He has 9 countries as of now in his coalition.

 

There will be "boots on the ground", as there is no other way to have precision strikes......unless he gives the FSA the equipment and technology to "paint" targets for us.....then you have to trust their intel.

Now he is talking about thriving technologies companies and universities, approaching energy independence (yeah right), job creation, and coming back from the recession. Not what this needs to be about here, sir.

 

Exactly!

 

I did think he did very well when he concentrated his remarks on ISIS.

I'm not a big knee-jerk supporter of any political party, and for the sake of those who require defined labels, all I can provide is that I'm a moderate independent, neither far left or right, who forms views on each issue as it arises without the personal need to follow a specific party come hell or high water, or mass public consensus. It may be an unusual largely unseen and unheard of concept, but I call it thinking for myself.

 

Am I a self-perceived authority on every issue, and do I always follow and fully comprehend every topic and its consequences? Absolutely not.

 

With that said my observation with regard this issue is that for the last few weeks I've heard tons of critics in the general public, along with both sides of congress claiming The President stalling in his shaping of a plan of attack, and addressing the American people about it. (When in truth he did address us with a break-in emergency announcement when the crisis first took firm hold, made us aware of what the crisis actually was about, and transparently informed us that they were analyzing and planning the action necessary in response to it).

 

Now that he has addressed us with largely what we expected to hear, and speaking in general terms of a plan of attack, while obviously and advisably avoiding detailed specifics to not give the enemy too much insight, he is now being criticized for telling us what we've longed to hear, and that he's gone over the heads of congress (who've been waiting for evidence of a plan) in setting in place "The Plan", which include action in Syria which is being largely more criticized by us than it is by Syrians.

 

So after being accused of holding up the plan, he's now accused of going with the plan without approval from congress who all along has been criticizing him for not implementing a plan.

 

I suppose you can split hairs here and say he needs to pause and have congress give analysis to said plan and have it held up longer waiting for them to hash out their various views (which would likely include as it typically does, political hair splitting on their part), and ultimately again stall action.

 

Technically that criticism for the need to follow protocol could very well be accurate, but ultimately are we not, general public and congress included in agreement that something needs to be promptly done and get on it already and do something?

 

Knee-jerk constant criticism in my eyes only displays a ridiculous never satisfied Charlie, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't reaction.

 

If the critics are looking for Obama's consistency here, how are they seriously so lacking in awareness of the lack of consistency within themselves?

 

Haters will hate I suppose whether or not it has an semblance of logic.

 

Perhaps I'm hoping to one day see the impossible, but will the American public ever find a certain amount of political and social maturity that helps them see that an unabashed party first nationalistic attitude isn't helping, and that at the end of the day we are all citizens of Planet Earth?

He has 9 countries as of now in his coalition.

 

There will be "boots on the ground", as there is no other way to have precision strikes......unless he gives the FSA the equipment and technology to "paint" targets for us.....then you have to trust their intel.

 

The Boots on the ground will be our special forces using laser guided missiles and getting intel.

This!

 

No need to tick of more Islamics. I see his point, Westboro Baptist is (cough) Christian (cough), and they do not represent the overwhelming majority of Christians.

 

He could have used the words to describe them as extreme radical muslims. Because they are extreme in what they do, radical, and muslims.

"We will degrade and destroy ISIS."

 

"If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."

 

How ironic considering he just released 5 terrorists who threatened America.

I don't have to hear about a plan.

 

Actions are louder than words.

 

 

I do not want a President on national television saying "we don't have a plan."

 

I do not want a President telling Estonia we will help protect you, then Russia gives him a big finger by kidnapping someone.

 

I do not want a President who apologizes for American greatness and influence.

 

The United States does not have to be a bully, but everyone better know that we are the meanest guy on the block and if you mess with us, you are getting your butt kicked.

 

This President projects EXACTLY the opposite of that.

How ironic considering he just released 5 terrorists who threatened America.

 

But we needed that deserter back.

Turkey has said they will not allow fly overs to perform the missions....

Turkey has said they will not allow fly overs to perform the missions....

 

Add them to the list.

^ - Turkey leader hates Assad. Turkey leader is strong Obama supporter. Assad is still in cross-hairs. But administration is a bad shot on this target.

 

So Turkey says we cant fly over their space to conduct raids. Some supporter he is.

Was also hoping Obama would say something to the extent of keeping our borders safe, but I guess he didnt for fear of making ILLEGALS mad.

 

Homeland Security: We can?t stop ISIS from coming into US | New York Post

All political. Period. Next.