I heard that Obama held a press conference and "talked tough" about ISIS. (I also heard he didn't talk about any actual actions, but that is a separate discussion).
The reports I am hearing, and that includes from multiple very liberal reporters, is that within 10 minutes of the press conference, he was on the golf course. And within 10 minutes he was photographed with a huge smile having fun with his playing partners, fist bumping, having a great vacation.
So my question is:
does that negate any effect of what he said at the press conference. Does his behavior make people disregard his words from 10 minutes earlier?
When I was in residency, we were in the hospital 24 hours in a row. We dealt with a lot of serious issues. Made a lot of serious decisions.
We didn't want that intensity for every moment of 24 hours, so there were times when we were sitting around in the nurses station, and we would be light hearted and joking around about whatever. Literally minutes after we were in the room working with seriously ill people.
One time one of the nurses came up to us and said, "You guys should go somewhere else if you want to be laughing and joking. Because the patients and their families don't think you are taking your job seriously, and it is undermining their confidence in you." I could have said all I wanted, no, we know how to make serious decisions when we need to, and then can minutes later, be laughing and joking around. We have learned how to flip that switch. It would have all been true. But for people that didn't have to do that all the time, they didn't believe we could do it. So we knocked if off because it was more helpful to our message if we weren't laughing and joking around right after we ordered some big decision.
"flipping the switch" is one way to compartmentalize or separate the tough parts of life from the easy parts. I have done this myself long in the past after a tough mission.
I concur with your nurse's thoughts tho--saw the same thing happen with 2 of my relatives when they were in the hospital intensive care or recovery. From the patient and his family, there are 2 ways to look at it. 1. "They don't take this seriously and don't really care." 2. "They are so good and experienced at what they do, it is more or less routine and they are 100% confident they are on the right course".
Convincing the patient's family of the latter is sometimes the most difficult part.
Obama's golfing is the same way except IMO, he does a poor job of "convincing the world" of the latter possibility.
I'm reminded of another president, who took on a micromanaging concept and conversely was forever very serious and solemn faced--actually torn apart over his decisions and couldn't hide it if he wanted to. LBJ.
If one looks at the pictures from the 1945 Yalta meeting between FDR, Stalin, and Churchill, it's hard to believe they had just finished deciding the post-war fate of entire nations and hundreds of millions of people for decades to come.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Are you talking about his intial comments, or about his going off to play golf and laughing and having a good time minutes later?
Kind of both. I doubt he'll commit to anything concerning ISIS, but I don't think the golfing matters too much. At least, it doesn't to me.
At least in the photos above they were still where they had been working on it.
I don't see any golf clubs, tee boxes, sand traps, etc. I don't know if the ISIS people took him seriously in the first place. Like, wow, he really looked like he meant business at that news conference.
But if they did, and then found out 10 minutes later he was laughing it up on the golf course, I don't know that they would then place the same amount of seriousness on his statements.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: So my question is: ... does that negate any effect of what he said at the press conference. Does his behavior make people disregard his words from 10 minutes earlier?
First of all, you are presuming what he said made an effect. Second of all, you are calling his statement a press conference. He made yet another speech, . He must not had enough time, or respect, to put on a tie. What did he say ? "Yada yada". Paraphrasing now but he said "we will not stand for it. We will stand by the international community and deal with it". It was theater, bad theater. Who was he speaking to ? Not ISIS. He was delivering a pre-functional response. Designed to combat his weak image. (Which is why we now hear of a failed rescue mission to rescue Americans in Syria.) In answer to your question, his back to hitting the links, palling around, smiling with his buddies, did neither of what you asked. It sent a different message. Let me ask you ... Who was the message for ? Lip service to the sheeple, or the perpetrators of that heinous atrocity ? What did his message say ? He showed ?more? outrage when he feigned his outrage at the IRS scandal. What would his message have said if this was the reality after his ... well, there was no outrage in his belly, . If this was the reported image about his after speech activities .... ... or this ... it would have enhanced the message.
As far as spoken words, I don't think that His Reviledness, O 44 (anyone need that decoded?), came up short. In reference to the Islamic State, his tone was spot-on. His condemnation of the Islamic State came across as sincere and thoughtfully worded. He left nothing unsaid that needs to be said.
There are actions that the U.S. is already undertaking against the Islamic State that are covert. He is not going to be discussing them at a golf course or even from the White House.
Open (as opposed to covert) acton is more difficult. It will be far more effective if it has a "Middle Eastern" face on it. It should not appear as a high profile U.S. intervention, or even a NATO or Western alliance intervention. And I don't think there is a any appetite among the general population of the U.S. and its traditional allied countries for a large scale, Western-led military intervention in Iraq; for Syria, even less of an appetite for any kind of high profile military intervention.
I wish that Syria had not degenerated over the last several years the way that it has. It's become the perfect habitat for the worst of the Islamist factions, such as the Islamic State and the Al Nusra Front. The more benign insurgents--the Free Syrian Army--have seemingly faded into oblivion.
How much of this can be laid at Obama's doorstep? I think that Obama was reluctant to be seen as flowing substantial military assistance to the Free Syrian Army (I am talking about some years ago, now), because he expected that there would be a backlash against that from Russian, in the person and personality of Vladimir Putin. The Russians (under Putin) do not like to see the U.S. assert itself around the world in ways that highlight the military capabilities that are unique to the U.S. and that are conspicuous (by their absence) on the Russian side. If you go back to Libya, the Russians signed on to the UN Resolution that was cited by Obama as the lawful justification for the U.S. and NATO military intervention (in Libya). But Putin evinced afterwards that (in Russia's eyes) he had been "taken for a ride". That he (Putin) signed on to that UN Resolution expecting a more effective arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime--but not a U.S/NATO air strikes campaign.
I think that Obama was trying to balance Syria against other issues that connect with the Russians (and the Chinese, who tend to line up with Russia on the UN Security Council). Like the effort to reign in the nuclear program in Iran. I think that Obama calculated (wrongly, many could now argue) that it would be better overall--from a global perspective--if he could work in concert with Mr. Putin to effect a transition to a new, post-Assad regime in Syria. As opposed to moving more forcefully against the Assad regime in ways that would give Mr. Putin additional episodes of "U.S. military intervention-linked heartburn". Such as Libya-style U.S/NATO air strikes in Syria, and also just flowing military assistance to the Syrian Free Army in a high profile way that would have a "U.S. face" on it, in terms of global public perception.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2014).]
In global diplomacy, more often than not, it is the things NOT said that are far more important than those that ARE said. This can be words not spoken at all, or words simply not spoken in public but ARE spoken in private--behind the scenes. It's how foreign diplomacy works on all levels. The Syrian civil war began in early to mid 2011, when Obama, was embroiled in his 2012 re-election campaign and (for domestic political reasons) was too hesitant to forcefully work toward Assad's removal early on, then got out maneuvered by Putin, Assad, Iran and Russian hardliners regarding chemical weapons removal. Too little too late, in spite of many in Congress calling for early arming of mainstream Syrian rebels, Obama finally began flowing some arms to the rebels, but by that time, ISIL had become the most powerful group in the conflict (other than Assad's forces at the time). Genie is out of the bottle now, and ISIL/ISIS is going to difficult to contain, much less exterminate.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-21-2014).]
I don't believe he will be taken seriously regardless of what he did after the speech. He has demonstrated time and time again that he likes to talk tough but doesn't back it up.
I don't believe he will be taken seriously regardless of what he did after the speech. He has demonstrated time and time again that he likes to talk tough but doesn't back it up.
He just allowed them to cut a mans head off to push home that their cruelty (or threat thereof) will not buy them anything. (they wanted to work a cash deal)
They are far more dangerous & well-funded then any terrorist organization to date. And by their own actions (they might be right here right now) they will be annihilated. Their's (and others) way of thinking & action (worldwide) has reached it's crescendo.
Mark my words; a New Age has begun...and it ain't gonna' be pretty for anyone. It might even go nuclear...
One way or another, a point is going to be made...our Age of Grace is over.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-21-2014).]
WASHINGTON — The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.
“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said the chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in his most expansive public remarks on the crisis since American airstrikes began in Iraq. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”
But General Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who also spoke at a Pentagon news conference, gave no indication that President Obama was about to approve airstrikes in Syria
3 years late is better than not at all I suppose, tho I suspect the administration will ask countries other than our own to do the heavy lifting. Saw an article 2 days ago suggesting that Germany is about ready to forego what it has deemed "certain taboos" and arm the Syrians fighting both Assad and ISIS. Germany Italy and France have already agreed to help arm the Kurds. (Germany has long held a policy of not sending arms and munitions into already conflicted regions)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-21-2014).]
Makes no difference, and zero impact in either sense..
I agree with Don.
I don't think anyone outside of Obama's personal circle gives a rat's ass about what he says. Just my opinion but, I'm still putting it out there. That's not to say that Don agrees with me though.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
A statement purportedly by al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based branch -- al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- expresses support for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL), the Yemen Times reported on Tuesday.
“We announce solidarity with our Muslim brothers in Iraq against the crusade. Their blood and injuries are ours and we will surely support them,” the newspaper quoted the AQAP statement as saying.
“We stand by the side of our Muslim brothers in Iraq against the American and Iranian conspiracy and their agents of the apostate Gulf rulers.”
The statement went on to offer ISIS fighters tips on how to avoid airstrikes, like those President Obama ordered against the jihadists in northern Iraq 12 days ago.
“Based on our experience with drones, we advise our brothers in Iraq to be cautious about spies among them because they are a key factor in setting goals; be cautious about dealing with cellphones and internet networks; do not gather in large numbers or move in large convoys; spread in farms or hide under trees in the case of loud humming of warplanes; and dig sophisticated trenches because they reduce the impact of shelling,” the statement said.
Where did ISIS come from and get it's sudden strength? They grew out of the rebels in Syria that the US was supporting.
Looking at events in the world and the actions of dear leader, one can't help but wonder who's side he's on. Ted Cruz raised an interesting question:
quote
Why is Pres. Obama selling AMRAAM missiles to Turkey but blocking Hellfires for Israel?
Might be about time we secured our southern border(s). If kids can just walk in ....
Too late. They're already here. There are terrorist training camps in the continental US. Of course, the government would agree, but they're referring to GOP offices and local VFW posts.
For two bloody months, an armed jihadist serial killer ran loose across the country. At least four innocent men died this spring and summer as acts of “vengeance” on behalf of aggrieved Muslims, the self-confessed murderer has now proclaimed. ... The 29-year-old career thug admitted to killing Leroy Henderson in Seattle in April; Ahmed Said and Dwone Anderson-Young in Seattle on June 1; and college student Brendan Tevlin, 19, in Essex County, New Jersey, on June 25. Tevlin was gunned down in his family Jeep on his way home from a friend’s house. Ballistics and other evidence linked all the victims to Muhammad Brown. Police apprehended him last month hiding in an encampment near the Watchung Mountains of West Orange, New Jersey. ... Muhammad Brown told investigators that Tevlin’s slaying was a “just kill.” The devout Islamic adherent proclaimed: “My mission is vengeance. For the lives, millions of lives are lost every day.” Echoing jihadist Fort Hood mass killer Nidal Hasan, Muhammad Brown cited Muslim deaths in “Iraq, Syria, (and) Afghanistan” as the catalysts for his one-man Islamic terror campaign. “All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life.”
When a detective asked him to clarify whether all four murders were “done for vengeance for the actions of the United States in the Middle East,” Muhammad Brown stated unequivocally: “Yes.” He added that he was “just doing (his) small part.”
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-22-2014).]
Originally posted by Formula88: Where did ISIS come from and get it's sudden strength? They grew out of the rebels in Syria that the US was supporting.
The Islamic State (or "ISIS", or "ISIL") is what happened when Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency used its resources to recruit and support fighters to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. That agency had been headed up (until fairly recently) by Prince Bandar. Bandar did not set up any checks or controls (at least, not any effective ones) to screen out radical Islamists. Maybe that wasn't one of his concerns.
They replaced Bandar. "They" being whoever it was in the Saudi government or royal family who was starting to perceive the Islamic State as more of a bad thing than a good thing, from the Saudi perspective. And whoever it was that started to see it that way and also had or obtained authority over Bandar.
I just read that the Sharia (Islamic) courts in Saudi Arabia are now cracking down on any Saudis that are known to be trying to enlist in the Islamic State organization, or known to be trying to support it in any way.
The U.S. had its dog in the fight: Free Syrian Army. Qatar had its dog: al-Nusra Front (I think.) Turkey had some other dog. The Saudis had their dog, and gave it lots of "food" (resources), but not enough discipline. The Saudis fed their dog more than any of the other players fed their dogs. And voila--the Saudi dog has grown into the Islamic State.
The Saudi government has recently issued public statements condemning the Islamic State.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-22-2014).]
The Islamic State (or "ISIS", or "ISIL") is what happened when Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency used its resources to recruit and support fighters to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. That agency had been headed up (until fairly recently) by Prince Bandar. Bandar did not set up any checks or controls (at least, not any effective ones) to screen out radical Islamists. Maybe that wasn't one of his concerns.
They replaced Bandar. "They" being whoever it was in the Saudi government or royal family who was starting to perceive the Islamic State as more of a bad thing than a good thing, from the Saudi perspective. And whoever it was that started to see it that way and also had or obtained authority over Bandar.
I just read that the Sharia (Islamic) courts in Saudi Arabia are now cracking down on any Saudis that are known to be trying to enlist in the Islamic State organization, or known to be trying to support it in any way.
The U.S. had its dog in the fight: The Free Syrian Army. Qatar had its dog: The al-Nusra Front (I think.) Turkey had some other dog. The Saudis had their dog, and gave it lots of "food" (resources), but not enough discipline. The Saudis fed their dog more than any of the other players fed their dogs. And voila--the Saudi dog has grown into the Islamic State.
The Saudi government has recently issued public statements condemning the Islamic State.
Thank you for expanding on my comment.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-22-2014).]
. He must not had enough time, or respect, to put on a tie.
. 
