Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mika Brzezinski probes Obama: Wasn’t al-Qaeda supposed to be ‘decimated?’

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

President Barack Obama took some tough questions from a betrayed Mika Brzezinski in an interview broadcast Monday morning.


Mika Brzezinski probes Obama: Wasn’t al-Qaeda supposed to be ‘decimated?’


The president began by defending his decision to withdraw entirely from Iraq – a move he said was not his decision but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s as recently as Friday. “Unless we are prepared to stay indefinitely in all these various countries, something that we can’t afford and would involve over time accusations that we were occupying these countries, at some stage they’re going to have to take responsibility for working together,” the president said


Obama insists he is merely hostage to events in the Middle East

Hostage ?

HOSTAGE ?

It WAS Obama who decided to cut, and run from Iraq.

No wait that was Bush's fault.



It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[


Blame Bush

But no wait Iraq was Obama's 'greatest achievement' !

Joe Biden update: Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements'

Alrightie too confusing what way is it ?

Back to the article:



The MSNBC host then asked the president why virtually all of the promises and pronouncements he made regarding his administration’s success in prosecuting the war on terror and eliminating the threat posed by al-Qaeda and insurgent forces in Iraq are proving to be wrong.


Are my eye's deceiving me ?

MSNBC went there ?

Gasp a real question from them.



“You said that the war was ended in Iraq,” she said. “You said al-Qaeda was decimated. You said it was stable.”


I remember!

GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead!



It was,” Obama replied. “But just because something is stable two years ago or four years ago doesn’t mean that it’s stable right now.”


Wait what ?

It was 'stable' when he got in to office. HE KNEW that it 'might not' be in the future.

But made NO EFFORTS to ensure that 'hard work' was all for naught.

But Obama is just a 'victim' here.

Ok then.

Yeah he is a victim of his own incompetence.

What's gotten in to MSNBC ?

That thrill left their legs ?
edit on 24-6-2014 by neo96 because: fixed link




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Decimated wouldn't be good anyway. That means that only one tenth of the threat would have been eliminated.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I just want to be part of this thread.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Obama saying he is a hostage to the situation makes perfect sense, he became president while we were in the middle of two wars, which he himself did not start. He inherited them, he didn't start them. He IS a hostage to the situation, there is nothing incorrect about that, but the part he left out is that he is a WILLING hostage. He ran for president, it was his choice knowing full well we were involved in two wars. In that respect, he has no reason to complain. He knew what the job was before taking it.

I loathe the man, but please, can we stick to real issues and not fabricate superficial ones? It really, really hurts the "movement for reason" when people get all emotional and twist other people's words. Be righteous in your attack of the unrighteous, otherwise there is no point.

As another poster pointed out, decimated simply means a reduction of 10%. Not really that significant. Whether Obama's intention was to use the word literally, or the invoke the meaning a lot of people think when they hear "decimated" his description is accurate. People need to learn the true meaning of words, it's not Obama's fault everyone thinks decimated means total destruction. Just like "awesome" isn't supposed to be a positive or negative word, but today everyone thinks "awesome" means good, and if someone says "the destruction was awesome" people would get their panties in a twist because they don't know what the word means.

I'm not saying Obama wasn't trying to mislead people, I'm saying we need to take personal responsibility AND STOP BEING SO EASY TO TRICK AND MISLEAD. It's just like jedi mind tricks, they only work on the weak minded.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Funny how the Sunnis fighting to get their land that was stolen from them back and it is all terrorism.

Funny how it is Al Qaeda doing all these things too.

Funny how Al Qaeda never pops up where there are NO corporate interests.

Funny, funny, funny.

What would the wold be like with Emmanuel Goldstein, I mean Al Qaeda?

TPTB would just manufacture another hobgoblin and the gullible would believe that was the threat to the American way of life.


There is an Al Qaeda, it is the rich guys in suits who are reaping the profits while our children and other countries bear the risk/injuries.

Derek



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The hell with Obama….I am a progressive but we have to tell the truth.
He is a vapid, incompetent with no depth of character or knowledge.

It was only a matter of time when his incompetence and ignorance would affect the world as it has with this ISIL fiasco.

Good for MSNBC in not being a lad dog for this dog!



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
Decimated wouldn't be good anyway. That means that only one tenth of the threat would have been eliminated.


I do love that someone in this thread knew this.

Of course, that's now only a historic meaning of the word.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982




Obama saying he is a hostage to the situation makes perfect sense


No it doesn't.

What it is ?

Is another in a LONG list of playing the victim card he has so famously has been playing since day 1.

He wanted the job.

He ran for the job.

He got the job.

He 'inherited' NOTHING.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The whole premise is that Isis is some kind of error. Isis is entierly a Nato design. They cant send in regular troops to quench resistance in Iraq and to destroy syria, because they are tired of being jerked around and so is their enviroment. Assuming 1 million soldiers, each having a family of 8 thats 8 million people tired of being jerked around.

So what do you do? You fund your own secret army eager to fight for Islam.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: James1982




Obama saying he is a hostage to the situation makes perfect sense


No it doesn't.

What it is ?

Is another in a LONG list of playing the victim card he has so famously has been playing since day 1.

He wanted the job.

He ran for the job.

He got the job.

He 'inherited' NOTHING.


Your post says basically exactly what mine did, he wanted the job knowing what that means. That doesn't mean he didn't inherit it. If I marry someone with a ton of debt, knowing full well they have that debt, I'm still "inheriting" that debt regardless of my choice in the matter. Obama inherited the debt of a war, his knowledge of it beforehand doesn't change anything. What word would you describe taking on a responsibility that exists because of someone else's choice?

I'm not implying he is a victim, nor am I denying he tries to play one. It seems like you don't want to admit he inherited the problem because then it would make him a victim, but inheriting an issue does not make someone a victim unless it's against their will, and it was not against Obama's will to become president. Don't worry, he can still be a bad guy even if he didn't start the wars, his whole presidency has proven this.

You have every right to be angry about Obama, but your focusing too much on language, because his is accurate. It's just the trick that people don't hear what is actually being said.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda


So what do you do? You fund your own secret army eager to fight for Islam.


Islam is not a unified group of people, it seems a large number of people don't get that. There is no "us against them" in their minds. To them, it's "Us against EVERYBODY who isn't us" And their definition of "us" is far more specific than simply following islam.

They want to destroy fellow muslims just as strongly, if not stronger in some situations, than they want to destroy the west, or christians, or whatever else. Until you realize that you'll never escape from your "the west controls everything" mentality.

Why don't you harbor suspicion that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS, since ISIS is working totally in the interests of SA at this point? Because nobody other than Americans are good enough to be tricky, conniving, sneaky, and smart?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Iraq is a sovereign nation. Is internal security is its own concern.

Why the push for perpetual war and oppression of foreign countries neo?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok




Why the push for perpetual war and oppression of foreign countries neo?


Where the hell did that come from ?

WHERE ?




Iraq is a sovereign nation. Is internal security is its own concern.


Tell that to all the foreign fighters In Iraq at the moment.

Then go tell that to those foreign countries who are backing both sides.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

And do you know who's problem it isn't? Ours!

The United States exacerbates extremists by being occupiers, going in and never leaving. Iraq has to stand on its own two feet. It has to deal with its own problems.

If the people of Iraq want to be free from these people they have to deal with them themselves.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
What the hell does Al-Qaeda have to do with Iraq? Granted a few groups there used to use the name as well but, the groups are not connected.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Yes, he inherited it by choice, promising to fix it. It was going to be OK, because he was supposedly the best man for the job.
But, I guess free healthcare is more important to a majority of voters.

No matter how f'd up the situation was, the job description is to competently handle it and protect our interests as well as what we have invested in the situation already. He promised to make it better than Romney could.

I suspect our next president will be blaming Obama for his/her whole first term. And most likely make the situation even worse than Obama did. If Hillary had any brains she would bow out and take her $100M and have a very nice retirement.
And we are at the mercy of the next useful idiot, with so many problems foreign and domestic that we will be subjected to one hairbrained social experiment after the next. Fix healthcare, fix the VA, fix immigration, fix your wages, fix the roads, fix the guns, fix the IRS, fix the economy, fix the environment, Blah blah blah

Unless this is by design and the excuses are just cover, which seems to me to be kind of irresponsible because who can accurately predict what the other players who will inevitably be involved will do. A big sunni vs shia conflict could go either way regarding our interests - whether intended to encumber our adversaries in it, or it's a way to get rid of Iran is anyone's guess. But at this point it does not look good.
edit on 24-6-2014 by supamang because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: James1982




Obama saying he is a hostage to the situation makes perfect sense


No it doesn't.

What it is ?

Is another in a LONG list of playing the victim card he has so famously has been playing since day 1.

He wanted the job.

He ran for the job.

He got the job.

He 'inherited' NOTHING.


well, he just found out he's been in charge of iraq for 6 yrs from fox news.




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
What the hell does Al-Qaeda have to do with Iraq? Granted a few groups there used to use the name as well but, the groups are not connected.


OMG

Really ?

Not 'connected'.




he resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


en.wikipedia.org...



The group in its original form was composed of and supported by a variety of insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations, the Mujahideen Shura Council, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the insurgent groups Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba, Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah and Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, and a number of Iraqi tribes that profess Sunni Islam





In October 2004, the group's then leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden. Al-Zarqawi then changed the name of the group to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" (TQJBR), more commonly translated as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).[47][not in citation given][48][not in citation given] Although the organization has never used the name "Al-Qaeda in Iraq"' to refer to itself, the name has frequently been used to describe the group through its various incarnations.[6


en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah they are connected.

As Al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to OBL.
edit on 24-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: James1982




Obama saying he is a hostage to the situation makes perfect sense


No it doesn't.

What it is ?

Is another in a LONG list of playing the victim card he has so famously has been playing since day 1.

He wanted the job.

He ran for the job.

He got the job.

He 'inherited' NOTHING.


For the person that doesn't own a dictionary.
in·her·it
inˈherit/
verb
receive or be left with (a situation, object, etc.) from a predecessor or former owner.
Looks like by the definition of the word he did inherit two wars.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Another interviewer who needs to have a dictionary nailed to her head. 'Decimate' does not mean destroyed. It means 'one in ten'.
Sorry, but I hate it when that word is misused.






top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join