Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

American and British intelligence officials reportedly are eyeing a British-born rapper as the militant who beheaded journalist James Foley.

A senior Western intelligence official told Fox News that 23-year-old London rapper Abde Majed Abdel Bary is the suspect believed to be Foley's executioner.

U.S. intelligence officials are not commenting publicly on the reports, but a well-placed source told Fox News that Bary's Egyptian-born father was extradited from London to the United States in 2012 for his alleged connection to Usama Bin Laden and the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Africa.

Bary traveled to Syria last year to fight with ISIS, the source said.

The Sunday Times and Sunday People identified Bary as a member of a group of at least three British-born ISIS fighters known among former hostages as "The Beatles."

The Sunday Times reported that MI5 and MI6, Britain's two major intelligence agencies, had identified the man who did the brutal deed, though he had not been publicly identified.

DaddyTorgo

08-27-2014 02:06 PM

Nearly Every Founding Fathers' Quote Shared By A Likely Future Congressman Is Fake

JPhillips

08-27-2014 03:50 PM

Good Lord this is fucked up. It's not like Gillibrand was first elected in the fifties.

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Quote:

In promoting her new book, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has come forward with several stories of being called "chubby," "fat," and "porky" by her male colleagues in Congress.

In one incident from her early days in the Senate, Gillibrand describes an older senator who approached her from behind and squeezed her waist. "Don’t lose too much weight now," she recalls him saying. "I like my girls chubby.”

It's one of many episodes she recounted in an interview with People magazine that is not yet online but which was reported by the New York Post on Wednesday. Most of the remarks were directed toward Gillibrand during her self-described struggle with her weight during and after her second pregnancy.

In the House gym, she recalled, another of her male colleagues advised her to work out to avoid getting "porky."

"Thanks, a—hole,” she quipped in her book.

In yet another instance, a Southern congressman held her arm as they walked down the chamber aisle, telling her, “[y]ou know, Kirsten, you’re even pretty when you’re fat."

Gillibrand also recounted the time a labor leader advised her to improve her looks if she wanted to win a special election for her Senate seat in 2010.

“When I first met you in 2006 you were beautiful, a breath of fresh air. To win, you need to be beautiful again," he said.

Edward64

08-28-2014 11:10 PM

I'm sure we won't get directly involved and we'll help where we can. Glad its not in our backyard and think it'll renew/strengthen the NATO bonds that went away with the old Cold War.

U.S. official says 1,000 Russian troops enter Ukraine - CNN.com

Quote:

Kiev, Ukraine (CNN) -- A top Ukrainian army officer said a "full-scale invasion" of his country was under way Thursday, as a U.S. official said up to 1,000 Russian troops had crossed Ukraine's southern border to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels.

U.S. officials said Russian troops were directly involved in the latest fighting, despite Moscow's denials.

At a press conference on Thursday, August 28, Dutch Brig. Gen. Nico Tak, a senior NATO commander, revealed satellite images of what NATO says are Russian combat forces engaged in military operations in or near Ukrainian territory. NATO said this image shows Russian self-propelled artillery units set up in firing positions near Krasnodon, in eastern Ukraine.

Rebels backed by Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers fought Ukrainian forces on two fronts Thursday: southeast of rebel-held Donetsk, and along the nation's southern coast in the town of Novoazovsk, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the Russian border, said Mykhailo Lysenko, the deputy commander of the Ukrainian Donbas battalion.

"This is a full-scale invasion," Lysenko said, referring to the fighting in the south.

sterlingice

08-29-2014 07:58 AM

I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to Godwin this discussion but it seemed like a good mental jumping off point.

Looking at the news yesterday, one thing that came to mind was "What must the world have been thinking when the Germans went into Austria or the Sudetenland?" I was not alive then but I wonder if it was met with a very similar mix of disbelief, relief that it wasn't in our backyard, and feeling of global impotence that not much could be done about it

SI

flere-imsaho

08-29-2014 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2955664)

I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to Godwin this discussion but it seemed like a good mental jumping off point.

I actually think this is one of the few times where the question is actually relevant and not actually a Godwin.

DaddyTorgo

08-29-2014 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2955664)

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2955678)

I actually think this is one of the few times where the question is actually relevant and not actually a Godwin.

Yeah - add in a dose of "maybe if we let Putin have this one he'll quit being a problem" (aka appeasement) and I think you've probably hit it on the head.

JPhillips

08-29-2014 09:38 AM

I think there's a misguided belief that Hitler could have been stopped without war or with a much smaller war, but I don't see how that could have happened. I think the most likely outcome of a decision to block Hitler from the Sudetenland would have been an earlier start to a world war. What could the allies have done short of war that would have caused Hitler to back down? Now Chamberlin's statements look naive, but his action was probably the best he could do given his nation was even less prepared for war than they would be in 1939 and that his allies were far from united on the best way to deal with Germany.

In short, starting world war two over the Sudetenland would have been seen as insane by most of Europe. Further, if the war was seen as being started by the Allies, it would have made it that much more difficult for the U.S. to enter the conflict.

Dutch

08-29-2014 10:52 AM

I would seriously question the revisionism of thinking that Austria or the Sudetanland were the optimal pro-active allied response. The re-armament of the Rheinland earlier on was a clear violation of the Versailles Treaty and would have required minimal response at a point when England and France had the upperhand militarily.

The problem with the Sudetanland as a jump point for WW2 was that the primary "ally" was the Soviets who were negotiating with Germany to carve up Eastern Europe between the two of them. So that would've have just been another starting point for the "phony war" (England and France declared war on Germany and there was little to no combat for 6 or 8 months).

Mostly the same with Austria, although by that point England and France could have possibly planned for the invasion of Germany while it was re-arming...it would have been a bloody war, but it's much more likely that it's regionalized to Europe. The weapons of those days favored the aggressors, so it may have been a better outcome as far as number of lives lost. The Germans didn't fair much better than the French when on the defensive after all.

DaddyTorgo

08-29-2014 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2955723)

I would seriously question the revisionism of thinking that Austria or the Sudetanland were the optimal pro-active allied response. The re-armament of the Rheinland earlier on was a clear violation of the Versailles Treaty and would have required minimal response at a point when England and France had the upperhand militarily.

The problem with the Sudetanland as a jump point for WW2 was that the primary "ally" was the Soviets who were negotiating with Germany to carve up Eastern Europe between the two of them. So that would've have just been another starting point for the "phony war" (England and France declared war on Germany and there was little to no combat for 6 or 8 months).

Mostly the same with Austria, although by that point England and France could have invaded Germany and it would have been a bloody war, but there is much more likely scenario that it's regionalized and the weapons of those days favored the aggressors. The Germans didn't fair much better than the French when on the defensive after all.

Agree on this - the earlier rearmament (of the Rheinland and also of prohibited parts of the military, thinking esp. of the Luftwaffe although I don't recall which came first) were better trip-wire points where the Allies should/could have done something.

Edward64

08-30-2014 07:06 AM

Obama better right the ship or else his second term and the foreign policy challenges and failures are going to really hurt his legacy. Lots of angst in the world.

I think Hillary is one lucky woman, she got out just in time. Kerry must be cursing her right now.

Why Obama’s ‘we don’t have a strategy’ gaffe stings - The Washington Post

Quote:

By now, President Obama's remark that "we don't have a strategy yet" has made the rounds. Republicans were quick to pounce on it, as well they should have.

But while the White House went into damage-control mode, emphasizing that it was a reference to the lack of decisions about increasing military action in Iraq and/or Syria and not a lack of a broader strategy there, the damage was already done.

As with all gaffes, the worst ones are the ones that confirm people's preexisting suspicions or fit into an easy narrative. That's why "47 percent" stung Mitt Romney so much, and it's why "don't have a strategy" hurts Obama today.

Polls have increasingly shown that Americans view Obama as a weak commander in chief without much direction or heft t0 his foreign policy. The latest is a Pew Research Center survey, released shortly before Obama's errant statement Thursday, that showed 54 percent of Americans say he's "not tough enough" when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

Just 36 percent said Obama has shown about the right amount of toughness. Mind you, this is after he launched airstrikes in Iraq.

As the graph above shows, Obama is regressing on this measure. And the same poll showed just 35 percent of Americans approve of Obama when it comes to both Iraq and the Ukraine/Russia situation – both below his overall approval rating of 42 percent.

flere-imsaho

08-30-2014 07:31 AM

I'll go ahead and give molson an aneurysm here and agree that the "we don't have a strategy" line is bad. If there's actually no strategy, or at least options on the table, then someone's not doing their job. If it's just a slip, then Obama's getting too casual, which isn't good either.

Don't kid yourself, Edward, though: Obama's legacy is already cemented. On the topic of foreign policy history will look back on a president who struggled with the legacy left by Bush and had to find solutions from a set of options limited by the misadventures of the 00s. On the topic of domestic policy it'll only be two things: passing Obamacare (and whatever that ends up creating for the future, good or bad) and recovering from the Great Recession. Everything else is noise that won't make the history books.

Edward64

08-30-2014 07:49 AM

Pretty much agree with domestic policy (assuming immigration reform is dead).

On foreign policy, I think history books will be more critical than "struggled with legacy left by Bush". You can arguably put Iraq and Afghanistan in that camp but the argument is much weaker for Ukraine, ME, Syria and the new cold war with USSR.

Dutch

08-31-2014 08:56 AM

Good news out of Iraq today, a key strategic victory is being claimed by the Iraqi military over ISIS.

ISIS siege of Amerli, Iraq, over after U.S. airstrikes - CNN.com

Galaxy

08-31-2014 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2955242)

Good Lord this is fucked up. It's not like Gillibrand was first elected in the fifties.

From Talkingpointsmemo:

I met her (and not just a few second meet-and-greet). Politics aside, she's as "politician" as you can get, and seemed like she has a chip on her shoulder. Not a fan at all.

Edward64

08-31-2014 09:56 AM

It was just the past month wasn't it.

Good news on Ameril. Assuming this trend continues where ISIS is beat back here and there, they'll eventually crumble back to Syria. If not already, we need to find out if any nation states are really supporting ISIS and publicize it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

Quote:

Short of world war, it’s rare that a chief executive goes through a foreign policy month like President Obama’s August.

U.S. warplanes struck in Iraq for the first time in years, as U.S. diplomats struggled to establish a new government in Baghdad. Islamic State militants beheaded an American journalist in Syria and spread their reach across the Middle East.

War raged between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. In Afghanistan, U.S. plans for an orderly exit at the end of the year teetered on the brink of disaster. Russia all but invaded Ukraine and dared Obama to stop it. Libya descended into violent chaos.

As events cascaded, Obama juggled rounds of vacation golf with public statements addressing the conflicts. But his cool demeanor, and the split-screen imagery of a president at play and at work, seemed ill-matched to the moment.

Then came a Thursday news conference and a comment that only reinforced criticism of a president neither fully engaged nor truly leaning into world problems. Speaking of the Islamic State, he said, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

The statement may have had the virtue of candor, as Obama weighs the military and diplomatic components of a U.S. response and seeks support from other nations. But it hardly projects an image of presidential resolve or decisiveness at a time of international turmoil.

Dutch

08-31-2014 10:21 AM

I really dislike the media beating up on Presidents because they take breaks. I'm not opposed to him playing golf (they all do it) and it's because the President delegates to his vast array of teams to keep track of things that I'm okay with it. I'd rather him be sane and relaxed than a sleepless wreck trying to make decisions.

EDIT: oh, and on the "We don't have a strategy yet"....don't believe the hype. There is a strategy, maybe not a public one, but it exists, the military's job is to provide plans for everything (well, except an invasion of Canada apparently).

flere-imsaho

09-01-2014 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2955909)

History will look upon the latest Israel-Palestinian thing as just a continuation, IMO. It might note that, if anything, Obama hasn't done what almost every single one of his predecessors did and that's to spend considerable time and political capitol trying to solve the peace process in his late second term.

I think you'll see history tie Syria and what else is happening in the ME, and the U.S.'s relative uninvolvement back to Iraq & Afghanistan, in the sense that Obama led a world power whose desire, and perhaps even ability, to project power in the region had been lessened considerably and some of this stuff has certainly gained momentum based on that vacuum.

What's happening in Ukraine is likely to reflect more on Europe than the U.S., especially since it mirrors Europe's similar inability to react in a timely manner to, say, the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

The Cold War with Russia? To date, if you look closely, Obama's successfully let Putin have enough rope to hang himself. In all likelihood Putin's hubris has bought himself a painful war of attrition that looks like it's actually going to result in economic sanctions from Europe. And the conflict and Putin's handling of it have already hit Russian markets and GDP badly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2956094)

I met her (and not just a few second meet-and-greet). Politics aside, she's as "politician" as you can get, and seemed like she has a chip on her shoulder. Not a fan at all.

So, are you implying that she's making this stuff up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2956101)

I don't often agree with Dutch, but when I do.... :D

The cognitive dissonance from Americans on this remains interesting. Many Americans, especially white collar ones, routinely work effectively at places besides their offices. Executives definitely do. And the President has access to more people and technology for the purpose of working anywhere than they do.

Quote:

EDIT: oh, and on the "We don't have a strategy yet"....don't believe the hype. There is a strategy, maybe not a public one, but it exists, the military's job is to provide plans for everything (well, except an invasion of Canada apparently).

Oh, I bet that have that one too, but it probably amounts to crossing the border and asking nicely. Probably don't even have to do that if it's after the hockey team winning a major tournament.

Edward64

09-01-2014 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2956095)

Qatar seems to be disproportionately influential for its size and seem to work against our interest and we don't import alot of oil from them. Seems as if we could find a way to keep them in check.

BBC News - Islamic State: Where does jihadist group get its support?

Quote:

Much has been written about the support Islamic State (IS) has received from donors and sympathisers, particularly in the wealthy Gulf States.

Indeed the accusation I hear most from those fighting IS in Iraq and Syria is that Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are solely responsible for the group's existence.

But the truth is a little more complex and needs some exploring.
:
So has Qatar funded Islamic State? Directly, the answer is no. Indirectly, a combination of shoddy policy and naivety has led to Qatar-funded weapons and money making their way into the hands of IS.

Saudi Arabia likewise is innocent of a direct state policy to fund the group, but as with Qatar its determination to remove Mr Assad has led to serious mistakes in its choice of allies.

JPhillips

09-01-2014 09:12 PM

Quote:

Indirectly, a combination of shoddy policy and naivety has led to Qatar-funded weapons and money making their way into the hands of IS.

Can't the same be said of the U.S.?

Edward64

09-02-2014 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2956095)

It was just the past month wasn't it.

Oh great, lets add Pakistan to the list. Obama can't seem to catch a break on international issues.

Pakistanâ€™s Sharif clings to power as protesters step up assault - The Washington Post

Quote:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was clinging to power Monday as protesters stepped up their assault on government buildings while the capital was gripped with fear and confusion about whether the country’s powerful military will step in to defuse the tension.

As the demonstrations calling for the prime minister’s resignation enter their third week, Sharif is trying to navigate Pakistan’s worst political crisis in more than a decade. With the violence increasing, what started as a routine demonstration has morphed into concerns that the government of a nuclear-armed country could collapse.

Former cricket star Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri, a firebrand preacher and scholar, allege that Sharif was elected last year in fraudulent balloting and hasn’t done enough to fix the country’s ailing economy.

Khan and Qadri, who are considered moderates, have mobilized tens of thousands of followers onto the streets. Many are armed with sticks, clubs and slingshots.

Over the weekend, the demonstration took an ominous turn as three people were killed and 400 wounded when police used tear gas and rubber bullets to prevent protesters from reaching Sharif’s residence in Islamabad. On Monday, the protesters stormed the state television station and knocked it off the air for more than an hour.

Thomkal

09-02-2014 01:53 PM

And on top of that Edward, a second American journalist has been beheaded by ISIS:

ISIS video shows beheading of Steven Sotloff - CNN.com

molson

09-02-2014 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2956095)

If not already, we need to find out if any nation states are really supporting ISIS and publicize it.

Should that include those countries that pay ransoms? It's impossible to know for sure how much of ISIS funding is based on ransoms, but it could be a lot. French media reported that France paid $28 million for four hostages. That was to a "an al Qaeda affiliate", but who knows how many other ransoms France and others have paid. (The NY Times reported that France has paid $58 million altogether).

Edward64

09-02-2014 06:53 PM

It seems that these 3 voluntarily went into North Korea and got "detained". NK is holding them hostage to force the US to send an envoy and start talking about whatever.

Unless there is more to the story, I don't think the US should be held hostage to folks that go into NK and get detained. What were they thinking? Now they want the US to bail them out.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/..._campaign=news

Quote:

Three Americans who have been detained in North Korea appealed today to the U.S. to send a senior representative to secure their release.

In interviews with CNN and The Associated Press, Kenneth Bae, Jeffrey Fowle and Matthew Miller detailed the conditions of their imprisonment and urged a quick resolution of their situations.

Bae, a Christian missionary, has been detained the longest. He was arrested in late 2012 and tried and convicted to 15 years of hard labor for the attempted overthrow of North Korea's communist regime. The 46-year-old has diabetes, high blood pressure and kidney stones. He told CNN that he worked eight hours a day, six days a week at a labor camp, and that he had been suffering from "failing health."

"I've been going back and forth between hospital and to the labor camp for the last year and a half," he said.

Fowle, 56, was detained in June. At the time, North Korean media said he "acted in violation of the DPRK law, contrary to the purpose of tourism during his stay." CNN says he is accused of leaving a Bible in a hotel where he was staying.

"Within a month I could be sharing a jail cell with Ken Bae," Fowle told the AP.

Miller was picked up in April, arrested for what the North called "rash behavior." He is accused of tearing up his tourist visa and seeking asylum in the North.

He told CNN he wanted to tell the U.S. "my situation is very urgent, that very soon I am going to trial, and I would directly be sent to prison." He declined to comment on the claim that he was seeking asylum.

Edward64

09-02-2014 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2956409)

Sure lets publicize those also but I don't think they equate to national governments supposedly sponsoring terrorists.

I get the article seem to say that Turkey, Qatar and SA were eager to get rid of Assad and therefore supporting his enemies and it led to indirect support of ISIS.

Wasn't Obama criticized for not wanting to actively support groups in Syria because we didn't know who were the good vs bad anti-Assad troops? Also, it seems that ISIS seemed to pick up steam in Iraq after Assad turned the tide ... so the various groups went to an easier fight.

Dutch

09-02-2014 08:17 PM

Obama to send approximately 350 additional military personnel to Iraq | Fox News

Quote:

President Obama announced Tuesday he is sending approximately 350 additional military personnel to Iraq to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and workers in Baghdad.

...

As of August 13, there were approximately 1,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq working to combat the threat from the Islamic State. According to the Associated Press, the personnel mainly consisted of security forces and assessment and advising personnel.

...

The announcement came after U.S. military officials said Tuesday that an airstrike against Islamic State militants in Iraq had damaged or destroyed 16 armed vehicles near the Mosul Dam.

In a statement from U.S. Central Command, officials said an airstrike conducted Monday in northern Iraq involved fighters and attack aircraft.

By Central Command's count, that's the 124th airstrike in Iraq since operations against the Islamic State group began in early August.

Edward64

09-03-2014 02:56 AM

And lets not forget Libya.

Missing Libyan Jetliners Raise Fears of Suicide Airliner Attacks on 9/11 | Washington Free Beacon

Quote:

Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.

Intelligence reports of the stolen jetliners were distributed within the U.S. government over the past two weeks and included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.
:
A senior State Department counterterrorism official declined to comment on reports of the stolen jetliners.

A second State department official sought to downplay the reports. “We can’t confirm that,” he said.

Meanwhile, officials said Egyptian military forces appear to be preparing to intervene in Libya to prevent the country from becoming a failed state run by terrorists, many with ties to al Qaeda.
:
Egyptian military jets reportedly have conducted strikes inside Libya against Libyan Dawn positions recently, and U.S. officials said there are signs a larger Egyptian military incursion is being planned.

Egyptian President Abdel-Fatah al-Sisi was quoted as denying Egyptian air strikes into Libya have taken place but suggested that military action is being considered.

Secretary of State John Kerry last week told his Egyptian counterpart that the United States would speed up the delivery of Apache attack helicopters, although it is not clear the Apaches would be used in any Libyan operations.

Egypt’s military-backed government appears to be seeking a more significant role in regional security after the Obama administration helped engineer the ouster of Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi in 2011. Since then, the Obama administration, through its announced policy of “leading from behind,” has stood by while Libya gradually has spiraled into chaos.

albionmoonlight

09-03-2014 12:46 PM

Don't know if this is the all-things-red-state-blue-state thread, but worth noting that 538's Senate predictions came out today with the GOP given ~ 2/3 chance of taking control of the chamber.

It will be fun to see left wing pundits calling Silver a hack and right wing pundits calling him a sage. And then each going back to the 2012 election discussion of Silver to show how the other side is being hypocritical.

DaddyTorgo

09-03-2014 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2956637)

Don't know if this is the all-things-red-state-blue-state thread, but worth noting that 538's Senate predictions came out today with the GOP given ~ 2/3 chance of taking control of the chamber.

:(

Long odds to fight against.

lungs

09-03-2014 01:04 PM

I don't think it really matters if the GOP takes the Senate. Obama still has the veto pen, he's not running for re-election (unless you believe the tin foil hat crowd), nothing too bad can happen.

2016 looks better for Dems and the Senate, starting with getting that doofus Ron Johnson out of office.

(and I'm feeling a glimmer of optimism that Scott Walker will be going down this fall for WI governor)

jeff061

09-03-2014 01:49 PM

So I don't get ISIS. I don't believe for a second the people approving these beheadings thinks it's going to do anything other than have us destroy them. So I have to expect they want us to attack, right? Beyond wanting more local American targets to shoot at what's the benefit? Are there other nations pulling the strings trying to get us in another draining war?

I feel like Obama has the answers to all of these questions, but he is just naturally a horrible leader and also seems to suffer from analysis paralysis. I used to be a supporter of his, so disappointing.

Mizzou B-ball fan

09-03-2014 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff061 (Post 2956647)

It's a big-time recruitment tool in the Muslim world. They paint themselves as the underdog getting a strike against the people in power. They need all the people they can get and this is a relatively easy way to strike big blows and get more people to believe in their cause.

jeff061

09-03-2014 01:53 PM

Yes, I actually had read that as well. Ultimately a Hail Mary I suppose, so to speak. Their long term prospects of success aren't high, though we will likely pay a price of our own ensuring that.

JonInMiddleGA

09-03-2014 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff061 (Post 2956647)

Are there other nations pulling the strings trying to get us in another draining war?

It's certainly a convenient distraction.

Edward64

09-03-2014 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff061 (Post 2956650)

Yes, I actually had read that as well. Ultimately a Hail Mary I suppose, so to speak. Their long term prospects of success aren't high, though we will likely pay a price of our own ensuring that.

I agree its more of a recruitment tool by showing potential recruits that they can stand up against the US.

However, I don't think its obvious that long term prospects of success aren't high. I do think sooner or later ISIS will give back a lot of the ground they gained but there's a fair chance they can hold some territory if (1) Iraq is still dysfunctional, army is inept (2) US don't put boots on the ground (3) Syrian civil war continues to distract.

Even if they lose all territory, ISIS will continue to exist to be a thorn until the top leaders are killed and they fragment into smaller groups.

SirFozzie

09-04-2014 04:57 PM

So, it looks like the Circuit decision that federal ACA Subsidies are illegal has been vacated (Halbig) and will be re-heard by the full District Court, which is expected to lean towards saying they're legal.

This removes the fast-track to Supreme Court hopes that split Circuit Opinions would have provided.

flounder

09-04-2014 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2840055)

I'm really surprised at the damage VA Gov. McDonnell has done to himself with the gifts given to him and family members. I really thought he was a strong candidate for Pres in 2016, but with even Cuccinelli backing away from him, he looks done.

And he's guilty.

JPhillips

09-04-2014 09:58 PM

A couple of years ago I thought he was a lock for the 2016 nomination.

Oh, well.

Edward64

09-05-2014 12:01 PM

Pretty good news.

BBC News - US confirms al-Shabab leader Ahmed Godane killed

Quote:

The leader of the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab, Ahmed Abdi Godane, was killed following a US attack earlier this week, the Pentagon has said.

The US carried out air strikes on Monday night targeting a convoy in which he was travelling.

"Removing Godane from the battlefield is a major symbolic and operational loss to al-Shabab," the Pentagon press secretary said in a statement.

larrymcg421

09-05-2014 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2956637)

I don't remember any liberals trashing Silver in 2010 and I don't see any doing that now.

flere-imsaho

09-05-2014 02:04 PM

And anyway, Silver's gay, so the chance right wing pundits say anything nice about him is probably about, say, oh, 0%.

JPhillips

09-05-2014 02:05 PM

It will be interesting to see 538 post-Kansas.

SirFozzie

09-05-2014 06:22 PM

Well..Kansas is going to weird considering the Secretary of State has ruled that the democrat must stay on the ballot which means that Republican candidate has a better shot at winning

JPhillips

09-05-2014 07:47 PM

But that's going to court and even with the ballot issues, Roberts can't get out of the thirties in polling. Should be really interesting.

panerd

09-05-2014 08:04 PM

I'm not usually big on the "gotcha" videos that I see but this one is pretty funny. Skip to the end if it seems repetitive after a few clips because it is the same over and over but the end is classic politician. (And I am a big supporter of the '08 Obama Middle East policies

Edward64

09-05-2014 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2957254)

Yup, flubbed that one plus "no strategy"

Blackadar

09-06-2014 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2956637)

*citation required*

Edward64

09-06-2014 07:18 AM

I like the creation of the coalition. Seems that France is pretty serious, UK will stick with us in the end and Turkey will have to, at the very least, shore up their flank.

Its telling there are no Arab states.

I sometimes wish we had established Kuwait as a long term protectorate (or whatever wording we needed to come up with). Right after the first gulf war, I doubt many would have argued to that.

U.S. Forming 'Core Coalition' To Battle Islamic State Militants In Iraq

Quote:

NEWPORT, Wales, Sept 5 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said key NATO allies stood ready to join the United States in military action to defeat Islamic State militants in Iraq as he vowed to 'take out' the leaders of a movement he said was a major threat to the West.
:
"Key NATO allies stand ready to confront this terrorist threat through military, intelligence and law enforcement as well as diplomatic efforts," Obama said after ministers of 10 nations met on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Wales to form what Washington called a "core coalition".

Ministers from Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Poland, Denmark and non-NATO Australia attended the talks with the U.S. secretaries of state and defense, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.
:
The United States hoped a new Iraqi government would be formed next week and was confident it would have a coalition for the sustained action required to destroy the militants.

JPhillips

09-06-2014 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2957309)

I sometimes wish we had established Kuwait as a long term protectorate (or whatever wording we needed to come up with). Right after the first gulf war, I doubt many would have argued to that.

U.S. Forming 'Core Coalition' To Battle Islamic State Militants In Iraq

Nobody, except every Kuwaiti.

JPhillips

09-06-2014 07:35 AM

I guess I'm a non-interventionist conservative. From Daniel Larison:

Quote:

In general, non-interventionist conservatives are attentive to the obligations that the U.S. has to the countries that the government has chosen to invade and/or bomb over their objections. That is why we are consistently against waging unnecessary wars, because we know that in doing so the U.S. assumes some responsibility for repairing the damage that it has done. The trouble is that the U.S. truly does lack the competence to repair most of the damage caused by wars of regime change, and it tends to compound the original error of intervention the longer that it stays behind to “fix” things. The U.S. owes these countries debts that it cannot repay, which is all the more reason to be extremely cautious about resorting to the use of force in the first place.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.

Page 478 of 527

478

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page