Obama just can't keep a promise.

Yeah, I know there are some things he can't get done, like closing Gitmo and getting single payer through congress.
But he is CIC of our military, and he has lied over and over about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
He can't be trusted with doing the things the American people want done with our military. Surveys show Americans want our guys and girls home. He could do that but said today he won't.

It's just disgusting.

It's likely dangerous and disastrous too... much like benghazi. Leaving an inadequate force to protect itself is naive and incompetent. Just go... Don't bother doing a a half assed job to cover your ass politically.

PkrBum wrote:

It's likely dangerous and disastrous too... much like benghazi. Leaving an inadequate force to protect itself is naive and incompetent. Just go... Don't bother doing a a half assed job to cover your ass politically.

    Can't imagine what would happen to all the Afghani women and girls if the United States suddenly and abruptly pulled out...You are exactly correct...if you're not going to commit the numbers needed for the safety of those that will remain then get out and suffer the consequences along with the humiliation in the eyes of the world.....There's no need to continue the incompetence that has already been shown by this cowh and his administration....

Even at the risk of offending or insulting those that are sick and tired of Benghazi/e-mails .. ie.Bernie.....70% of a poll said that hrc was not truthful and or forthcoming on the details of the attack/murders--maybe at this point in time her lack of character....judgment ....integrity... and leadership DOES MATTER....as pointed out above she did a 'half assed job' as Sec of State and actually expects to be rewarded with the White House....

Oblamer is sending more troops to chase Boko Harem, why? He has aircraft flying all over Syria with Russians in the same airspace, why? He wants to leave just enough troops in Afghanistan so they run the risk of getting wiped out, why? Nothing that moron does makes sense.

nochain wrote:

Oblamer is sending more troops to chase Boko Harem, why? He has aircraft flying all over Syria with Russians in the same airspace, why? He wants to leave just enough troops in Afghanistan so they run the risk of getting wiped out, why? Nothing that moron does makes sense.

Attempting to save some face in the world community.....

I think it's way too late for that. The pink lines in the sand emboldened enemies.

PkrBum wrote:

I think it's way too late for that. The pink lines in the sand emboldened enemies.

Which explains exactly the crowded airspace over Syria made by 'nochain'.....You are correct and a missed opportunity is an understatement....

Well now Oblamer wants to send even more troops to fight in the war he said was over. What he's really doing is delaying the inevitable until he gets out of office, the inevitable being he jumped the gun and screwed up everything in the M/E.

Oblamers Mideast non-strategy is as bad as Bush's decision to start wars over there in the first place. Now on top of that mistake we add civil war in Libya caused by Oblamers and Farm Animal Billary decapitating the government with no follow-on plan and their misguided adventurism in Syria trying to topple Assad with no plan for the "after" while Putin walks all over Oblamer.

Idiots.....

nochain wrote:

Well now Oblamer wants to send even more troops to fight in the war he said was over. What he's really doing is delaying the inevitable until he gets out of office, the inevitable being he jumped the gun and screwed up everything in the M/E.

Oblamers Mideast non-strategy is as bad as Bush's decision to start wars over there in the first place. Now on top of that mistake we add civil war in Libya caused by Oblamers and Farm Animal Billary decapitating the government with no follow-on plan and their misguided adventurism in Syria trying to topple Assad with no plan for the "after" while Putin walks all over Oblamer.

Idiots.....

And then there's the....'combat or 'non-combat' debate....'boots or no boots on the ground'....and that 'line in the sand'....

Last night watched a segment of a news/opinion show where the major discussion was about the Army Special Ops Sergeant that was recently killed in the raid to save prisoners...Was he killed in combat was the question wtf!!???....The administration is/was hesitant in classifying as a combat death wtf!!??... Special Ops conducted the raid...there were hostiles firing automatic weapons at them...that's not combat?...Why is that even being debated?...The Sec of Def was stumbling all over the explanation of combat----POLITICS is the answer and has no business in this at all..

All this to attempt to cover the incompetent/amateur decisions/policies of this cowh and his administration....WHAT A CLUSTER^$%*!!!!!!!......

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Well now Oblamer wants to send even more troops to fight in the war he said was over. What he's really doing is delaying the inevitable until he gets out of office, the inevitable being he jumped the gun and screwed up everything in the M/E.

Oblamers Mideast non-strategy is as bad as Bush's decision to start wars over there in the first place. Now on top of that mistake we add civil war in Libya caused by Oblamers and Farm Animal Billary decapitating the government with no follow-on plan and their misguided adventurism in Syria trying to topple Assad with no plan for the "after" while Putin walks all over Oblamer.

Idiots.....

   And then there's the....'combat or 'non-combat' debate....'boots or no boots on the ground'....and that 'line in the sand'....

   Last night watched a segment of a news/opinion show where the major discussion was about the Army Special Ops Sergeant that was recently killed in the raid to save prisoners...Was he killed in combat was the question   wtf!!???....The administration is/was hesitant in classifying as a combat death   wtf!!??... Special Ops conducted the raid...there were hostiles firing automatic weapons at them...that's not combat?...Why is that even being debated?...The Sec of Def was stumbling all over the explanation of combat----POLITICS is the answer and has no business in this at all..

   All this to attempt to cover the incompetent/amateur decisions/policies of this cowh and his administration....WHAT A CLUSTER^$%*!!!!!!!......

It's an easy answer too, they are drawing Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay there for a reason.....

I s Oblamer even capable of telling the truth?

1 year ago:

"In a statement delivered from the White House South Lawn, Obama said the United States "will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq," but that he would be reviewing a range of other options in coming days."

Today:

"Pentagon: 'Of course' US troops are in combat"

And now Libs want to put another know liar (HRC) in the W/H.

nochain wrote:

I s Oblamer even capable of telling the truth?

1 year ago:

"In a statement delivered from the White House South Lawn, Obama said the United States "will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq," but that he would be reviewing a range of other options in coming days."

Today:

"Pentagon: 'Of course' US troops are in combat"

And now Libs want to put another know liar (HRC) in the W/H.

    Reminds of what the definition of 'is' is....and 'alone' is....Guilty as hell but if not worded or asked correctly then it's...ok?...With the pentagon answer--it's no wonder that polls have indicated a HUGE split between the cowh/administration and the military...The newly appointed Sec of Def raised eyebrows immediately after taking over because he contradicted the administration right from the beginning...surprised he's still around....