In an interview conducted by New Yorker Editor David Remick, back in January of this year, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, said the following about a Muslim Terrorist Group, which he would later refer to as ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), and everyone else (except for the UN and some of Obama’s Minions in the Main Streat Media) would call ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham):

The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

As the Terrorist Organization grew in power and aggression, invading Iraq, Obama was pressed to recognize the threat, and proceeded to drop bombs on the Muslim Barbarians and spy on their activities using unmanned drones,resulting in retaliation, involving the beheading of two American Journalists, while they captured a strategic dam on the Euphrates River, threatening to blow it up and flood the region around Baghdad, killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Unfortunately, on August 29th, our skittish Commander-in-Chief reluctantly admitted that he did not have a clue as to what he was doing.

Fox News.com reported at the time, that,

President Obama is facing intense criticism for admitting Thursday “we don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with Islamic State militants in Syria, despite warnings from top military advisers and others that the group must be confronted on that side of the border. 

The president made the comment during a briefing with reporters in which he overtly played down the prospect of any imminent military action in Syria. He tried to temper speculation that he was about to roll out a “full scale” strategy, one that might expand the current, limited airstrike campaign in northern Iraq. 

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said. 

As the White House later clarified, he was talking specifically about a military strategy for Syria. But Republican critics pointed out that the ISIS presence in Syria has been festering for a long time, and is only growing in strength. 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the toughest critics in Congress of the administration’s Middle East policies, tweeted the president’s quote with a reminder: “#ISIS is largest, richest terrorist group in history & 192,000 dead in #Syria.” 

Karl Rove, Fox News analyst and former George W. Bush administration adviser, said he was “appalled” by the president’s comment. 

“He was warned about the role that ISIS was playing inside Syria, and he has had all that time to develop a strategy about what to do about ISIS in Syria and he still doesn’t,” Rove told Fox News. 

Finally, with public outcry and concern turned up to “11”, like Spinal Tap’s Guitar Amp (look them up, children), and his popularity at 38% and dropping, Obama suddenly came up with a strategy, which he would present to a worried nation last Tuesday evening.

Here are some excerpts from whitehouse.gov…

…In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality.  They execute captured prisoners.  They kill children.  They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage.  They threatened a religious minority with genocide.  And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities.  If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.  While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.  Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq.  Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

…Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.

The, he got vaguely specific:

1. A systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL

Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense.  Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are.  That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.  This is a core principle of my presidency:  If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. 

2. Increased support to forces fighting ISIL on the ground

In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi security forces.  Now that those teams have completed their work –- and Iraq has formed a government –- we will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq.  As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.  But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.  We’ll also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL’s control.

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition.  Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.  In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people — a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost.  Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all. 

3. Drawing on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks

Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.  And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.

4. Providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced by ISIL

This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities.  We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands. 

“This is our strategy,” the President said, adding that the United States has a “broad coalition of partners” joining us in this effort…

When ISIS started their invasions of Iraq, Liberals, in defense of Obama, blamed “Booosh!”, as he had originally set a timeline for our country’s military withdrawal from Iraq, which, for the sake of his own political advantage, Obama followed.

What all the apologists neglected to pay attention to, was the fact that President George W. Bush also warned what would happened if the next president suffered from “premature evacuation”.

Foxnews.com has the story…

A prophetic warning from then-President George W. Bush before he left office about what would happen if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq too soon is getting new attention in light of the Islamic State’s gains, as each of his predictions appears to be coming true.

Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.  

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.  

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen says all these predictions have come true.

“Every single thing that President Bush said there in that statement is happening today,” he told Fox News.

To Bush’s first warning, the Islamic State terror group is effectively the successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq – and they’ve overrun several major cities in Iraq’s north while claiming broad swaths of territory in Syria. Further, the group has been behind mass killings of Iraqi civilians as well as the recent execution by beheading of two American journalists.

The Obama administration has warned that the group’s violence threatens to approach genocide levels.

Though President Obama says combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, American troops are nevertheless returning in some capacity. The president on Wednesday announced an expanded airstrike campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria, and is sending hundreds more U.S. military personnel into Iraq.

Some lawmakers and analysts say this could have been avoided if the Obama administration had left a residual force in Iraq, or at least had responded sooner to ISIS’ gains in northern Iraq over the past year.

Bush, before he left office, signed an agreement setting the stage for U.S. troops to withdraw by December 2011.

Obama, though, was urged by military advisers to keep thousands of service members after that deadline to help the shaky Iraqi government. But when Washington and Baghdad were unable to reach a renewed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces in the country, the Obama administration withdrew virtually all troops at the end of 2011.

“We needed to leave a stabilizing force behind, and we didn’t.  And of course, we know the rest is history,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News.

It is “funny” how Liberals’ pomposity always comes back to bite them in the hindquarters, isn’t it?

But, I digress…

According to reports issues yesterday, ISIS Forces are increasing daily, now numbering over 31,000 Radical Muslims.

It is time for bold, decisive moves. Pussy-footing around with a “limited engagement”, which the administration is refusing to call a “war”, will lead us straight into another Vietnam.

And that, is something that this nation does not need to go through again.

Until He comes,

KJ