President Barack Hussein Obama has now taken it upon himself to usurp the role of the top brass in the U. S. Military with regard to the Islamic terrorist “rebels”---the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda, who ARE the terrorist “rebels” (the ones Obama was likely referring to his Cairo, Egypt speech in Tahrir Square in early 2009) while on his first trip abroad as President, when he publicly announced to them, “I AM ONE OF YOU…!!!” They are also the “rebels” he used American taxpayers money and U. S. Military treasure to support and arm in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. He did all of this WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE U. S. CONGRESS. What he is foolishly doing is second-guessing the U. S. Military leaders and telling them how they can or can’t do their jobs, even though he has never served in the U. S. Military or become educated and experienced in military strategy. What I believe he is doing, is everything he can to make sure the Islamic terrorist “rebels” whom he favors and are of the same Islamic sect he subscribes to or favors---Sunni or Shiite (Shi’a)--- the one with which he, as a Muslim, identifies in the centuries old Islamic schism between the two sects. He has been, and is, fighting an unconstitutional war in what I believe is his war of Islamic expansion in the Middle East and North Africa. It is also notable that the leaders of Libya and Egypt were non-sectarian leaders who historically tolerated and protected Christians in their countries. Syria’s leader, Bashar Al-Assad, is also a non-sectarian leader who has tolerated and protected Christians in Syria, but since these terrorist “rebels” invaded Syria, they are the ones who have been massacring Christians, cutting off heads, and committing other atrocities against a non-warrior Christian population---and blaming it on Bashar Al-Assad’s military. I will also note that President Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, has a foundation in the USA for which former Secretary of the IRS Lois Lerner granted a three month retroactive tax-exempt status. That foundation was set up and functions to raise money in the USA. That money could well have been funding the Islamic terrorist “rebels’” acts of terrorism against Christians and Muslims of the Islamic sect that is not favored by them. What we need to know now is how much of the American taxpayers’ money and military treasure supplied to aid and abet the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda terrorists has cost the American people and why is Obama allowed by the U. S. Congress to spend our money in support of terrorism. “Rift widens between Obama, U.S. military over strategy to fight Islamic State” “Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship. Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group. Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.” Mattis’s comments came two days after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander in chief could be reconsidered. Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled. The White House and Pentagon have scurried this week to insist there is no hint of dissent in the ranks, though in some cases their efforts have focused only more attention on the issue. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried to reassure the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that civilian and military leaders at the Pentagon were in “full alignment” and in “complete agreement with every component of the president’s strategy.” Some lawmakers were skeptical. Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, suggested that Obama should listen more closely to his commanders. “I think it’s very important that he does follow the advice and counsel that he receives, the professional advice of the military. They are the ones best suited to do that.” “I realize he’s commander in chief, he has the final say and the final obligation and responsibility,” McKeon added. “I would also request that he not take options off the table.” Obama’s strategy received a boost with the Senate’s passage of his plan to train and arm about 5,000 Syrian rebels to help fight the Islamic State, a jihadist movement that controls large parts of Iraq and Syria and has threatened to destabilize much of the region. The 78-22 vote in the Senate came just a day after the House approved its own measure. Since Aug. 8, the U.S. military has launched 176 airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq. Obama has signaled the military will expand the strikes into Syria, but it is unclear when that new phase will begin. During a House hearing on Thursday, former General James Mattis, previously commander of U.S. Central Command, said Islamic State militants have captured Americas focus right now but that it is important to keep a broader view of global terrorism… (AP) DOD Secretary Hagel testified Wednesday that he and Dempsey had approved a plan to conduct strikes against the Islamic State in Syria, and that Obama had received a briefing from Austin that same day at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa. When asked if the president had endorsed the plan, however, Hagel acknowledged that Obama had not but did not elaborate. Divisions between Obama and his generals have become a recurring feature of his presidency. In 2009, shortly after Obama took office, Pentagon leaders pressured the new president — who had run on a platform of ending the war in Iraq — to deploy a surge of troops to Afghanistan to rescue the faltering fight against the Taliban...” READ MORE: washingtonpost/world/national-security/rift-widens-between-obama-us-military-over-strategy-to-fight-islamic-state/2014/09/18/ebdb422e-3f5c-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
Posted on: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:18:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015