Top Dem: Obama 'Too Cautious' In Confronting ISIS
Source: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/feinstein-ob
By CAITLIN MACNEAL Published AUGUST 31, 2014, 9:39 AM EDT
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Sunday said that President Obama has not been aggressive enough in his approach to ISIS, which is gaining power in Iraq and Syria.
"Ive learned one thing about this president, and that is hes very cautious maybe in this instance too cautious," Feinstein said during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the ISIS threat to the U.S. is "potentially very serious."
This is a vicious, vicious movement, and it has to be confronted," she said. According to Feinstein, ISIS could pose a direct threat to Americans.
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/feinstein-obama-isis-too-cautious
Video at link, above
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Caution is exactly what's called for here.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)She and her husband own beaucoup stock in DOD companies.
So, she maka da money by war.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)but wasn't exactly sure didn't want to go to the bother of Googling it for the sake of the post.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)This sort of dipshit political posturing is what got us into Iraq and Afghanistan and created this mess.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)It's sad that we lie in such a pathetic Nation that differences of opinion or changing one's mind are seen as weakness and that we laud hitting everything with a brick.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,260 posts)"Top [font color="red"]War-mongering Neocon[/font] Dem: Obama 'Too Cautious' In Confronting ISIS"
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Obama has acted strong in many cases, was cool before his attacks, I think this is what we will see again. Perhaps there is deep negotiations with Syria in order to get permission to bomb there. I heard talk over the weekend how several of the Arab countries who are very interested in stopping this seventh century radical vicious religious group. The pieces of the puzzle needs to be collected and then sit down and put all of them together. He has already bombed in Iraq, it will happen again. I would be interested in revoking passports for Americans who have chosen to go and join with ISIS, charge them as a traitor since the threat has been made against the US to attack.
still_one
(91,937 posts)supposed to be representative of the states they serve. Perhaps Congress needs to be reminded that our overthrow of Saddam helped create ISIS. It also destroyed the balance of power that was in the middle east.
As difficult as it is to accept, democracy is not for every country. In fact it could cause widespread destruction and death if forced upon a country not ready for it.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)when he would not engage Romney and said incredibly stupid things like ' we both agree on so many things...'
samsingh
(17,571 posts)I see it here as well.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)IS is; who is paying for them; who is training them; who gave them their weapons; and who is their opuppet master, no one is going to understand Obama's reticence to take action. Bizarro world, indeed.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)they will not stop until they are stopped.
i cry for the tens of thousands of people being killed by isis while we sit in the comfort of our security debating.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)directing force, and all the neocons are not Republican.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)into the formation of ISIL at Camp Buca in Iraq? Just DD those things and you will know more.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)wrong but oh, well.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)isn't being made of this?
karynnj
(59,474 posts)has spoken of her differences with Obama on Syria, which is directly related to this.
At this point, Obama is a lame duck - he is not running again. That Clinton has already made this an issue on which she would have been more aggressive makes it even more likely that the Democrats will split. This will likely be the case on other foreign policy issues - especially those that were included in the Goldberg interview - Iran and Israel.
Clinton always had the choice for 2016 of either running off Obama foreign policy - getting credit for things throughout all 8 years as every gain could be seen to have had some roots in the first term or running away from it. With the former she could have excluded some failed actions in the second term and spoke of her signature woman/children issue. That had been where I thought she was going. The second alternative seemed harder to do - to run both on her role as SoS and against significant parts of its foreign policy.
I suspect, but obviously can not prove, that she had intended to do the former and to that end had done things like the informal, friendly joint interview with Obama - where they are seated as equals. I suspect that the Goldberg article, where more than in her book, she defined their differences on Syria and beyond that agreed with McCain et al that not being more aggressive led to where we were with ISIS happened because she and her team saw the Obama's low approval ratings as a clue that this would be more successful.
This could mean that Obama faces not just the unanimous disapproval from the Republicans, but the disapproval of a significant part of the Democratic party that will start to follow the lead of the more hawkish likely future standard bearer. There is some real danger in this as it divides the Democrats before the 2014 elections.
It also ignores what the public itself seems to be saying. The dispute with Obama foreign policy is NOT coming from just one side. What is really clear in the polls is that the percent of people wanting to be more aggressive than Obama is not only nowhere near a majority, it is a small minority. Here are a set of polls dealing with intervention - http://pollingreport.com/defense.htm#Affairs The US is far more interventionist than I have ever seen it. Note that both Obama and Kerry in vision speeches have made a case for not rejecting all types of intervention, while both stressed diplomacy. Look at Iraq polls especially at the last PEW (2nd poll from the top) question asking if they fear we will go too far or not far enough - http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Then look at these two NYT opeds today by Kerry http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-kerry-the-threat-of-isis-demands-a-global-coalition.html?ref=opinion and McCain/Grahamhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-confront-isis.html?ref=opinion . Almost more important than the opeds themselves - scan the comments. While the comments on Kerry's are mostly respectful and thoughtful even when they express some concern or disagreement, the McCain comments are not all that far from the comments that would be written here -- and the NYT discussions are usually nowhere near as much to the left as here, though they do tend to support Democratic positions.
I suspect that Clinton may simply be playing a general election strategy where she is triangulating her position to be only slightly less hawkish than the likely - as yet unnamed - Republican nominee. This would make foreign policy a non issue - as there is not sufficient difference. (Rand Paul winning the R nomination is extremely unlikely.) This means that she is assuming that Democratic domestic positions have more support - which has usually been the case.
Roy Rolling
(6,853 posts)Yeah, of course, a president reveals his secret military strategy to the media talking-heads and defense contractor mouthpieces in the US Congress before executing it on the battlefield.
Who the hell knows what the strategy is? But it certainly isn't being shouted to the opposing forces on TV first. This is why Congress cannot be trusted, they are the poster-children of "loose lips sink ships".
samsingh
(17,571 posts)Unicorn_Actual
(19 posts)Even a broken clock.. etc.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I disagree with her because she's a warmonger who will benefit immensely in billions of dollars should President Obama decide to be less cautious about this terrorist group and come to Congress to declare war.
I, and the majority of Americans, don't want another war, and there are other solutions that could tackle this problem without having to go to war.
Courtesy of gratuitous: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5457739
A united front with Europe is a very good start. ISIS is probably not walking around the deserts of Iraq with millions of dollars hanging out of their pockets. Find out where their money is, who is providing them banking services, and explain to them (whether it's the Swiss, the Saudis or whomever) that it isn't in their best interests to do business with these people. ISIS's funding would dry up overnight if its
Yes, some people will undoubtedly die at the hands of ISIS. But that's going to happen no matter what we do. We can minimize the death and destruction by proceeding as if Iraq was a crime scene instead of a war zone. Identify and apprehend the criminals. Try them in open court. Convict them. Incarcerate them for a long time. Wasting away in a prison cell isn't quite as sexy and attractive as dying young while striking a blow against the empire.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)oh, wait it's Sunday. That means feeding the Christians some red meat and blood. Let's face it, a huge American underclass means there is a steady supply of cannon fodder to fight for the oligarchs.
A strategy applied equally on both sides of this conflict.
SolidarityforFreedom
(7 posts)NATO undertook something like 12000 bombing runs in Libya, and ISIS is probably a stronger military force than the Libyan army was. 100 bombing runs is pretty insignificant.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)for diesel fuel of which NATO and Europe was a huge consumer. Now, look at Libya today. How did that turn out?
And ISIS is NOT a stronger force than the Libyan army. We destroyed Iraq's capability to defend itself by our idiotic invasion and more idiotic decisions post invasion.
It is a fact that ISIS is small, mobile and entrenched within supportive communities that means we can't just start dropping bombs on anything that moves.
The US fucked up and its consequences will linger for generations. Thank the neo-cons at the core of foreign policy in both political parties. Those are the same ones demanding that we invade again.
Ned Flanders
(233 posts)We need some new blood in California. I still can't believe "impeachment is off the table" came from one of our senators. To hack Mark Twain's quote, Feinstein is one of the best politicians money can buy.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Top Priorities if Elected
TAXING THE RICH - return to tax rates on millionaires paid in Eisenhower-Kennedy era, 5 times higher than today -to cure the debt and support Medicare
A WEALTH TAX ON THE TOP 1% - all properties and portfolios over $3 million should be taxed until the debt is erased and Social Security funded
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, WORKERS RIGHTS. AGAINST FUTILE WAR AND WIRETAPS. Support transit, the environment, privacy, childcare, eldercare.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I'd like to add to that...."Don't say stupid ish' Sen. Feinstein .
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Get everybody on record voting for or against a war on ISIS. If you're so eager for another war, VOTE ON IT!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and do a fake washing of her hands of the stench of war. It's much better to blame the first black president with a war NO sane American wants, than to do her constitutional duty.
If DiFi wants those easy billions of taxpayer dollars that would fill her already overflowing coffers for another war we don't need nor can afford, then she should draft a bill and get her cowardly colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Senate to sign on. She doesn't have to worry, does she? I mean, she isn't up for re-election until 2018 and by then, relying on Americans' lack of memory, all she has to do is run as a progressive again (something that she hasn't been for years) and Californians will check the box by her name again.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)California deserves two genuine progressive senators.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)One can only formally declare war against another state. and to do so with IS would actually give them some note of legitimacy.
We're doing exactly what we need to be doing - backing up the Iraqis in their efforts to take these guys on. Honestly we should also be trying to encourage an Iraq-Syria-Iran-Turkey coalition against the group, but that runs up against the age-old American agenda of a destabilized middle east.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 1, 2014, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)
is on the decline. No loyalty from a high ranking democrat to a Democrat POTUS. You just don't, diminish a Democrat POTUS in public like that. Just tossing RWers wheelbarrows full of red meat. Fuck Feinstein. What you want diane, troops back in?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Now everyone is jumping up and saying Obama is not responding fast enough, WHAT? We went it basically alone in Iraq with out allies this time we need to get the herd rounded up and take action. What other country is bombing ISIS right now? None, we need to hitch the horse to a wagon, the horse running out without the wagon is not going to get the job done.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)have a clue what should be done, they just know that they don't like what the president's doing. Polling shows we are still reluctant to intervene ANYWHERE, and our enemies are taking advantage of that.
Feinstein should gather her colleagues, in both houses, and hash this thing out, once and for all. Put up or shut up! No more scapegoating the White House for Congress' inability to agree on the day of the week.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)I wish we had an very strong progressive movement like the republicans have with the tea party.Democratic leaders are sounding and acting more republican than republicans.Even Obama has been governing to the right on issues which why I think his poll numbers are so low.Its dissolution democrats in his.own party who don't like the way he's governing.He even said in a recent interview that he's more conservative than Richard Nixon.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)IkeRepublican
(406 posts)From the beginning of 2002 up to March 2003, every media talking head, Repuke and damn near every Democrat representative was yakking about how "The strategy for Iraq can't be made on a whim - it takes time to develop" . I'm not going to mention the round-the-clock propaganda about how terrible Hussein was - we remember it all too well.
But with Obama as president, oh we don't have time for that now. We need to do this, do that and do everything else and if we don't do it yesterday, then we're all going to see the results in the form of a...come on, everybody - altogether now: A mushroom cloud.
Fuck Fine-Styne, the Repukes and all the rest of these bastards. We've heard it all before. Whenever something actually does happen, they all play stupid and nobody had any idea about anything. Whenever they got some agenda up their sleeves, they're Carnac The Magnificent, Miss Cleo and Nostradamus all wrapped into one.
And let's not kid ourselves, this is a Midterm thing and the media wants a Repuke Congress. It's been obvious since Obama was re-elected. The Repukes have no plan, their numbers aren't looking anywhere near as good as the media fellatio bandits claimed it would be - THIS is their plan. The same old, "Vote for us, or the bad guys are gonna getcha!"
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)ripcord
(5,081 posts)But many follow blindly and of course she has incredibly strong support in the bay area.