Anybody!"

Egomaniacal politicians get locked into their egomaniacal
certainties about what other people should do. There's little
self-awareness, flexibility, humility, openness to learn.

I prefer the judgement of this president, who understands
what "Don't do stupid stuff" actually means, and strives
to live it personally and professionally.

If you never do anything, you never make mistakes.


I teach high school. I have kids who do nothing or precious little because they're afraid of doing something stupid. In avoiding anything that could be stupid, they necessarily avoid doing much. You never what what's going to turn out stupid, unless you're omniscient.

Obama is not omniscient. His adherents may like to think so, so vast is the gulf between him and them, that they sometimes fail to notice this. It's easy to figure out what "Don't do stupid stuff" means. The problem is, if you ask a bunch of people what that actual entails in terms of policy, in terms of action, you're going to get a bunch of different opinions. It lacks explicitness, clarity, and is rife with ambiguity and imprecision. It is not a SMART goal; in fact, it explicitly says that there are no goals, and no direction in which he wants to move.

"Is the country heading in the right direction?" is answered near the end by "Direction? Who took the direction? What's a direction?" I crunge.

Stuff keeps coming up. Extraordinarily difficult challenges.
Who thinks Obama is omniscient?

IMO, it's best to keep the IS barbarian looters wondering when they're going to get the smack down & what country its coming from.

I do wish Congress would step-up and change the travel laws, anyone fighting with IS is not welcome back to the USA. Congress needs to take some kind of action, make suggestions- instead of their constant nagging the President. Congress is useless, they wait for a 'told you so' moment.

Are we talking about the interests of corporations? Are we talking about some sort of "R2P" interests that Susan Rice is whispering in one ear while Samantha Power is whispering it in the other? Ar we talking about military interests that Grumman and Loockheed are talking to him about? Are we taliking about oil interests?

Do you really think that if a US citizen wants to cme back and Congress tells him he can't that he is going to say, "Oh shit" and stay in Syria? Fat chance. He is going to find a way to come back. Do you really think that if he does come back with a bomb in his pocket, backpack or undershorts that this nation is going to be seriously harmed? Get real.

Yes, maybe it will be your pants he stuffs the bomb in, but the odds are about 300,000,000 to 1 against it. We need to get a sense of proportion in this country.

Congress doesn't have to make the 'don't come back' retroactive. You can count on it that some yahoo who wants to go shooting and looting with some band of barbarians will think twice when he knows he can't come back.

Like any politician, Obama's interest is making sure that his political party stays in power and that donors are lined up to provide the money to make that happen. That means he needs to keep all of the moneyed interests happy.

With millions of illegal immigrants entering this country each year, what is going to prevent that citizen whose passport has been revoked from returning any time he wants to? Is Congress going to be standing at the border with a picture of him in hand, scruitinizing each illegal who crosses to be sure it isn't someone who they said is banned?

as they relate to foreign policy. You or I might disagree with him over the specific content of "U.S. interests", but that's a different question.

Ensuring access to supplies of oil is positively one of our "national interests". Grumman and Lockheed are major suppliers of equipment and technology for our armed forces so they are indirectly one of our "national interests". Major corporations are responsible for technological innovations, significant numbers of jobs, and a large part of the U.S. economy so they too are part of our "national interest".

Our interest, and the interest of all sane nations, in containing ISIL are self-apparent. They are offensive to any sense of decency no matter what your cultural or political background may be.

No one, I'll wager, believes that the risk of a terrorist attack can be reduced to zero. Many people, however, believe that the risk can be lessened by denying ISIL and other terrorist groups stable, "safe-havens" from which to operate.

The attack of 9/11 was planned in Hamburg, Germany. Training was done in San Diego, California and in Ft. Lauderdate, Florida.

The "safe haven" argument is a myth, much the same as the "domino theory" used to justify Korea and Vietnam. The only one in the "safe haven" of Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden and his only role was to provide money, which he did through Saudi Arabian banking systems. He was gone from Afghanistan within two months after we invaded that country, and we have been wasting out blood and treasure in an exercise in futility for 12 years since he left.

The Islamic State's biggest threat to us is that it presents another opportunity to waste our blood and treasure in another wasteland to no good purpose other than to enrich arms manufacturers and war profiteers.

SOME of the training was done in San Diego. The formative discussions and planning were done in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden did much more than provide money. He participated in formative discussions and helped shape important decisions about participants, targets, and timing. One of us has an inaccurate understanding of the events.

It's fine to argue that the United States should not become involved in any material way with stopping ISIL from subjugating the people across the whole of Iraq and into Syria. But the arguments for disengagement you're presenting here are not likely to convince many people, I think.

You propose that if ISIL were to gain control over most or all of the the territory of Iraq it would not pose a threat to the security of the U.S. or it's allies sufficient to justify actions to prevent that from happening.

You propose that the cost of intervention is greater than the risk of non-intervention.

And you propose that the only purpose for intervention is to "enrich arms manufacturers and war profiteers."

Few people share your estimation of the consequences (or lack thereof) of ISIL succeeding in its aspirations. From Tehran to Berlin to Ankara and Ottawa many people are gravely concerned over both the immediate consequences of ISIL's advance in terms of death, suffering, and oppression, and over the long term prospects.

But, no one knows the future. It's all about expectations.

In any event, the US will continue to strike ISIL when it can, if for no other reason than to not see our embassy in Baghdad overrun and every last "gain" in Iraq erased.

this whole fiasco started. I'm for the humanitarian assist for now, until the Arab states and our allies have something to add. Too many of our troops gave their all for Cheney and Bush. Stay with your ideas, Barack!

I think Obama relies heavily on covert action and we'll know the whole truth about his style later.