Robert Rich
As each day goes on, Americans are believing more and more that
President Barack Obama is sympathetic towards the Islamic State (ISIS/
Daesh).
In a bombshell interview, Obama’s former Deputy Director of the
CIA exposed the “actual” reason he’s been giving terrorists a free pass
for months now – and its utterly pathetic.
As has been made clear over the years, Obama’s biggest strategy when
it comes to the Islamic State has been to avoid and ignore. As ISIS
continues to spread terror throughout the world – despite Obama’s best
efforts to argue that the terrorist organization is “contained” – it
seems that other world leaders have felt the need to step up where our
American president has not.
With Russia most recently ramping up efforts to eliminate the threat
once and for all, questions have been raised regarding Obama’s tactics.
Seeing how a great deal of money has been raised by ISIS – $1 million a
day according to some reports – the world is now wondering why Obama
hasn’t been bombing oil fields and tankers all along.
Seeing how he’s been flying the planes above ISIS for months now, it
seems like it wouldn’t have taken much more effort to drop a few bombs,
right?
Well, for those wondering why that hasn’t been done up until now, it
seems that we’ve just recently gotten a few answers. In an interview,
former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell states that Obama
didn’t blow up oil fields because of environmental concerns.
Appearing on PBS’s
Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Morell explained:
“Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that … look, we don’t
want to destroy these oil tankers because that’s infrastructure that’s
going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn’t there
anymore, and it’s going to create environmental damage. And we didn’t go
after oil wells — actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because
we didn’t want to do environmental damage and we didn’t want to destroy
that infrastructure, right.”
What he was saying here is that those oil fields were part of the
infrastructure needed to sustain a society. Whenever they get around to
defeating ISIS, they will need that oil for the civilians who will
remain, so it couldn’t be destroyed – but there’s a serious flaw in this
argument. You have to actually be fighting with the intent of
eliminating a foe in order to defeat them. As that clearly doesn’t seem
to be the case here, we’re going to go ahead and call bologna on this
one.
Secondly, the people are fleeing the area and our administration is
encouraging it by taking in refugees. They are not staying their to
fight for their country. Who’s going to be left if ISIS does end up
wiped out?
Lastly, they argue that there were environmental concerns – I
mean, do we even really have to say how ridiculous this is. With
everything these people are doing to their own countries and the fact
that we’re dropping bombs just about everywhere, do you think that the
environment is really a concern outside of some poor attempt to excuse
their lack of action?
Well, apparently that’s what Obama would have you believe. “So now
we’re hitting oil in trucks,” Morell then suggested. “And maybe you get
to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are
the kind of tough decisions you have to make.”
In essence here, now that their initial tactic didn’t work,
they’ve been “forced” to harm the environment and potential future
infrastructure of a future society that doesn’t exist. Interesting
argument, right?
Obama and his moronic cohorts are embarrassed that they’re
doing nothing while other nations are leading the way on this. The
American people are calling out the administration for their mediocre
performance, and it’s not looking good.
I have to wonder what is the purpose of an excuse when
you’re not going to change your strategy? It’s like offering a “sorry,
not sorry” apology. Then again, this kind of nonsense is exactly what
we’ve come to expect from Obama’s zero-accountability administration.
Comments
Post a Comment