“Weighing Our Options.”

From The Hill:

“Addressing reporters at the White House, Obama vowed Congress would not be “left in the dark” as officials draft plans to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said. (YIKES!–Ed.)

Noting media reports suggesting the president was weighing expanding airstrikes into Syria, Obama said “folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

“We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard,” Obama said.”

NOW he deems it appropriate to consult Congress? Was that before or after he decided to wear a tan suit designed to deflect from the actual substance of his transparent words?

It’s not as if the situation with ISIS just suddenly popped up unexpectedly. This terrorist organization has been growing and building momentum for at least the better part of two years, in Syria, Iraq, and Libya.
And it’s not as though they have grown in strength and boldness out of our – or anyone’s – sight.

We know where their main concentrations are. Hell, every cable news channel has one graph or another showing ISIS controlled or occupied areas in all three countries. They boldly broadcast scenes of captured armored vehicles and tanks rumbling through the streets of places they’ve overcome.

You don’t just wait to come up with a strategy, all the while allowing a dangerous situation to fester.

I don’t understand the meaning behind the administration’s catch-phrase that we are “weighing our options.”

ISIS is not a government, not a sovereign state, and not an entity for which diplomacy is an option.

The arm of ISIS which actually carried out the execution of James Foley is not a rouge element of this terrorist organization. They have been nicknamed “The Beatles,” presumably due to their British origin. According to reports, they have been given the responsibility for the holding and movement of certain hostages. That said, they don’t just operate freely from ISIS, autonomously deciding for themselves who and when to kill.

Their orders come from the maniacs running the Islamic State of ‘Insert Whatever Appropriate Savage Group.’

An American citizen was kidnapped. He was held for over two years by an entity hell-bent on domination and hatred of all things Western. And now that they’ve tasted some sense of victory, including having other western nations paying ransoms to secure freedom for their kidnapped citizens, they are emboldened to commit these crimes against humanity because they not only appreciate the shock-value, but they believe their actions are divinely justified.

“Weighing our options” is just a shameful diversion.

An American has been executed by a group of fanatics, and we know EXACTLY where they are. The proper response is to overwhelmingly destroy them and their ability to operate. In other words, bomb them until their ground is glass.

You don’t murder an American.

Islam's Next Victim: ISIS Beheads Another American Journalist
Thanks Democrats: Future US Workforce to be LESS Literate
  • Commander_Chico

    we know EXACTLY where they are.

    Yeah, exactly in northern Iraq and Syria.

    Pat Buchanan breaks it down for you:

    Lebanon’s army, Syria’s army, Hezbollah and Iran have been fighting ISIS with Russian assistance. Vladimir Putin himself warned us of the absurdity of our attacking Assad last year, arguing that we would be allying ourselves with the same terrorists who brought down the twin towers.

    Was Putin not right?

    Even al-Qaida and Hamas have repudiated ISIS.

    We need no boots on the ground in Syria, for it is the presence of “Crusaders” on Islamic soil that is the principal recruiting tool of the jihadists. . . .

    If Assad is willing to go in for the kill on ISIS, let us work out a truce and amnesty for the Free Syrian Army and call off that part of the rebellion, so Assad’s army can focus on killing ISIS.
    George H. W. Bush made an ally of Hafez al-Assad in Desert Storm.

    Why not make an ally of his son against ISIS?

    We should next tell the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis that any more aid to ISIS and they are on their own. We should inform the Turks that their continued membership in NATO is contingent upon sealing their border to ISIS volunteers and their assistance in eradicating the terrorist organization.

    We should convey to Iran that an end to our cold war is possible if all attacks on the West stop and we work together to exterminate the Islamic State. Why would they not take the deal?


    • jim_m

      Chico, always there to demand that nothing be done to oppose evil.

      • Commander_Chico

        jim, always ready to put Americans in harm’s way for Israel. Not himself, if he is an American.

        • jim_m

          You mean supporting rather than betraying our allies? You bet. You mean supporting the only liberal democracy in the middle east rather than supporting terrorists and fascists like you do? Absolutely!

          More American than you are.

    • GarandFan

      “…it is the presence of “Crusaders” on Islamic soil that is the principal recruiting tool of the jihadists. . . .”

      Yeah. And laws against robbery and murder just cause more people to want to rob and murder. The logic is faultless.

      If you’re a freaking idiot.

    • jim_m

      Ah, yes. Chico goes with the: Terrorism would not exist and 9/11 would never have happened if the US hadn’t been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never mnd that we weren’t in those places when 9/11 happened and Afghanistan was free from foreign troops largely because of our help in getting rid of the soviets.

      You know why I know that you never served Chico? Because you are so fast to support our enemies. There isn’t a single issue where you do not stand against the US and with our enemies. Not one. I’ll bet you are one of those sick groupies that researches the military like some people pretend to be cops or firemen and listen to the police scanners.

    • Shawn

      Wait a sec.

      The body of your reply consists of Buchanan’s observations.

      “Lebanon’s army, Syria’s army, Hezbollah and Iran have been fighting ISIS with Russian assistance….”

      Well, DUH!! You just wake up from a 30 year coma?

      You agree with Pat? If so, that’s fine. I’m delightfully surprised.

      However, it doesn’t change the fact that if you kill an American, you unleash hell upon yourselves.

      THAT’S how reality should be.

      • Brucehenry

        I know you weren’t an adult in the mid 1980s, Shawn, but does anyone here recall Reagan’s policy being called “feckless” and “weak” and yada yada yada when Americans and other westerners were routinely being kidnapped and murdered in Lebanon?

        What do you think accounts for the double standard? What could the difference be? Hmmm, it’s a mystery…


        Also, calm down.


        • jim_m

          The difference is that Reagan projected an image of strength. No one called him feckless because the left was too busy calling him a warmonger.

          Obama on the other hand, projects an image of indecision, weakness, appeasement and cowardice.

          If you are upset that people didn’t call Reagan feckless, then you are to blame since you were there. Why didn’t you make that point?

          • Brucehenry

            So an “image of strength” is more important than a deliberate, thoughtful policy. Got it.

            It is not I calling Reagan feckless, genius. I am thinking out loud as it were, wondering why there is this hue and cry about Obama’s supposed “fecklessness” and “indecision” when an American is kidnapped and killed. I didn’t hear any similar criticism in the 1980s when Reagan and then Bush stood by and allowed TWENTY FIVE Americans to be kidnapped, many of whom were tortured and killed.

            For those who have mythologized Reagan as a pillar of strength, resolve and decisiveness, I’m just wondering here how to explain first his immediate, headlong retreat from Beirut after the Marines were murdered, and then his waffling and inaction when Western hostages were kidnapped, tortured and murdered one after another THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY. And how those Reagan-idolizers justify holding Obama to a seemingly higher standard on the Manly Man Scale.

            Perhaps you can give me a better answer than “Reagan projected an image of strength.” What are you, a little girl? And what do you think Hizbollah and ISIS terrorists are, little girls?

          • jim_m

            Fid I Say that? No I didn’t. Now who can’t read? You asked why it was that no one called him feckless. I gave you an answer. The fact that you don’t like the truth doesn’t make it any less true.

            It isn’t about any mythooogy. At the time the left was excoriating Reagan as a war monger. Or alternately, they were calling him insane or senile. Regardless, no one called him feckless.

            You asked why no one called him feckless and I gave you a reasonable answer. Fuck off if you don’t like it.

          • Brucehenry

            Drinking becomes you

          • jim_m

            I’m stone cold sober. Standing in the airport waiting for the flight to SFO. If there are typos (and there were) it is because typing things out on a Samsung S5 is a pain in the ass.

          • Brucehenry

            The first step is admitting you have a problem.

          • jim_m

            Sounds like you need to take that advice. I do not.

            A shame you can’t admit that you were wrong. Even I do that.

          • Brucehenry

            Fucking with you Jim.

          • jim_m

            You were still wrong above and won’t admit it

          • Brucehenry

            No, I wasn’t. There was no hue and cry about Reagan’s “indecision” or “fecklessness” when Americans and other Westerners were kidnapped, tortured, and sometimes murdered. That’s because the fact that these kidnappings occurred, and Reagan’s (lack of visible) reaction to them, didn’t show that, any more than the Foley kidnapping and murder shows that about Obama.

            I contend it is you and those like you who will not admit when you are making specious points for political gain. You should all be ashamed of your double standards.

          • jim_m

            Reagan showed decisiveness When It counted. He also stood up for this nation. It’s not a double standard. You have shown that Reagan was indecisive in a very narrow area that was only part of his admin. Obama has shown that in all areas of foreign policy without exception. Obama has consistently dragged his feet b on every foreign policy decision with the exception of betraying our allies. He does that instantly.

            There is a difference.

            The only times Obama is decisive is when he is being racially divisive or he is giving hundreds of millions in tax payer money to his cronies.

          • Brucehenry


            Reagan indeed decisively decided to flee Lebanon when 241 Marines were murdered. And decided ever so decisively to do nothing when 25 Americans were kidnapped and tortured and many of them killed.

            Now what message about American resolve do you suppose it sent to Iran, Syria, and Hizbollah about American resolve when Reagan took those decisive decisions? What inference did Bin Laden, just starting out as a jihadi, draw from Reagan’s decisive decisiveness?

            I’m pretty sure that when the Hizbollah kidnappers died of old age in their beds they had a pretty good idea of American decisiveness, thanks to the image of strength and resolve projected by President Ronald “Decisiveness” Reagan.

            And his decisive decision to invade Grenada soon after was a model of showing how decisively decisive and strenth-projectiony American presidents would be from here on out. Murder our Marines in the Middle East? Fuck you, I’ll invade a tiny Caribbean island, that’ll teach ya!

          • jim_m

            Not boilerplate. You’re just pissed because Obama has been fairly called out for his flaws. Now you complain about something 30 plus years, ago as if that makes obama’s manifest flaws and incapacity ok. You can’t even argue that we are wrong about it because even you are not that dishonest.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m asking where were the voices on the right (or from the Democrats in Congress for that matter) calling the President feckless and indecisive when 25 Americans were kidnapped, when so many are so upset that one American was kidnapped and killed now.

            And I’m asking YOU what is the difference in your reaction? Can you tell me that Reagan was right to let those kidnap victims languish in captivity until their Hizbollah captors got around to releasing them, or killing them if they felt like it? Or was he wrong?

            Again, whatever decisiveness Reagan projected to the USSR, did his inaction in Lebanon NOT signal to Iran, Syria, and Hizbollah that he would do NOTHING if they committed acts of terrorism? The jihadis in Afghanistan, being subsidized in an effort to bring down one Godless superpower — did they not learn that the other Godless superpower would not act when terrorist acts were committed?

            How about being honest about your demigod Zombie Reagan? He was fallible and your hagiographic memory of him was not the reality.

          • jim_m

            The difference is that in 1980 I was a liberal and didn’t like Reagan either at that timw so there.

            I have since recovered.

          • Brucehenry

            If you admit you voted for Carter I will shit a brick

          • jim_m

            I’m not that old.

          • I am and I voted for Reagan.

          • Commander_Chico

            Invading Grenada was important to deny the Soviets a base.

          • Retired military

            Or when deciding between a 7 iron and a 9 iron.

          • Wrong is his default state of being.

          • Commander_Chico

            Reagan was smart to get out. When I was on the bridge off the Beirut corniche in 1983, my CO said “I don’t know why we’re here – if we fired into that city, we’d have no idea what we would hit.”

          • jim_m

            It’s obvious that you were there to kill US Marines.

          • Brucehenry

            I have kinda been playing devil’s advocate here. I actually agreed with Reagan’s decision to get out of Lebanon at the time, and understood that there was little he or anyone could do to free the hostages that were being routinely kidnapped throughout his presidency.

            My point on this thread has been that the same voices that excoriate Obama for his alleged “fecklessness” and “cowardice” have all kinds of excuses for St Ronaldus Magnus Reagan. Especially this crazy Jim.

            You and I both know that had 241 US Marines been blown up on Obama’s watch, had twentyfuckingfive Americans been kidnapped, tortured, and sometimes murdered on Obama’s watch, he would already have been impeached by now. Can you fucking imagine if Obama let 241 Marines get killed, then WITHDRAW? Can you imagine the howls?

            However, with benefit of hindsight, I think an arguable case could be made that Reagan’s mollycoddling of Hizbollah and his later rewarding of Iranian sponsorship of terrorism by selling them arms, coupled with his subsidizing of the Afghan mujahideen, led to 9/11 and Bush’s insane response to it. It may have seemed the right thing to do, at the time, to bring down the Soviets, but, arguably, those were the unintended consequences.

            We’ll have to disagree about Grenada.

          • jim_m

            It’s a fantasy world that you live in if you think even for a moment that any congress is ever going to impeach the first black president of the United States. You know this, I know this, and most importantly, Obama knows this and is counting on it as he does all sorts of unconstitutional acts.

          • Brucehenry

            You mean like selling weapons to Iran as prohibited by law and then funneling the proceeds to Central American death squads, as also prohibited?

            No but seriously, impeachment aside, if Obama was to be in office when 241 Marines were blown up and then he gave orders to evacuate the area, the howls of manlyman faux outrage could be heard from the Potomac to the Pacific. Chickenhawk heads would explode all over Right Wingosphere, and you know it.

            And if twenty three more Americans are kidnapped and tortured and perhaps killed in the Middle East Obama will equal Reagan’s record.

            You never did tell us whether you thought Reagan was right or wrong to let those hostages languish in captivity throughout the 1980s, Jim. Was he right or wrong? I mean, to leave them in terrorist hands until the Hizbollah terrorists either released ’em or killed ’em.

        • Shawn


          Why and where are you quoting “feckless” and weak?”

          I was at most a 14 year old in the mid-80’s.

          But I’m aware enough to know what is right and wrong.

          WTF is your point? Is what was done to James Foley admirable to you? Do you somehow condone this action?

          To me, it’s pretty simple.

          To you, it’s a matter of diplomacy.

          • Brucehenry

            My point is the drumbeat on right-leaning media about Obama’s supposed weakness and indecision. No, you didn’t use those particular words, but many, older than you who were around in the 80s, HAVE used them, some of them right here in this comment section.

            Historical context. It exists.

          • jim_m

            obama is weak and indecisive because he really is weak and indecisive. We hear how it took him 8 months to decide to get Bin Laden. We hear how it took him 30 days to green light the rescue mission for the reporter and by that time he had been moved so it failed and he died.

            Obama waited 6 months before finally talking to Petraeus about Afghanistan.

            He waffled for weeks over Syria.

            If people criticize him as weak and indecisive it is because he is.

            He caved on Syria after painting himself into a corner. His weakness has emboldened Russia and China and ecru smaller enemies.

            Reagan didn’t have these problems. Neither did Bush. Hell, neither did Clinton! It’s not because he’s a dem it’s because he is indecisive and weak!

          • Brucehenry

            Yes “we hear” these things on Gateway Pundit and the other fever swamps you inhabit. And sometimes The Voices tell us these things. But mostly it’s just plain ol’ FOX.

          • jim_m

            Fever swamps like the Guardian? I spend way more time than I do on gateway pundit. In fact I spend no time whatsoever at the latter.

          • Brucehenry

            Now that you have been banned for trolling, that is.

          • jim_m

            I had pretty much stopped going there already. I was banned for over a month before I noticed. Yeah, I suppose if trolling includes pointing out blatant falsehoods that can be proven with simple links, then yeah. Jim Hoft is the next Charles Johnson.

            Nor do I watch Fox News. I don’t have that kind of time to waste.

          • Commander_Chico

            Foley put himself in another country’s civil war, albeit one supported by the USA. He had been kidnapped before in Libya. He knew the risks.

            What if an American goes into the slums of Brazil and gets murdered? These things happen everyday. Should the USA bomb the slums?

            Your “doctrine” is foolish and would risk good men and spend millions of dollars to avenge people who took extreme risks.

            Reagan was right.

          • Shawn

            OK, Chico.

            I realize, American or not, you can be killed for the clothes on your back.

            Perhaps I should amend it to “You don’t murder an American for political/ideological purposes.”


  • Fixed your blockquote problem, Shawn.

    • Shawn

      Thanks, Warner.

  • Retired military

    When Obama weighs his options he is deciding on whether to use the 7 iron or the 9 iron.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The first thing we need to do, is to get a representative from NASA to explain why their muslim outreach program isnt working!

  • Commander_Chico

    You saps and stooges jump at the sound of the bell. We don’t even know if Foley is dead – the verdict is that the tape was doctored.

    • jim_m

      Yeah, because we all know that islamists never decapitate their captives. Trust Chico to plead the case of the enemy.

    • Jwb10001

      And we have no idea if this ISIS/IL whatchamacallit is even real might just be something the chickenhawks dreamed up to distract from the revelation that Cheney sent the anthrax letters. No time to take out the terrorist now they will be much stronger and more difficult later, might as well wait for that.

    • Retired military

      Can you go personally verify please? I will help donate for the plane ticket.

      • jim_m

        I’ll split it with you, but I don’t think we should reimburse him until he returns with proof that he is right.

      • I’ll pay for it in full if it’s non-transerable and one way.

    • jim_m

      ISIS Beheads American Journalist Steven Sotloff.
      Seems like you need to go investigate, Chico. How many dead Journalists and other hostages before you and Bruce demand that Obama does something?

      • Brucehenry

        Oh I don’t know, how about twenty five Americans and 96 total Western hostages, like in the 80s?

        • [citation required]

          • Brucehenry

            Already posted above, but for you and any other ignorami who claim to know something about history in general and Ronald Reagan in particular, here it is again:


            God you are useless.

          • And you’re utterly unreliable and less useful than tits on a boar.

          • Brucehenry

            And you must be somebody’s nephew.

    • Claims a damn liar.