Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:36 AM Aug 2014

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.

"I’ve learned one thing about this president, and that is he’s 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
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Top Dem: Obama 'Too Cautious' In Confronting ISIS (Original Post) DonViejo Aug 2014 OP
That woman is herself dangerous. Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #1
I've Read liberalmike27 Aug 2014 #7
I believe that's correct and thought about mentioning it in my post Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #8
Yeah, airheaded aggressiveness, that's the ticket. bemildred Aug 2014 #2
While I don't agree broadcaster75201 Aug 2014 #3
I agree, broadcaster. We seem to like our Presidents "tough" ... I wonder why that is.....n/t secondwind Aug 2014 #15
Fixed BumRushDaShow Aug 2014 #4
I understand there are many who never wants to stop the bombs. We have to remember Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #5
isn't that special. Then why doesn't Congress take it up if they are so concerned? Congress is still_one Aug 2014 #6
agreed - it is like the first debate all over again samsingh Aug 2014 #9
alot of obama's close supporters have fled because of his unwillingness to act samsingh Aug 2014 #10
Until everyone understands WHO ballyhoo Aug 2014 #13
isis is using our weapons, is being funded by sunni extremists. samsingh Aug 2014 #18
That is not the whole story. The neocons are ballyhoo Aug 2014 #20
that's an interesting point samsingh Aug 2014 #24
Who trained IS to fight in SYRIA? Who talked their leader ballyhoo Aug 2014 #25
al queda and isis are remnants of our training samsingh Aug 2014 #34
Okay. You get it now. Tense may be ballyhoo Aug 2014 #35
and arming them too samsingh Aug 2014 #37
Yes. Do you not wonder why a bigger fuss ballyhoo Aug 2014 #38
Some of it may well be political posturing - especially as the likely 2016 nominee karynnj Aug 2014 #21
Military Strategy Roy Rolling Aug 2014 #11
all he has to say is we have a strategy that i won't discuss in this forum samsingh Aug 2014 #19
Never thought I would agree with that nutcase. Unicorn_Actual Aug 2014 #12
Well, if you agree with a nutcase... BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #28
well over 100 bombing runs so far, many more for surveillence, what does she want? invasion? whereisjustice Aug 2014 #14
. SolidarityforFreedom Aug 2014 #36
That was France (and NATO) who had most to lose from loss of sweet crude perfect whereisjustice Sep 2014 #42
huge disappointment Ned Flanders Aug 2014 #16
We tried! In the 2012 primaries against Diane Feinstein, we voted for BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #29
Didn't Obama say "don't do stupid ish"? Stellar Aug 2014 #17
Step right up and introduce a Declaration of War bill in the senate, Senator Dems to Win Aug 2014 #22
Oh, no! No! NO! She, as well as other warmongers in the Senate, want to do a Pontius Pilate BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #30
I hope DiFi retires, so we can get a fresh face next election Dems to Win Aug 2014 #33
Well, if i recall correctly... Scootaloo Sep 2014 #43
this!!!! Is why the democratic party heaven05 Aug 2014 #23
WTH, the Twin Towers was struck on 9 11 01, Bush did not invade Iraq until March 2003, over a year. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #26
Just another opinion. Sadly, the POTUS is in a no-win situation here. The American people don't... Tarheel_Dem Aug 2014 #27
Dem's sounding like republicans.what else is new bigdarryl Aug 2014 #31
Stupid shit. GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #32
Oh, fuck her and the rest of those pricks IkeRepublican Aug 2014 #39
Hellooooooooo California .. it's time for her to go. YOHABLO Aug 2014 #40
We have tried ripcord Aug 2014 #41

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
8. I believe that's correct and thought about mentioning it in my post
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:56 AM
Aug 2014

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)
2. Yeah, airheaded aggressiveness, that's the ticket.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:41 AM
Aug 2014

This sort of dipshit political posturing is what got us into Iraq and Afghanistan and created this mess.

broadcaster75201

(387 posts)
3. While I don't agree
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:43 AM
Aug 2014

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.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
5. I understand there are many who never wants to stop the bombs. We have to remember
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:46 AM
Aug 2014

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)
6. isn't that special. Then why doesn't Congress take it up if they are so concerned? Congress is
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:51 AM
Aug 2014

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)
9. agreed - it is like the first debate all over again
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:56 AM
Aug 2014

when he would not engage Romney and said incredibly stupid things like ' we both agree on so many things...'

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
10. alot of obama's close supporters have fled because of his unwillingness to act
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 10:57 AM
Aug 2014

I see it here as well.

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
13. Until everyone understands WHO
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:56 AM
Aug 2014

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)
18. isis is using our weapons, is being funded by sunni extremists.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:28 PM
Aug 2014

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)
20. That is not the whole story. The neocons are
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:32 PM
Aug 2014

directing force, and all the neocons are not Republican.

 

ballyhoo

(2,060 posts)
25. Who trained IS to fight in SYRIA? Who talked their leader
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:03 PM
Aug 2014

into the formation of ISIL at Camp Buca in Iraq? Just DD those things and you will know more.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
21. Some of it may well be political posturing - especially as the likely 2016 nominee
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:48 PM
Aug 2014

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)
11. Military Strategy
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:04 AM
Aug 2014

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".

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
28. Well, if you agree with a nutcase...
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:35 PM
Aug 2014

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

ISIS doesn't have a lot of friends in the region; I discount a lot of the fear-mongering coming from the usual quarters that ISIS is some kind of super-predator terrorist group. They're a desperate bunch of people using the most extreme methods to advance their cause. I think they're doing it for a couple of reasons: First, the aforementioned desperation. They don't have many choices. Second, they think they can count on the United States overreacting to their brutality. We've done it before, for sure. Part of their plan is to look like martyrs dying for a noble cause, pushed to the brink by the American Empire.

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)
14. well over 100 bombing runs so far, many more for surveillence, what does she want? invasion?
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:57 AM
Aug 2014

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.

36. .
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 03:27 PM
Aug 2014

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)
42. That was France (and NATO) who had most to lose from loss of sweet crude perfect
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 10:25 AM
Sep 2014

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)
16. huge disappointment
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:07 PM
Aug 2014

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)
29. We tried! In the 2012 primaries against Diane Feinstein, we voted for
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:40 PM
Aug 2014
Mike Strimling, but in the end he got less votes than that crazy Orly Taitz.

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)
17. Didn't Obama say "don't do stupid ish"?
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:19 PM
Aug 2014

I'd like to add to that...."Don't say stupid ish' Sen. Feinstein .

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
22. Step right up and introduce a Declaration of War bill in the senate, Senator
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:51 PM
Aug 2014

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)
30. Oh, no! No! NO! She, as well as other warmongers in the Senate, want to do a Pontius Pilate
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:48 PM
Aug 2014

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)
33. I hope DiFi retires, so we can get a fresh face next election
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 02:20 PM
Aug 2014

California deserves two genuine progressive senators.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
43. Well, if i recall correctly...
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:52 PM
Sep 2014

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)
23. this!!!! Is why the democratic party
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:54 PM
Aug 2014

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)
26. WTH, the Twin Towers was struck on 9 11 01, Bush did not invade Iraq until March 2003, over a year.
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:12 PM
Aug 2014

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)
27. Just another opinion. Sadly, the POTUS is in a no-win situation here. The American people don't...
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:21 PM
Aug 2014

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)
31. Dem's sounding like republicans.what else is new
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:51 PM
Aug 2014

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.

IkeRepublican

(406 posts)
39. Oh, fuck her and the rest of those pricks
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 04:04 PM
Aug 2014

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!"




ripcord

(5,081 posts)
41. We have tried
Sun Aug 31, 2014, 09:39 PM
Aug 2014

But many follow blindly and of course she has incredibly strong support in the bay area.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Top Dem: Obama 'Too Cauti...