You may not be interested in war…

…but war is interested in you. Leon Trotsky.

It’s obvious that the President has been reading the New York Times.

Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

None of these beliefs are based in fact. … the overall terrorist trend is down.

Head Meet SandI’m sure he read this article before one of his State Department minions said the following

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

The article itself describes the Obama administration’s new vision of foreign policy, which admits no enemies. Everyone, in this view, is a friend. Islamism, says the Obama administration, is just fine, so long as it does not openly support terrorism.

The Obama administration is admitting no enemies! Well, except for those Tea Party types and the Republican Members of the House.

The above article from the New York Times, by the way, was written on July 10 so the President has obviously been studying it for a while. Oh, and that would be July 10, 2001.

Head meet sand.

First of al Qaida is nowhere near “dead.” The Associated Press goes into detail about the terror organization and how very well organized it is. The whole article is worth a read, but here are some snippets that will give you an idea.

After years of trying to discipline him, the leaders of al-Qaida’s North African branch sent one final letter to their most difficult employee. In page after scathing page, they described how he didn’t answer his phone when they called, failed to turn in his expense reports, ignored meetings and refused time and again to carry out orders. …

The employee … responded the way talented employees with bruised egos have in corporations the world over: He quit and formed his own competing group.

[A letter found by The Associated Press provides a] glimpse into both the inner workings of a highly structured terrorist organization that requires its commanders to file monthly expense reports, and the internal dissent that led to his rise. And it foreshadows a terrorism landscape where charismatic jihadists can carry out attacks directly in al-Qaida’s name, regardless of whether they are under its command. …

They then begin enumerating their complaints against [a rogue terrorist] in 30 successive bullet points. …

The list of slights is long: He would not take their phone calls. He refused to send administrative and financial reports. He ignored a meeting in Timbuktu, calling it “useless.” He even ordered his men to refuse to meet with al-Qaida emissaries. And he aired the organization’s dirty laundry in online jihadist forums, even while refusing to communicate with the chapter via the Internet, claiming it was insecure.

Sounding like managers in any company…

Again, you get the idea.

Unfortunately Barack Obama doesn’t.

The world has always been a dangerous place but when the President of the United States can’t see his way to send US Marines to Benghazi when our consulate is under attack and our Ambassador has been murdered but he has no problem having Marines hold an umbrella for him, it’s getting more and more dangerous every day.

Because President Obama has his Islamic issued rose colored glasses on 24×7, it’s going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Criminal Unions: The Perfect 'Government Union Fat Cat' Story
Feds Enlist Race Obsessed La Raza to Help Hire Government Workers
  • GarandFan

    You don’t understand Barry’s management style. If there’s a problem he can’t handle or is not interested in, he simply ignores it.

    Problem solved!

    • retired.military

      ” he simply ignores it”

      Here let me fix that for you.

      ” he simply ignores it after blaming Bush”

  • Commander_Chico

    “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.”

    An American is four times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by “terrorism.”

    Well, the Huckleberry Graham, McCain and neocon solution is obvious – let’s give more money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria.

    • warnertoddhuston

      My guess is that it was about the same for Americans and lightening re Hitler’s army. But, gosh, it was probably a good idea to rid the world of Nazies… or do you disagree? What am I saying, of COURSE you disagree.

      • Commander_Chico

        Right, every iron age idiot in the Middle East is “Hitler.” Anyways, “Hitler” is dead, right?

        And your solution is?

        • Brucehenry

          His solution is to wet the bed, quiver in fear, and cry like a little girl until a square-jawed, steely-eyed, manlyman white Republican who will Do What Has To Be Done is president.

          • Commander_Chico

            Funny piece. I used to be a McCain guy, worked and donated to him in 2000, but I think we dodged a bullet with that one, and not just because of Sarah.

            I supported him because I heard him say that bombing Serbia at high altitudes to avoid US casualties but cause Serbian civilian casualties (the US mistakenly killed some civilians in that conflict, too) was a war crime

            But now, the dude has become a rage-filled warmonger.

          • Show proof.

          • jim_m

            Note that for Chico there are only Chickenhawks and rage filled warmongers. There is never the possibility that someone could be in favor of military action on the basis of principle and conviction.

            Chico’s default position is that the US should surrender to any aggressor. (as long as his government benefits don’t get cut, he doesn’t care who gets oppressed)

          • Brucehenry

            As I interpret Chico’s “default position” it’s that those who didn’t have enough “principle and conviction” to participate in war when it was their turn should expect to have their sincerity questioned when they push for war now that someone else — or someone else’s kid — will have to pay the price they were unwilling to pay themselves.

            War enthusiasts are welcome to their convictions and principles, but shouldn’t get all butthurt when asked what THEY did in THEIR war.

          • jim_m

            As everyone else interprets Chico, it is that anyone who has not served has NO right to speak on ANY issue regarding the military or national security. And anyone who disagrees with hem who has served is an irrational warmonger.

            This is not about not serving Chico is simply a fascist.

          • Wannabe fascist.

          • jim_m

            If a fascist state were declared Chico would be first in line to support it.

          • Commander_Chico

            Fascism is militarism. It’s more likely that endless war and the blowback from meddling with other places like Syria will bring fascism to America.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Wow Chico. All I can say is your understanding of political systems is rather weak.

            The people wanting the political system that’s closest to actual fascism in practice are democrats.

          • jim_m

            Incorrect. Fascism is more properly construed as state control of the society and the economy. Not always direct control as in Communism, but control, primarily through threat and aggression. Mussolini’s Italy was not a militarist state initially. One should recall that Hitler’s objections to communism stemmed primarily through the communist’s loyalty to Moscow over the German state. Much of his policies were very socialist and were entirely about government control of society.

            The only people bringing fascism to the US is the American left.

          • Commander_Chico

            So you’re saying that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were not militaristic?

          • jim_m

            I made myself perfectly clear. If you are having problems I suggest getting THIS to learn the language.

          • jim_m

            I will simply note that you did not dispute that Chico denies that anyone could believe in military action from a position of sincere conviction. All his arguments are ad hom attacks meant to disqualify the other person rather than to address their position.

          • Commander_Chico

            Wrong, I’ve addressed the folly of invading Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan and meddling in Syria many times.

            On the other hand, I’ve never seen you make a coherent argument for any of those things other than mouthing liberal platitudes about protecting distant brown people’s human rights using American blood and treasure.

          • jim_m

            No I do not mouth liberal platitudes. However I do point out the hypocrisy of your being against protecting other people’s rights, particularly when they have brown skin.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s not a good idea for the USA to run around “protecting other people’s rights,” especially when we kill a lot of them in the process.

          • jim_m

            Hell, You aren’t even interested in protecting rights here at home, why should you want to protect them elsewhere. The only rights you care about are your own. You have made that quite clear.

          • Soi disant cognoscenti and veteran is proto fascist, up to and including denying those who have not served their first amendment rights.

          • Brucehenry

            Chico is skeptical about calls for military action, whether those calls come from wannabe macho men or from those who are expressing sincere conviction. So am I. So should you be.

            Barbara Tuchman, one of my favorite writers about history, explains why in two of her best books:



          • Commander_Chico


          • jim_m

            Only Chico would present a photoshopped image as proof of his arguments. “Fake but accurate” is his mantra.

          • jwbi1001

            You’re credibility would be much better if you didn’t apply these smears in such selective fashion.

      • I see projection has reared it’s head in response to you.

    • jim_m

      Your argument amounts to the notion that since your personal risk is low that the rest of us should tolerate evil.

  • ackwired

    So the line of reasoning here is that because Obama said that some people who once saw al-Qaida as their only choice now see legitimate expression as a choice, he is somehow saying that the US has no enemies.

    Interesting reasoning process.

    • jim_m

      I think the implication was that obama grossly overstated the situation and that nothing has really changed with regard to al Qaeda. And yes, obama meant to imply that al Qaeda was not longer a viable enemy. I know that the left would like to deny that fact.