Posted on 08/16/2014 9:13:55 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Breitbart News: Is the current US strategy implemented by the Obama administration sufficient in containing the Islamic State?
West: No. We have no strategy toward the Islamists. Not in regard to the air, and not regarding anything else. We are drifting.
Breitbart News: Is the Islamic State the chief threat to US national security interests today?
West: We have four threats. The foremost threat is the fecklessness of our commander-in chief, who has allowed the other threats to fester and become worse. The second threat is Russia, with its arrogance upsetting the balance in eastern Europe. The Middle East is now driven by the Islamist Sunni barbarian threat in the Islamic State. This is coupled with the Shiite Iranian intention of becoming a threshold nuclear state. Lastly, China wants to push us out of at least half of the Pacific. We have an array of threats, as all presidents do. It is up to president Obama to manage these threats, and he is not managing any of them well.
Breitbart News: Does the Islamic State pose a greater threat than Al Qaeda in its prime?
West: Yes. We drove Al Qaeda into the wilds of Pakistan where it gradually lost influence. Not completely, but to a large extent. We are doing nothing about containing this new Al Qaeda-type threat, which is strongest in the heart of the Middle East. The Islamic State is a major problem only because we are tolerating it
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
” We are drifting. “
No. We are being ‘gently shoved’.
Gently? You call this gentle? We’re being spaced, shoved out an airlock with no suit.
We need to elect a president who will not take guff from anyone.
Someone kills Americans and we kill them back times ten.
We need a president who isn’t afraid to actually nuke someone.
Someone of Truman or Eisenhower caliber perhaps. Nuke ‘em or roust ‘em, and damned the consequences, as long as the Americans come out ahead.
That’s how you put your country first, and everybody else is just the runner-up.
Reagan would have had enough sense not to invade Iraq in the first place. Any sub-level analyst could see this coming. Take away one of two natural enemies and ... kaboom.
“We need to elect a president who will not take guff from anyone.
Someone kills Americans and we kill them back times ten.
We need a president who isn’t afraid to actually nuke someone.”
I think Trey Gowdy would fit the bill nicely.
Yep Reagan wouldn’t have invaded in the first place. But if he was given the situation, it wouldn’t be that we would read about ISIS atrocities and then 2 days later US action. We would read about US action to stop ISIS thugs inside Syria before they crossed the border or right at the border. Like we wake up and Grenada is free of communists before we even knew the communists were there.
Here is another distinction. I think Reagan would say “as I address you attacks are underway” The Hero of Benghazi says we WILL. He is in fact warning the terrorists.
A young bin Laden saw the U.S. running away after the Hezbollah truck bomb and figured he could attack America. Also, Reagan’s saving of the PLO’s @$$ when then Premier Begin tried to get rid of them was simply appaling considering the so-called fight against terrorism he supposedly supported.
Thank you for defending those who were never defended.
My blood pressure goes through the roof at the mention of what his response would be today.
Did he ever write about it later?
“Shoved” as in having been sliced into an uncontrollable power dive...but a “mulligan” on his card,
Like he did in Lebanon?
“Gently? You call this gentle? “
Uh, notice how I phrased it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.