

our poster, Below Average will defend teh BLACK GUY....but he is wrong as usual
 
It's a dark, dark day when the President of France shows more leadership than the POTUS.

The man who should be the leader of the free world is cowering in the corner like a
Chihuahua high on crack.

He makes me sick.
 
Back
Top