Thin skinned Obama responds to Hillary's criticism Warning: language

[carpro]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...iticism-of-his-syria-policy-is-horsesh-t.html


Exclusive: Obama Told Lawmakers Criticism of His Syria Policy is 'Horsesh*t'


Hillary Clinton and Congressmen alike have called on Obama to arm Syria’s rebels. But the President fumed at lawmakers in a private meeting for suggesting he should’ve done more.

President Obama got angry at lawmakers who suggested in a private meeting that he should have armed the Syrian rebels, calling the criticism “horsesh*t.”

 

[righteousdude2]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...iticism-of-his-syria-policy-is-horsesh-t.html


Exclusive: Obama Told Lawmakers Criticism of His Syria Policy is 'Horsesh*t'


Hillary Clinton and Congressmen alike have called on Obama to arm Syria’s rebels. But the President fumed at lawmakers in a private meeting for suggesting he should’ve done more.

President Obama got angry at lawmakers who suggested in a private meeting that he should have armed the Syrian rebels, calling the criticism “horsesh*t.”

If we armed Syrian rebels, wouldn't that be like arming ISIL/ISIS? They are one in the same! I think?

 

[carpro]

If we armed Syrian rebels, wouldn't that be like arming ISIL/ISIS? They are one in the same! I think?

I believe we have been, or at least were, arming them. Some day we may know the truth about Benghazi.

The post is really about a president who does almost nothing right concerning foreign affairs and is really defensive about it. Some democrats are beginning to turn on him because of it. He doesn't take it well.

One thing to not lose sight of is his tendencies to support and sympathize with islamic terrorists.

 

[righteousdude2]

I believe we have been, or at least were, arming them. Some day we may know the truth about Benghazi.

The post is really about a president who does almost nothing right concerning foreign affairs and is really defensive about it. Some democrats are beginning to turn on him because of it. He doesn't take it well.

One thing to not lose sight of is his tendencies to support and sympathize with islamic terrorists.

That is quite obvious .... like he once said, the answers to the questions were above his paygrade, and I think once he arrived at the level of the pay grade he was referring to, he felt the pressure was overwhelming!

I beieve that one day, history will prove that this president used Benghazi to his personal gain just in time for a tough election!

Isn't that why Tricky Dick was impeached? Using the info gathered at watergate, for his gain during an election!

 

[Use of Time]

I believe we have been, or at least were, arming them. Some day we may know the truth about Benghazi.

The post is really about a president who does almost nothing right concerning foreign affairs and is really defensive about it. Some democrats are beginning to turn on him because of it. He doesn't take it well.

One thing to not lose sight of is his tendencies to support and sympathize with islamic terrorists.

Yes, very sympathetic to terrorists. So sympathetic he started bombing them this past weekend and plans to arm their Kurdish enemies.

You also just said in your opening post that he was criticized for not arming Syrian rebels. Your next post basically agrees that we have been arming Syrian rebels. Sooooo what exactly is it you are trying to say with this thread?


Let me just add that at this point arming the Syrian rebels would most likely be like arming IS. The regular Syrian army just got steamrolled by the IS in Raqqa thus further equipping a rapidly growing terrorist cell. Arming the Kurds would be more prudent (which I believe we are about to start doing) seeing as they have actually showed a will to fight back against the IS.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Obama looks like he is going to make the same mistake Rumsfeld made. Fighting an insurgency, in the hopes that meanwhile a diplomatic solution can be formed.

It failed when Rumsfeld/Casey tried it. You have to win a military victory, or instill a sense of hopelessness before your enemy will make concessions.

 

[Use of Time]

Obama looks like he is going to make the same mistake Rumsfeld made. Fighting an insurgency, in the hopes that meanwhile a diplomatic solution can be formed.

It failed when Rumsfeld/Casey tried it. You have to win a military victory, or instill a sense of hopelessness before your enemy will make concessions.

Maybe. I am temporarily satisfied with eliminating much of their confiscated military capabilities through the use of airstrikes and targeting large IS troop movements further south toward Baghdad. We'll just have to have some faith in the Kurds to live up to their end. They've demonstrated courage at times but were likely to get overwhelmed had we not started giving the IS something to worry about overhead. I think a big factor moving forward at this point is the new Iraqi PM's ability to reorganize the Iraqi Army and utilize them properly. It was shameful how Maliki just let those fringe outposts fend for themselves. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[carpro]

Yes, very sympathetic to terrorists. So sympathetic he started bombing them this past weekend and plans to arm their Kurdish enemies.

A terrorist sympathizer like Obama doesn't mind playing both sides.

Supports Al qaeda in getting rid of a known terrorist and dictator in Libya.

Then uses the Libyan connection to arm al qaeda in Syria. When they attack Iraq, he kills a few. All for the greater good. They will still take over Iraq. He knows it, but it's good cover to kill a few.

Then there's Egypt. Supports a known terrorist organization in taking control of the government. The Egyptians have since thrown the bums out and Obama is on record as not being real happy about.

Constantly works on behalf of the terrorist organization known as Hamas to cover and make excuses for their attacks on Israel, while working to get Israel to cave and forsake their own national security.

Has several members of a terrorist organization working in and around the White House in his administration.

Gives the terroristic taliban a leg up in afghanistan with ROEs on our troops so restrictive that he has signed the death warrant of God only knows how many american servicemen.

Calling him just a terrorist sympathizer is toning it down quite a bit.

 

[Use of Time]

But wait, your opening post said that he is being pressured and criticized for not arming Syrians? Which is it? :laugh: It is hard to discuss this when you keep moving the goalposts. The ROE are fine and in place for a specific reason. You are just all over the place on this one.

 

[carpro]

But wait, your opening post said that he is being pressured and criticized for not arming Syrians? Which is it? :laugh: It is hard to discuss this when you keep moving the goalposts. The ROE are fine and in place for a specific reason. You are just all over the place on this one.

Apparently you have some kind of reading comprehension impairment. Most likely deliberate.

I won't bother to explain the opening post to you. It's a no brainer.

Terrorist sympathizer , he is.

Obama sympathizer, you are. So none of it will ever matter.

 

[Use of Time]

Your first post said that he was thin skinned because he wasn't arming Syrians. Your next post is an acknowledgement that he was already arming Syrians. So which is it? What point are you trying to make exactly? Is he mad at Hillary because she wants him to do something he has already been doing? That would put them in agreement would it not? I don't know what to do with this thread at this point.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apparently you have some kind of reading comprehension impairment. Most likely deliberate.

I won't bother to explain the opening post to you. It's a no brainer.

Terrorist sympathizer , he is.

Obama sympathizer, you are. So none of it will ever matter.

And where is the like button. :thumbs:

 

[Use of Time]

Care to contribute? Nah, I didn't think so. That would involve posting an original thought as opposed to some mindless political meme or cartoon you stumble across on your favorite website. Your method of discussion is to post something and pray that those smarter than you can carry the argument for you. Which is why you all of a sudden go AWOL when the discussion bounces back in your direction. You seem more interested in getting the best of me than contributing to threads that you start.

 

[carpro]

A terrorist sympathizer like Obama doesn't mind playing both sides.

Supports Al qaeda in getting rid of a known terrorist and dictator in Libya.

Then uses the Libyan connection to arm al qaeda in Syria. When they attack Iraq, he kills a few. All for the greater good. They will still take over Iraq. He knows it, but it's good cover to kill a few.

Then there's Egypt. Supports a known terrorist organization in taking control of the government. The Egyptians have since thrown the bums out and Obama is on record as not being real happy about.

Constantly works on behalf of the terrorist organization known as Hamas to cover and make excuses for their attacks on Israel, while working to get Israel to cave and forsake their own national security.

Has several members of a terrorist organization working in and around the White House in his administration.

Gives the terroristic taliban a leg up in afghanistan with ROEs on our troops so restrictive that he has signed the death warrant of God only knows how many american servicemen.

Calling him just a terrorist sympathizer is toning it down quite a bit.

OMG How could I have forgotten one of his latest and best efforts to help terrorists...

Secretly releasing 5 known terrorists for 1 American deserter without congressional approval as is legally required, breaking a longstanding US policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Turns my stomach. Terrorist sympathizer is putting it mildly. Acting on their behalf is more like it. Can anyone say treason?

 

[Use of Time]

OMG How could I have forgotten one of his latest and best efforts to help terrorists...

Secretly releasing 5 known terrorists for 1 American deserter without congressional approval as is legally required, breaking a longstanding US policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Turns my stomach. Terrorist sympathizer is putting it mildly. Acting on their behalf is more like it. Can anyone say treason?

Ok, I'm done. If you are just going to keep changing the subject and not respond to my posts then we have nothing to discuss. I'm going to bed. If you get around to responding in good faith I'll reengage. Good night.

 

[carpro]

Ok, I'm done. If you are just going to keep changing the subject and not respond to my posts then we have nothing to discuss. I'm going to bed. If you get around to responding in good faith I'll reengage. Good night.

You were done before you started.

Your sensible questions were answered in a previous post. The ones designed to disrupt and derail were ignored.

Try to keep up if you're going to participate.

I don't have time for feigned and deliberate ignorance.

 

[Use of Time]

You were done before you started.

Your sensible questions were answered in a previous post. The ones designed to disrupt and derail were ignored.

Try to keep up if you're going to participate.

I don't have time for feigned and deliberate ignorance.

No they were not, not at all. You responded with a myriad of stuff that had nothing to do with your own topic. Let's call it what it is. You posted something without the intent to really discuss it. You forgot yourself in the next post and contradicted your own thread during your rant. I called you on it and you have been doing an olympic style back stroke for two pages now. I know your feelings got hurt but you need to own it.

 

[carpro]

No they were not, not at all. You responded with a myriad of stuff that had nothing to do with your own topic. Let's call it what it is. You posted something without the intent to really discuss it. You forgot yourself in the next post and contradicted your own thread during your rant. I called you on it and you have been doing an olympic style back stroke for two pages now. I know your feelings got hurt but you need to own it.

You don't like it if you can't frame the argument?

Go somewhere else.

 

[Use of Time]

:laugh: You started the thread and then subsequently derailed it with your very next post. I'd love to let you frame it but you have done a horrible job in doing that. You haven't referenced your original post one time in here.

 

[OldRegular]

Well as Obamma said none of it is his fault!