Showing posts with label rules of engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules of engagement. Show all posts

Monday, August 05, 2019

Obamanations


Since the Democrat candidates have sullied former President Obama in their recent debate, I guess it’s now OK to join the fray. It's only been 31 months since the worst president of our lifetime has left office into hyper-wealth ... and the outline of his legacy is beginning to be written by historians ... and far-left Dems. Let me help them with my thoughts of his, can I use the word, obamanations? Here are a few of my cringe-worthy recollections:

- A fake $831 billion “stimulus” package ... no real “shovel-ready jobs”

- Obamacare ... in all its gory

- The Iran nuclear deal which gave it hundreds of billion dollars in which to sponsor terrorism in the Middle East, cooperate with North Korea in its drive toward an atomic Armageddon, and still pursue its own nuclear/missile ambitions.

- Inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House multiple times ... the MB is a Muslim terrorist organization

- Conveniently ignoring China’s unfair trade practices ... and pushing the TPP

- An eight -year neglect of our anti-missile technology development ... leaving us seriously unprepared for Kim Jong Un's madness.

- Allowing US manufacturing to die a slow death — no “magic wand”

- The exchange of five highest-level Taliban commanders for that Army deserted, Bowe Bergdahl

- The Paris Climate Accord in which the US carried almost the entire responsibility

- Continually demeaning the US and our potential

- Sham "surge" in Afghanistan for political purposes. It did nothing ... mainly because of inane rules of engagement.

- Refusing to recognize domestic radical Islamic terrorism

- The hollowing out of our armed forces.

- Treating ISIS as the JV team ... using more inane rules of military engagement.

- Weaponizing US intelligence agencies against the Trump team

- The commuting of Chelsea Manning's 35-year sentence for treason.

- His opening to Cuba ... for which we got damaged diplomats and more problems with Venezuela.

- The paying of at least $1.6 billion in cash to Iran for two hostages

- And a whole lot more ...

Now no president can accumulate this many screw-ups without some winners. Unfortunately I can't recall any.

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Headlines


Dem senators fight to out-liberal one amother ahead of 2020

Trump displays delusions in his New York Times interview

'Most expensive mile on Earth': $4.4 billion for NYC subway ...

South Korea: North Korea defectors show signs of radiation exposure

Senators scrap Russia trip after Kremlin snubs [Sem.] Shaheen

North Kotea says won't give up nukes if US keeps up 'blackmail

Iran rocked by protests, Tehran warns 'hard-line' counter rallues

Former Navy Seal praises Trump rules of engagement

White House, State Deparrment condem Iranian respomse to protests

Putin voices hope of cooperation with U.s in letter to Trump

Niagara Falls freezes ...

London 'No-Go Zones' made 'too dangerous to work' due to acid, knife attacks

Monday, November 28, 2016

Headlines


These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites.

Canada has first hijab-wearing news anchor ...

Trump: I won the popular vote if illegal voters discounted

US-Cuba relations under threat that Trump may cut ties

Anti-terror police deployed on London streets ...

China secret space program threatens NASA dominance ...

Turkey detains BBC, Voice of America reporters ...

Fed's push 'midnight regulations' before Trump

Generals 'handcuffed' by Rules of Engagement in ISIS fight

Venezuela currency so devalued no longer fits in wallet .

TX governor to ban sanctuary cities ...

Semiautomatic rifles legalized for hunting in Pennsylvania

Trump to ask foreign governments to probe  Clinton Foundation

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Rules of Engagement


President Obama once played the me-too game in Afghanistan. After he took office, he said that Afghanistan was the "good war." Then after months and months of feckless indecision, our fearful leader sent a "surge" of troops there but effectively disarmed them with very constrictive rules of engagement. As a consequence, these additional 30,000 troops ... see: New York Times Story ... became targets of Islamic (read Taliban) green-on-blue assassins who killed hundreds of unsuspecting American and allied troops  ... including one general. All in all, during this puny presidential pugilistic posing, the United States lost over 1,100 troops with another 15,000 or so wounded ... see: Antiwar Blog ... many more than under President Bush's war there  ... with essentially no progress to show for all this sacrifice..

And of course we all remember when Obama drew a red line with Syria over its use of chemical weapons ... which he promptly forgot when challenged. Now, President Obama is again flexing his military flab ... sending an aircraft carrier and flotilla of naval ships to intercept the Iranian navy  escorting a suspected shipment of arms to the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen ... see: Fox News Story. But wait! Now it seems that our fearful leader has once again got cold feet and is now saying that this show of American naval power is there just to insure "freedom of navigation." Am I to suppose that his new constrictive rules of engagement for the U.S. Navy there might be to help the Iranians offload their weapons cargoes.

What's the term Rush Limbaugh often uses? Our fearful leader seems to have a "linguine spine?"

Barf!

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Bull in a China Shop


I once was a fan of Colin Powell.  But his sycophantic utterances regarding Barack Obama has caused me pause. Yet the Powell Doctrine, “If you break it, you own it” still has profound meaning … meaning that George W. Bush seemed to understand and embrace in his attempt to stabilize Iraq before he left office.  However this current administration appears to have no such compunctions … a failing that General Powell has yet to noticed.

President Obama and our then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have left Libya in ruins and chaos … see: The UK Independent Story. Our President’s inattention to Iraq has caused much of what was accomplished there to be backsliding into sectarian warfare.   Obama also promised a “surge” in Afghanistan to try to fix things ala Bush 43 … only to make things worse with his concurrent statement about our departure date … and his political and shameful gutting of our rules of engagement (see: Sitting on Our Hands).  And then there was Egypt … a self correcting disaster despite all of Obama’s and Clinton’s attempts to the contrary.

Now we have shifted our snorting “foreign policy” to SyriaEl toro!

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Sitting on Our Hands



The United States current presence in Afghanistan is a farce.  For at least the last year, our soldiers there have essentially been hunkered down … not exposing themselves to dangerous situations … and getting killed in the process.  And we will be doing the same for maybe the next nineteen months … running out the clock until President Obama’s even-accelerated time table for withdrawal has expired … see: NDTV Article.

The reason that virtually all the American soldiers killings there have been by “insiders” (supposedly trusted Afghans who have turned into deadly assassins … so called “green on blue” attacks) is that this administration has changed the rules of engagement in Afghanistan to the point where offensive measures are almost impossible … see American Thinker Commentary.  This is a purely domestic political decision … trying to appear resolute in our commitment to the “good war” … while, in fact, wimping-out.

If President Obama is half the sports nut he tries to present himself as, he would know that sitting on a lead is the quickest way to lose a game.  And we are losing the game in Afghanistan.  As soon as he had decided to present an ultra-passive posture there (voting "present"?), he should have begun the process of withdrawal … and left the Taliban to kill their fellow countrymen and not Americans.

Let's stop sitting on our hands.