Well, that requires a trip through time. You see back in the day, a production group called Filmation was responsible for Isis. At least they were responsible for The Secret of Isis, a popular Saturday children's show that starred Joanna Cameron as the Mighty Isis, Isis, Isis.
Isis was created to inspire little girls, and Shazam inspired young boys to be positive members of the community. Time and limited special effects sent most childhood heroes into the realm of animation and into distant memories for me until some evil terror group decided to reignite the name and the memories. With a problem so complex, we could use the Mighty Isis and Shazam to team up and save the day. Sometimes complex problems actually required they combine the show's so they both could show up.
Shazam needed a haircut.
It seems very few republicans in Congress have the memory to recall Isis of old, or the path that lead to the ISIS pestering Iraq, Syria and American sensibility. Filmation may have created the original Isis, but WE all created the recent terror group when we agreed to allow a war hawk party to remain in power and heal us from the anger of 9-11.
At the time, polls consistently favored military action against Hussein while recent polls will tell you that only a third of American's still admit to the angered opinion polls that fed the war hawks and lead US into Iraq in the first place.
Why Voting Matters?
WE had a choice with the re-election of Bush and Cheney but allowed a broken electoral college system and a few hanging chads in Florida to give US exactly what WE deserved. Elections are still not sacred, evidenced by the low turnouts, widespread use of outdated voting methods and machines and voter suppression in all the states that still think they can.
Isis used to be an inspirational hero with mystic powers. Now, ISIS is an inspirational terror group that gets most of its power from the general fear of US imperialism. ISIS didn't exist before we invaded Iraq and got rid of Sadaam Hussein because the recruit worthy fear wasn;t nearly as strong as it is now. WE created that fear when we decided to bomb the hills of Afghanistan chasing a Bin Laden who was long gone and tucked into hiding before even considered our bomb brigade.
The WMD's of Sadaam were a lie, and president Obama's attempt to leave a residual force was rejected by a nation of people more afraid of US than the known evil's they have endured forever. In many ways, the terror of ISIS is par for the course in a nation that still remains accustomed to the iron fist of Hussein. Any person that would dare to lead Iraq at this dangerous time is a matyr waiting to be assassinated. In addition, their previous experience was most likely in leading a small village or city of people, not a nation of violent extreme's.
Republican presidential candidates are one by one tripping over the issue of ISIS and trying their best to blame someone or something other than themselves. Hillary is the ONLY candidate who nailed this answer to the wall by declaring that SHE got it wrong when it comes to Iraq, eliminating the ability to cross examine her on an issue in which the facts strongly support her answer.
The facts strongly support the recent comment of Rand Paul too, who has squarely placed the decision to invade Iraq (which is what ultimately created ISIS) in the hands of the GOP whom he described as war hawks who won't stop and measure the impact of such choices. This is truth that will not endear him to many of his own during this march towards whittling the growing field of republican presidential candidates. Millions of Americans are openly and silently applauding Paul for the courage of these words, but few of this crowd will help him win a republican primary.
Eventually, some of these revisionist politicians will be held to account for their cloudy view of history. The wrong answer on war- past present and future- will not disqualify you from running for president, but it could easily disqualify you from winning. American's may not be clear about what exactly to do about ISIS, however, we are certain that more of the same is a highly suspect answer to the question.
There is something to be said for politicians who understand the value of change and have the ability and humility to admit past failures with a clear vision, instead of wearing a clearly wrong decision as a badge of stubborn pride.
Well done Rand Paul. From a moral stance, you've done this nation proud. Too bad it won't garner you anything of political value.
If indeed there is a vital necessity for America, the land of freedom- home of the brave, our media is the vital conduit of the freedom we enjoy, a virtual mirror if you will.
Under president Bashar Al-Asaad, Syria was a mess
long before ISIS came to take over.
The value of the American media is its relentless pursuit of the truth. Even at the risk of death, western media culture- lead by the red, white and blue, is the watchdog to the world at large. In essence, freedoms hope stands at the listening side of the interview microphone.
Yet, on the other end of the recording stands a human being with all the natural frailty that every human experiences. Most people simply see the mic or camera as an opportunity to connect others or to connect ourselves with our world, but a sacred few recognize them as the mantle in which more wrong than right is likely when not handled with care.When any modern political leader finds them self at the wrong end of the microphone, the challenge of prudent rhetoric comes to fore.
Why Should We Share A Plan?
The most wise and lucid response to the matter called radical Islamic terrorism came when the man in tan said, "we don't have a plan..... yet". In reality, we still do not know the plan for what will become of Syria even as we fight to help the good guys of Iraq maintain all of the hard work we did when removing Sadaam Hussein. Longstanding unrest in Syria has opened the doors to ISIS fighters anxious to enact their Islamic social engineering plan on any middle eastern soil that they can acquire. Any plan for Syria will take years and multiple presidents to play out and will be dictated by the long-term will of those desperate for an Islamic state, not those hopeful to stop it. Millions of Muslims actually support the caliphate mission of ISIS (including 16% of citizens in France) even if they despise their methods of achieving it.
Syrian president Bashar Al-Asaad is a failed leader of a dangerous nation, but many other nations of the middle east came into existence with similar sectarian violence- Syria is just the poster child of such disarray. The fact that the face of radical terror found Syria suitable for caliphate building should have been quite predictable.
Can WE ever remove the stick?
America can (and should) find a way to encourage Iraq into accepting our long-term assistance against the forces of ISIS and against sectarian violence as a whole, lest they become an exact reflection of Syria. What that demands is a military presence that mirrors our presence in Germany, in which roughly 100,000 soldiers maintain a strong security prop, a prop that could increase given the unrest between Ukraine and Russia. New and evolving strategic locations in the world demand a necessary presence that America will simply have to come to grips with. Worldwide unrest demands an ongoing US presence in every strategic location that we can assume without inciting the kind of growth in radical response that will outweigh the value of our presence. Call it occupation or protecting our best interest if you must. The necessity of supporting the fight against terror may not force American boots to the ground, but it will force America to become the backbone of whatever boots assume the job. In other words, propped up armies must never have the stick pulled out too quickly.
President Obama has essentially sent this kind of American boots on the ground leadership to Iraq already, but he can't publicly emphasize their role or their clear and present danger if he hopes to remain the president who also brought our men home from Iraq. Even Afghanistan has a residual force (9,800 troops) left behind that most Americans are oblivious to. Two years remaining in office will be way too long to think that air strikes alone will allow this president to delay detailed actions in Iraq and Syria, so Obama must recognize that the microphones and cameras are circling around him, and a more specified plan must materialize.
What are you going to do about the beheading's? What about that burned pilot? How are you going to supplant ISIS and Asaad all at the same time? Why did you wear a tan suit to a press conference?
Does the media pressure politicians into
compromising America's security?
The right answer is often, "I don't know" or "we are still formulating a plan" because world problems and their questions evolve faster than solutions ever will. When WE become cursed by the need to find the one who has the answers, WE end up with a bunch of plan-less people who talk in circles until WE forget the original question. There may never be a publicly shared Syrian Plan because there are no good options that are pleasing to the ears, only several bad ones. Not one military general or political leader has a reasonable answer about Syria that won't send America right back into a REAL war again.
Maybe real war is the right answer (despite our war fatigue)?
Whether real war, fake (airstrike) war or NFL football, having a plan and telling your plan are prehistoric philosophies that only help to inform and incite an enemy that does not deserve advance notice. Since critics will criticize regardless of the detailed plan, detailing a plan only helps politicians to appear as if they have a plan to begin with. Once you actually accomplish your goals, the successful plan will reveal itself anyway, so detailing a plan often opens it up to criticism and failure. Thanks to the western media, whether its in our best interest or not WE say too damn much!
Strategic ignorance is calculated brilliance in disguise and can produce dividends in areas beyond a Superbowl pursuit. Marshawn Lynch and Bill Belichick can't be the only two people in the world smart enough to proceed carefully when in the presence of media, but modern politicians seem confused by the lessons of these grid iron greats. Politicians once wrote the book on how to be functionally vague, but its beginning to seem as though they've never read it. In a nation in which the next campaign begins when the last one ends, the once reasonable hope for international affairs free of political posturing is becoming a distant memory as unprepared politicians open their mouths to give answers long before they have even thought about the questions.
Christians who've closely read Gen 1:26-27 have had to
reconcile a connection between evolution and creation.
Politicians like Scott Walker (Gov. WIS) have traveled across the globe recently in an effort to convince voters in England to give a preliminary thumbs up to the next president of the United States of America, because they think step one for walking into the white house is acquiring the consent of the royals. More often than not, those rebellious royals are forcing would be presidents to fumble footballs slick with oil. Political football has always been a slick game in which the smart politician pre-cleans the balls and maintains a keen view of the sidelines to avoid running out of bounds. If Scott Walker had already prepared his nuanced view of evolution instead of convincing himself that a pro-God Governor of Wisconsin was being touted for his business acumen, he would have never needed to punt the 'evolution' football or to later rebutt and retweet a nuanced view. Being vague is okay, but today's media no longer allows political leaders to get away with punting the football, so you had better avoid or prepare yourself for the microphone and camera, mirrors that reflect regardless of pretense or punt.
Let Us Make Man In Our Own Image -Genesis 1:26
Humans are a reflection of our divine creation- of each other, and of society as a whole. Within the success and failures of this society that we've created for ourselves lies the hope for tomorrow. Sometimes life beats you down until your last best hope comes from another persons failure. By shoving microphones and cameras in the face of another, we can be entertained by their unlikely success or revel in the bruises that they get while tripping and falling on tape. Some of the players in this performance are on the quest for power while others actually derive power from the pain of someone else. Public disclosure does allow your pain to be my business, but at what point do WE compromise the quality of our existence for the right to be empowered? As we seek to expose and heal the depths of our own depravity, the cameras and mics have become a caustic mirror that WE are using to replay and continuously expose unhealed wounds.
Mirrors Are Good?
Mirrors are healthy for healthy people, but the sickest of human beings typically shun the mirror or destroy them altogether. WE should never stop using mirrors just because some people can't stand reflections, but we have to recognize that the faces the media hopes to expose with their mirrors are never totally someone else.
In the end, the only people WE can actually fix reside on the other side of the mirror.
This might be the last great speech of his presidency. Choose the correct suit and tie.
Barack Obama has a problem that will always be a disadvantage to him in the world of business and politics (a code word for business). Barack Obama is way too honest for his own good. His natural tendency is to thoughtfully consider his position and deliver his thoughts with passion. Passion is like blood to a vampire in the world of business and politics, and as non-political as international affairs used to be, they are highly political these days, and are a primary aspect of the office of the president.
Upon adding the title president to the name Obama, president Obama had to learn how to shun his passion and adopt his poker face. Even when you do no intend to bulldoze your enemies, business and politics demand that you maintain the threat. Barack Obama never had to learn that game in the world of community organizing, but he is learning its importance with every day in office. When you listen to president Obama stutter through his words, it is because he is at war with his passionate nature and the demand of political prowess. Poker players with too much passion get swallowed up by the dog eat dog nature of the game. Misspoken words in politics become bullets in the gun against you, so speaking slowly is smarter than speaking incorrectly.
President Obama is learning to slow down, but usually the day after he has already shown his entire hand. I may not be the best poker player in the world, but I recognize a player who can't hide his cards. Unless I am mistaken, is there another hand that Obama can possibly play? The do-nothing congress squeezed the Pentagon for a vision of the plan weeks ago. When president Obama finally took off that tan suit and started sharing preliminary details, it sounded just like the very suggestions that everybody in this war weary nation had already suggested; build a coalition of nations in the region to take the lead on the ground offensive and provide that coalition with surveillance, air strike support and weapons for the cause.
President Obama will declare that the same darn thing that we are doing in Iraq is what we will continue doing until it is no longer working. How far we travel into Syria will be Syria's decision in the final analysis.
So why the speech tonight?
Congress is obsessed with the pomp and circumstance of history, and historically, presidents used monumental speeches to educate a nation when limited technology demanded the formality. Radio, television and computers insure that we get up to the minute information about ISIS, and our overly passionate president has done the rest. Congress is full of disgruntled non-presidents who relish in the opportunity to force a sitting president to feed into their narcissism. Most in congress would rather not offer input on ISIS even as they insist on congressional permission. In reality, the president only needs congress for a military action that will last beyond 180 days. Finding out whether he intends to proceed with or without their permission is really the only reason to tune in tonight.
......and for the show of course.
President Barack Obama is stepping before America to perform for history sake. He might say something that very few people expected to hear, but I seriously doubt it. What is most important tonight is HOW he delivers his message to America. Polls have already shown over 70% support for airstrikes against ISIS, but the poll doesn't even ask about boots on the ground. WE are all more aware of the futility of long term war in the middle east, so even suggesting boots brings instant concern of mission creep. President Barack Obama is attempting to lead the way on how we deal with worldwide terrorism, and it all begins with his opening act performance tonight.
No one will care much about what he says, but critics will spend a day or more dissecting the manner in which tonight's speech gets delivered. Despite the heavy stake that a growing ISIS is to the entire world, defeating them comes with political points, and politics is serious business. President Obama's speech could be step one in the process of securing political power into the hands of Democrats concerned with losing the Senate (and maybe the White House) to Republicans. A dynamic speech and a successful military campaign against ISIS might actually excuse president Obama for pushing immigration down the road. Ruin tonight's speech and he'll need to put ISIS on the run just to repair the damage from talking about it wrong.
If you plan to watch this Superbowl (of sorts) in order to see the game, don't bother. It's been on display since we headed to Iraq, and there is nothing that we don't already know. Tonight is totally about the halftime show.
Honesty is clearly not the best policy when you are a maligned second term president. Neither is pimping a taupe suit.
Its All In The Scheme
I remember my days as a suit salesman. Guys like Barack Obama would often come in the shop asking for something that is more suited to their color scheme. Inside of every human being is a color scheme that spews from the pores of who you are. Hair color and skin tone play a significant role in determining what is your fashion focused color scheme. When I look at Barack Obama, the fashion plate, taupe (or tan if you must) is clearly a color that suits his color scheme.
Assad will need the US to address his ISIS crisis.
Maybe its just my background, but I appreciated the bright color and the open dialogue. President Obama spoke about a significant concern to American's that are focusing on the rapid advancement of the IS (Islamic State). At this point, calling them anything less is to glare upon this newly established terrorist nation with blurry glasses on. If the devastation that they've enacted upon Syria, and now in Iraq, is not a clear statement of their Jihadist (holy war) intention, then let this idea sink in a bit. We are soon to become allies with both Syria and Iraq in order to thwart this advancing enemy.
Just one year ago, Syria's president Bashaar Al Assad was being considered for crimes against humanity as his insistence on the use of chemical weapons inside of Syria could not be disregarded by the Obama administration or the world at large. With support from Putin (who is seen as a key surrogate to the Assad regime), the international community was able to forcibly remove Assad's chemical weapon cache, without a need for war. Misguided revisionist have questioned why Obama did not send troops to Syria then, unclear that those boots would have been against Assad and not with Assad against ISIS.
So forget about that suit and focus on the scheme. In the grand scheme of ideology towards terrorism, Obama has the right idea. Sharia Law does not offer much wiggle room in the eyes of the extremist'. The infidel's must be removed from the land by conversion or otherwise. Those who follow in this extreme expression of Islam, have made their intentions clearly stated. If you anger them into honesty, as FOX news analyst Sean Hannity achieved when interviewing London Imam Anjem Choudary, you will learn all that you need to discover about our sworn enemies.
Choudary, and those of his kind, simply do not see a place in this world for any alternative other than the worldwide Islamic state (typically called a caliphate). That is right. Extremist' do not believe in world wide religious freedom, but that someday we will be shrouded in Sharia Law as the overriding law of the world at large. This, they believe, is their promised prophecy according to the religions founder, Mohammed. How we transition from the world we live in to the one extremist' envision is exactly why ISIS represents such a significant concern.
Convert or Die
What do you do with an enemy that says you must convert or die? That is what we considered when America chose to intervene in Iraq recently. As it turns out, President Obama had his own flawed characterization of an imminent threat, similar to the one Bush used to usher America into Iraq the first time. No, he did not pretend that WMD's were the reason for our attack, but the trapped Yazidi people (Christian Kurds) in Iraq were originally reported at 40,000 people who risked death if not rescued from their mountain perch. It turned out to be several hundred people, but not nearly the volume estimated before the initial rescue mission began. US air strikes may have opened up supply lines to that mountain, but leaving was not part of the plan for some Yazidi's. Did he fluff the figures to justify his disregard of congress? Probably, but congress is proving to be more willing to let the president go it alone than Obama originally expected. mis-Calculations?
As the president spoke on this threat, he appeared to make a couple of significant miscalculations. The first was assumed to be that taupe suit he spoke in. The traditional blue or black suit that is common among politicians, had clearly been side stepped when president Obama walked out in that taupe number, but he made this suit choice amid an environment that has decided he is no longer fully engaged in his job. Nothing says disengagement like a fashion forward suit color, but did he also have to admit that he doesn't have a plan for Syria?
Which was the bigger error, the suit or the truth?
How do we storm into Syria with troops and not get stuck there forever? Is that a problem to be dealt with by some future president or should it matter that we find the doorway out long before we storm our way in? The plan for dealing with ISIS is one that should involve the entire world and should involve a lot of deep thinking. American's do not often buy into that waiting and planning concept, especially when concerned about an imminent threat. The ease at which we waged war in Iraq the first time proves that. However, the war weary and those ashamed of our last misstep might unwittingly allow this threat to reach our soil before addressing it.
If ISIS or Choudary get their way, we should expect to wage this war until the end of time, and WE shall always need an evolving policy to address the fervor of our evolving enemies. That is the truth, and its not really what most Americans care to hear. Much like that tan suit Obama wore, sometimes the choice you make will not be the one most people expect.
POSTSCRIPT:
As President Obama left the podium yesterday, he was called to comment on the immigration issue as protesters had gathered outside of the white house that day to push the issue of immigration further along. In definitive words, the president urged congress to create a comprehensive plan for immigration so that he doesn't have to do it himself. Listen to the man in tan because unpredictable people do love shock and awe.
While nearing the homestretch on a recent weed pulling session in my front yard, I came across an idea that seemed rather brilliant at the time, until I reexamined my discovery.
The conflict in the middle east is rooted in an aged old division between Muslims that occurred upon the death of the religions founding prophet, Mohammed. At the time, tradition stated that election was the means in which a successor should be elected (Sunni belief), whereas some (Shi'ites) believed that the successor should come from Mohammed's lineage. Today, those roots have evolved into a tangled web of conflict, as each side continues to force Muslim nations to declare an allegiance to one ideology or the other. Add the presence of Christian's and Jews in certain pockets of the middle east, and the entire scene is a powder keg constantly waiting to erupt.
Yet, it can be basically symbolized in the simply act of lawn care. Whether you choose the slow and marginally effective chemical approach, or you prefer the old fashion method of pulling them at the root, the goal is still the same. Rid the area of the undesirables. Often times both methods are employed, but the process demands diligence and persistence. Weeds are a life form that functions like all life forms; to preserve their future. Genocide is not a word that we consider when talking about lawn care, but to the weeds that are under attack, it is the essence of genocide.
The grass is often greener on the other side of the fence, but every lawn that appears to be free of weeds is simply an illusion. Weeds are a constant that requires weekly attention, lest they begin the inevitable journey of repopulating the region and eventually overtaking the land altogether. Those who call the middle east home, deal with this same constant evolution of time and space within their homelands. At different times, their space becomes occupied with undesirable elements that are difficult to look at each day without acting to eliminate them. To the Sunni, it may be the Shi'ite. To the Shi'ite, it might be the Christians or Jews ruining the landscape for everybody else. In the end, the issue is driven by individual perspectives of people who are much more alike than they are different. In other words, the entire middle east conflict is an illusion of distorted perspectives. One day the militant group you support becomes the oppressive regime that looks and behaves just like the weed you thought you'd removed and vice versa.
Michael Leiter, an American counter terrorism expert who served under both President's Bush and Obama, offered a perspective that bears consideration. While Leiter approved of the President's current actions in Iraq, he voiced the legitimate concerns of Obama's critics who ask how Obama can execute this "narrowly tailored mission and the (somewhat) broader regional concern of the tactical battle around Kurdistan, without addressing the broader conflict in the region?", said Leiter during and MSNBC interview. In expanding on the "broader conflict", Leiter especially noted how the future of Iraq will ultimately impact certain neighboring countries like Jordan, which will ultimately force the hand of the U.S. to act anyway. In hindsight, Leiter suggested that the U.S. presence in Iraq would have stiffened the spines of Iraqi's who ultimately must pave their own future. Leiter also noted that our continued presence might minimize the likelihood that the Sunni, Shi'ite conflict takes on a retaliatory behavior (weed pulling), as it often does once one side or the other assumes control.
The official press version of these matters only further complicates the nearly impossible response that America, and President Obama, must make. In Iraq, the failure might have been in leaving so abruptly and allowing outside factions, namely ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, based in Syria) to fill the power vacuum created in our absence. In principle, I stand with the President on the importance of pulling our troops from endlessly "pulling at weeds". In the final analysis, it would take a strong armed dictator (like Saddam Hussein) or unprecedented regional acceptance of the grass and the weeds and the flowers and the most peculiar plant, the Christian Kurds trapped on top of the mountain, to maintain peace in Iraq.
High atop a mountain in the Kurdistan region of Iraq are a nation of Christian Kurds that are being threatened with certain genocide if they don't receive aid to their mountain perch. Surrounded by ISIS militants, these Kurds are certain to be gunned down if they pursue safe passage from the mountain, so President Barack Obama has immediately moved to destroy the ISIS militants that are threatening these Kurds, and to insure humanitarian assistance gets to those people on that mountain before death overtakes them all. Air strikes and air drops are under way as we speak, and the Kurdish Peshmerga (the military group fighting to stave off ISIS) is receiving U.S.support towards their goal of defeating ISIS, the newest weed to invade Iraq.
So Why No Boots On The Ground?!
Is President Obama simply avoiding the obvious criticism that would come from returning boots to the very ground we abruptly left just a few years back? Maybe. I personally see Barack Obama as a new aged black conservative (much like Clinton...much like myself), who's nature is to actively express U.S. military strength as a means of maintaining peace at home and abroad. His intensive use of drones proves all that I need to know about his willingness to "go there" when necessary. According to former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, "This is not an issue of boots on the ground. The President has been using drone strikes in Yemen for years. Why can't we use them to disrupt ISIS?", said Ginsberg. Ginsberg admitted what Obama realizes as well. America, especially Congress, has no further taste for war. I personally celebrate this turn in rhetoric because I am a staunch advocate of the expansion of drone warfare. In fact, what other kind of warfare should one use against terrorism and militant groups who behave like terrorist? Terrorism doesn't utilize constraints, so neither should counter terrorism.
In a region struggling to determine who will chart the future of Iraq as a nation, ISIS might be seen as simply doing some weed pulling of their own. After all, this area already has too many religious factions vying for supreme control of Iraq, even if only for the sake of their own future. The notion of an American backed, Christian rooted faction of people having a viable stake in the discussion is peculiar for sure. In the process of war, the easiest way to avoid gaining an allegiance is to simply not need one, and ISIS does not appear to be pursuing the surrender, capture or allegiance of these Christian Kurds.
Syria absolutely has a stake in what becomes of Iraq, and they have placed their stake in ISIS. If ISIS wins, Syria insures a safer place for Syrian's. If ISIS loses, they become the new Hamas and Syria has to wonder if a pro Syrian regime will control Iraq, or will an anti-Syria (U.S. backed) Iraqi regime finally control what is ultimately one of the richest nations in the middle east in terms of natural resources. ISIS will greatly dictate Syria's future(which is why Syria is all-in) thus, the entire world must recognize the importance of destroying ISIS, the second coming of Hamas. These weeds are the kind that will not peacefully exist alongside good grass. They will destroy the grass until their is no more grass to be found, or surround a mountain until a nation of people die off from starvation.
What turned my brilliant "weed pulling" analogy into a trivial example of a much more complex problem was this revelation. All sides of this matter think that they are the grass and the other guy is the weed, and few seem willing to live alongside what they perceive as an eye sore. In America, grass and weeds live in segregated communities. Its a more humane form of intolerance that all civilizations come to grips with after they finish assigning power through civil war. Palestine and Hamas have little chance of winning their civil dispute with Israel, but must find a way to live and breathe, and grow in the same environment as Israeli's even after they establish a border region that they can call their own. There will never be an independent Palestinian economy, so there can never exist a truly distinct Palestinian nation. While not as dependent on the Palestinian nation, the same holds true from the Israeli perspective as well, but these are the revelations they shall both discover once the civil war has ended.
In essence, all of these nations are engaging in the very process we endured, and sometimes even genocide becomes a REAL part of the equation. When exiting Iraq, Obama seemed okay with admitting that sometimes civilizations have had to watch the futile attempts man makes at genocide of man, as a way of expressing his insistence on a complete withdrawal from Iraq. Now he says we can do something without sending troops back to Iraqi soil.
This whole song and dance reminds me of weed pulling.
If one stem or any seeds remain...the species survives.
Even when I thought I got every bit of the weed that seeded this failed brilliance, I stopped to notice that the plant had already flowered, and only one of the blossoms remained on this impressive weed that I skillfully extricated from my lawn. My vision of lawn domination started blowing in the wind because the seeds of this weeds future had long since journey'd on their way. Actually, getting at the root of the problem was no longer the key to conquering my quest for regional purity. I have to fight with a fair perspective on this war.
Eventually, some of these revisionist politicians will be held to account for their cloudy view of history. The wrong answer on war- past present and future- will not disqualify you from running for president, but it could easily disqualify you from winning. American's may not be clear about what exactly to do about ISIS, however, we are certain that more of the same is a highly suspect answer to the question.
