The Obama Administration’s Nonstop Incoherence On ISIS (Edward Morrissey)

The Obama Administration’s Nonstop Incoherence On ISIS – Edward Morrissey

.

.
One has to wonder just how often members of President Barack Obama’s national security team talk with each other. The federal government is famously gigantic, but the president’s Cabinet is not, particularly if you narrow it to the inner circle that crafts military and national security strategy. One would assume that it wouldn’t be all that difficult to prepare a coherent approach to an international crisis, particularly as Cabinet members testify before Congress amidst deep skepticism of the White House’s strategy to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, or in the administration’s preferred acronym, ISIL).

And yet, months into the genocidal campaign of the self-proclaimed caliphate, the Obama administration still cannot offer a coherent description of the American response, let alone a coherent strategy.

Secretary of State John Kerry spent a considerable amount of time last week arguing that a bombing campaign in Iraq doesn’t amount to a war. “What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,” Kerry explained. “If someone wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so.”

Susan Rice, Obama’s national-security adviser, voiced similar sentiments. “I don’t know whether you want to call it a war or sustained counterterrorism campaign,” Rice told CNN. “I think, frankly, this is a counterterrorism operation that will take time.”

By Friday, though, the White House appeared to switch positions. Press Secretary Josh Earnest, under fire from reporters after the White House argued that military operations against ISIS were justified by previous congressional authorizations of force against al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime, declared that the U.S. is at war. “The United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest stated, “in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

Admiral John Kirby, press secretary for the Pentagon, affirmed Earnest’s take, except Kirby tried to distinguish it from the 2002 authorization of military force. “What I said is, it’s not the Iraq War of 2002,” Kirby told reporters. “But make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we’re at war and continue to be at al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

For most Americans, that means an actual war – certainly since the 9/11 attacks, and arguably before that, even if the U.S. did not want to acknowledge that al Qaeda had been at war with us. And the White House dance on war terminology did little to boost the confidence of Americans who have spent the last several months watching the genocidal terrorist army sweep across northern Iraq.

Still, the Obama administration contended that it didn’t amount to war-war because no American ground troops would be involved. Earnest explicitly told reporters in Monday’s press briefing that the option to put American combat forces on the ground in Iraq or Syria had been “definitively” ruled out. Earnest underscored this as a key difference between Obama’s strategy and the strategy pursued by President Bush.

The very next day, Congress heard an entirely different scenario from Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Testifying in a Senate hearing, Dempsey said he “would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of ground forces” if the current strategy fails to destroy ISIS.

Furthermore, Dempsey said he might want to deploy American ground forces in combat to achieve specific objectives that Iraqi forces could not attain on their own. “To be clear,” Dempsey explained, “if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president.”

To be very clear, those circumstances are almost unavoidable. After all, Iraq is not Somalia or Yemen.

Which brings us to yet another bit of incoherence from the White House. Despite widespread incredulity, the administration continues to assume that the ISIS threat is analogous to that posed by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen or al-Shabab in Somalia. Earnest on Monday cited the U.S.’s counterterrorism operations in those countries as evidence that Obama’s strategy against ISIS will work.

Not only has the U.S. failed to stop the terror threat in either country, but neither situation is comparable to ISIS. AQAP is a terrorist network that holds no significant ground in Yemen. Al-Shabab in Somalia is similarly situated. Their ranks are measured in the hundreds, perhaps low thousands, and they operate in ways that avoid the scrutiny of security forces.

ISIS has developed into an army that has displaced sovereign security forces and controls the ground on which it operates. ISIS militants have heavy armaments, thanks to the collapse of the Iraqi military in the region, and operate strategically as well as tactically. An air campaign alone will not dislodge them from the large footprint they occupy in Iraq and Syria. Only ground troops can do that, and only when deployed effectively with the proper logistical support.

Unfortunately, that is how wars against armies are won. Dempsey’s testimony anticipates that. Obama’s strategy clearly does not, and the discordant and contradictory indicators from his national-security team call into serious question whether the White House has any strategy at all.

If the White House set out to project incompetence, it could not have possibly done a better job over the last few days.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

Obama Administration: We Never Mean A Word We Say (Amy Payne)

Obama Administration: We Never Mean A Word We Say – Amy Payne

No, it cannot happen. It will not happen. The Obama administration absolutely, positively will NOT extend the deadline to sign up for Obamacare.

.

.
This isn’t even a laugh line anymore. It’s just an eye roller. And how silly these guys look now:

“We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period. In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.” – Health and Human Services (HHS) official Julie Bataille, March 11

“Once that 2014 open enrollment period has been set, they are set permanently.” – HHS official Michael Hash, March 11

“March 31st is the deadline for enrollment. You’ve heard us make that clear.” – Press Secretary Jay Carney, March 21

“There is no delay beyond March 31.” – HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, March 12

There was no delay… until there was. The Washington Post reported last night that March 31 is not, in fact, the final word. To get more time, you tell the government that you haven’t been able to sign up yet:

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

Excellent plan. Sounds very similar to the expanded hardship exemption from the individual mandate – where the administration essentially said having your policy canceled by Obamacare was a new hardship that had to be accommodated. And all you have to say is that you “believe” other insurance policies available to you are unaffordable.

So the administration’s word means nothing, but officials expect the rest of America to operate on the honor system.

After years of Obamacare delays and changes, the administration has lost all credibility.

Americans deserve better. You deserve patient-centered health reform that is true to its purpose: giving you more choices and better value. You deserve to control your own health care-and not to have to worry what the whims of government bureaucrats will be tomorrow.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Even Jon Stewart Can See The Obvious Corruption Within The Obama Administration



……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

So when can we realistically expect that Obama Care website to work?

In only three more years, give or take apparently

Wait, did he say 2017?

“It may take until 2017. It will work really well then.”

– White House adviser David Plouffe, quoted by ABC News, on the implementation problems facing Obamacare.

Talk about setting low goals for the greatest legislation evah!

The Obama administration claimed victory Sunday for making HealthCare.gov workable for the vast majority of users, a standard that will be tested as millions of people flood the site in the next three weeks.

Sunday marked the passage of the administration’s self-imposed deadline for fixing the broken ObamaCare enrollment website, which serves consumers in 36 states.

The agency that oversees HealthCare.gov said “we believe we have met the goal” of making the system navigable for most people, but cautioned that more problems may lie ahead.

“Dramatic progress has been made,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated in a report released Sunday morning. “[But] there is more work to be done to continue to improve and enhance the website.”

The mixed message highlights the challenge facing the Obama administration as it seeks to ensure that millions can sign up for individual health plans online by the end of March.

Buffoons!

 

The Lefts’ tragic addiction to appeasement

Ah those special fools, here they go again, seeking peace at any price. Deluding themselves into trusting evil people with evil intentions, to be honest and above-board. Here they go again with their clueless “if we are nice to them…..” strategy. Ed already blogged about this but I wanted to add my two cents worth. I remember watching Liberals in the mid 1970’s as they called for peace with the Soviets. We should cut our military, so as not to frighten the Soviets they opined. We must show them we mean them no harm they said. Even as a child, I was aghast that they did not see that the Soviet Union, and in fact all Communists were bad, very bad, and meant us no good will. I never grasped how anyone could look at a country that was our sworn enemy, a country that had enslaved other countries and committed horrific atrocities, and even consider bowing to them. Years later I still am amazed at the depth of the stupidity of the Left. These are folks who would not only buy ocean front property in Arizona, but demand to pay twice the asking price. The Other McCain has some thoughts

We need not know anything about the details of this “historic deal” to know that it is absolutely worthless. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no respect for law, and cannot be expected to honor any promise it makes, except for its long-avowed purpose to annihilate Israel, to destroy “the Great Satan” and otherwise to carry out its violent worldwide revolutionary jihad against the West.

All the Iranian dictatorship seeks to accomplish by negotiation with the West is to anesthetize its enemies, to render opposition impotent by means of treaties that will postpone the inevitable confrontation until Iran has become stronger and we have become weaker.

Any “deal” with Iran is necessarily a bad deal, and the double guarantee of a bad deal is that it was approved by the Obama administration, which is “historic” only as a monument to incompetence with few parallels in human experience.

“The practical way of looking at things . . . may serve well enough in ordinary, normal times. But our times are not ‘normal’ in the good old Victorian sense, and never will be again. . . . These men, even Halifax, were essentially middle-class, not aristocrats. They did not have the hereditary sense of the security of the state, unlike Churchill, Eden, the Cecils. Nor did they have the toughness of the 18th-century aristocracy. They came at the end of the ascendancy of the Victorian middle-class, deeply affected as that was by high-mindedness and humbug. They all talked, in one form or another, the language of disingenuousness and cant: it was second nature to them — so different from Churchill. . . . It meant that they failed to see what was true, until too late, when it was simply a question of survival.”
– A.L. Rowse, Appeasement: A Study in Political Decline, 1933-39

Maybe it is because the Left denies the existence of evil that they cannot recognize its presence, even when it is so blatant as to be unmistakable.

Why can’t you keep the health plan Obama said you could keep?

Weasel Zippers lays it out

We were the first to report on how the NBC story exposing the Obama administration knowledge of cancellations was pulled, then edited, then edited again.

There was a critical paragraph that was edited out, but then added back in after a furor.

What was the provision that was deleted and then added back?

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.

Why is this critical, and why was it edited?

Because that means the law doesn’t actually dictate the cancellation of the policies, the cancellations are dictated by the HHS regulations, narrowing the law.

Regulations are completely and utterly within the power and control of HHS, Obama and the executive branch. What that means is they could change it if they wanted to, and that it was completely their choice to do this, despite Obama lying about it.

They dictated these cancellations because they want to drive people into the exchanges, because it is the only possible way to monetarily sustain the system, or it would collapse under its own weight.

So while Obama is lying to people, he is completely dictating the cancellations through his administration.

This is the twisted nature of the President we have.

So, tell me again about the wonders of Hope and Change there comrade.

 

CNN: Team Obama warned of website issues prior to launch

Incompetence on a level never before thought possible

Washington (CNN) — The Obama administration was given stark warnings just one month before launch that the federal healthcare site was not ready to go live, according to a confidential report obtained by CNN.

The caution, from the main contractor CGI, warned of a number of open risks and issues for the HealthCare.gov web site even as company executives were testifying publicly that the project had achieved key milestones.

On Capitol Hill on Monday, Medicaid Chief Marilyn Tavenner, whose job it was to oversee the October 1 rollout of the website, said she did not foresee its problems.

“No, we had tested the website and we were comfortable with its performance,” she said. “Now, like I said, we knew all along there would be as with any new website, some individual glitches we would have to work out. But, the volume issue and the creation of account issues was not anticipated and obviously took us by surprise. And did not show up in testing.”

Read documents

But the CGI document, which describes “top risks currently open” and “outstanding issues currently being mitigated” says the testing timeframes are “not adequate to complete full functional, system, and integration testing activities” and lists the impact of the problems as “significant.”

Another element is listed as ” not enough time in schedule to conduct adequate performance testing” and given the highest priority.