Saturday, November 15, 2014

Thanks, Obama! It will take 80,000 troops to restore Iraq to where it was before Obama cut and ran


It's been almost three years since President Obama callously cut and ran from Iraq so he could proudly proclaim, “I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised," as he ran for reelection. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed he "viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests."

Panetta concluded that "to this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country." As predicted, because of Obama's actions, the country has fallen to Islamic terrorists, horrific violence, and more war.

So much has been lost to ISIS under Obama that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Thursday, "We're going to need about 80,000 competent Iraqi security forces to recapture territory lost, and eventually the city of Mosul, to restore the border."

America's top general also testified that because the Iraqi army is in such bad shape after losing its American support that he is considering sending in U.S. ground troops again:
General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting, Dempsey acknowledged.

“I’m not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” he said.

... But should the Iraqi military prove unwilling to take back “al-Anbar province and Ninewa province” – the majority of territory in Iraq seized by Isis – or should the new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, exclude Sunnis from power, “I will have to adjust my recommendations,” Dempsey said.
Once again, if Obama had negotiated a responsible draw down that left provisional forces to protect our interests and progress, none of this would have happened.

Instead, Iraq will need 80,000 troops and additional U.S. ground troops to recover. Thanks, Obama!

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Post-election poll confirms: Americans want Obama to go away


Last year, after the government shutdown, President Obama challenged, “If you don’t like my policies, go out there and win an election.”

Then last month, Obama infamously said of his liberal agenda, “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”

Last Tuesday, the American people responded, handing Obama, his policies, and his party an historic defeat. But somehow the message Obama received is “to push hard to close some of these divisions, break through some of the gridlock, and get stuff done.”

If that was the message the voters sent, then it certainly wasn’t directed at Obama. A post-election poll from Gallup confirms that it is the GOP that the American people want to “get stuff done” – by a margin of 53% to 36%:
This is on the heels of a poll last month which found that 32% of registered voters planned to send a message of opposition to Obama’s agenda with their vote – the highest ever recorded by Gallup – with only 20% planning to send a message of support.

How many more ways can the American people tell Obama STOP! CEASE! DESIST! Obama only hears what he wants to hear, and it’s the sound of his own voice.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Reporter Sharyl Attkisson: CBS held Obama Benghazi quote that could have changed the election


Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed explosive information on Fox News Channel’s “MediaBuzz” that CBS worked unethically to help President Obama win reelection.

Of course, you remember the infamous moment in the second presidential debate when moderator Candy Crowley interjected to wrongly say that Obama had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror on September 12, 2012. It turns out CBS sat on a clip of the president refusing to call the attack terrorism in an interview with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” from September 12th.

Here is the exchange that CBS hid – even from Attkisson who was heavily involved in reporting the story – until the waning days of the election (emphasis mine):

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word “terrorism” in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

Instead, CBS repeatedly aired a more ambiguous clip from the interview that Attkisson used for an October 23rd segment on “CBS Evening News:”

SHARYL ATTKISSON, CBS INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.
OBAMA: You’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

Attkisson was outraged when she found out that CBS hid the footage from her and the American people at such a relevant time:
Attkisson said, “Let me say that that exchange should have been pulled out immediately after the debate, which would have been very newsy at the time. It was exclusive to CBS. It would have to me proven Romney’s point against Obama. But that clip was kept secret.”

“I was covering Benghazi, nobody told me we had it and directed me from the ‘Evening News’ to a different clip of the same interview to give the impression that the president had done the opposite. And it was only right before the election that somebody kind of leaked out the transcript to others of us as CBS and we were really shocked. We saw that was something very unethical done to have kept that up.”

She added, “The ‘Evening News’ people who had access to that transcript, according to the emails that I saw when it was sent from ’60 Minutes’ to ‘Evening News’ the very day it was taken, they, in my view, skipped over it, passed it up, kept it secret. And I think that was because they were trying to defend the president and they thought that would be harmful to him.”
H/T Breitbart