From Mad World: 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.