Readers at this site already know my thoughts this subject, but I will state my contention one more time for the sake of emphasis: The only people who are happy with Barack Obama’s handling of terrorism are terrorists. Apparently a lot of people agree with me. A new poll taken by CNN bears out my contention. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. Even the network some call the “Communist News Network” is down on Obama. Before getting into the actual numbers revealed by this poll, it is worth emphasizing that the research in question was conducted not by Fox News or an independent polling organization but by CNN—a leftwing news network that has been among Barack Obama’s most vocal supporters, apologists, and advocates. Frankly, had the poll been taken by a more objective organization I suspect the numbers would have been worst—at least for Barack Obama.
So what did the CNN poll reveal about what Americans think of President Obama’s handling of terrorism? The poll showed that 57 percent disapprove of how the president is handling ISIS and 54 percent disapprove of how he is handling terrorism in general. On one hand, that’s a lot of people who disapprove of the president’s leadership in this critical area. On the other hand, who in the world are the 40 or so percent who approve of this president’s hesitant, bungling, inept handling of the terrorist threat? Think about it. If you approve of Obama’s handling of terrorism, you must think it is acceptable for ISIS to behead those they capture—including innocent civilians who aren’t even part of the conflict—and burn alive those who oppose them in battle.
The poll is recent so I thought perhaps the 40 plus percent who approve of the president’s handling of terrorism were influenced by his request to Congress to use military force to combat the advances ISIS has made since he mishandled our exit from Iraq. On the surface, the request makes it appear that President Obama has finally caught on to the threat and wants to take decisive action to combat it. Somehow I doubt this is the case. With this president, things are rarely what they appear to be on the surface. Consequently, unless those who think Barack Obama is doing a good job in handling terrorism are just blindly loyal to him, they must be living under a rock (or they approve of terrorism).
What those of us who disapprove of the president’s handling of terrorism know that those who support him don’t—or refuse to accept—is that his request to Congress is just a belated political response that has been forced on Obama by a world looking to America for leadership. Frankly, the president’s request is an admission that he has mishandled the ISIS threat from the outset and is still mishandling it. Consider Obama’s response to terrorism in general going back to the beginning of his first term as president. From the outset, President Obama has refused to even acknowledge that America is at war with terrorists who seek our total destruction. Instead he has laughingly tried to convince the American public that the threat from “armed insurgents”—he still avoids using the term Muslim terrorists—is real. Even while convening a 60 nation conference on terrorism, the president insisted that the threat terrorist groups pose to America is exaggerated.
Perhaps one of the reasons Barack Obama refuses to call ISIS what it is—a terrorist organization bent on the total destruction of the Jewish and Christian worlds—is that it was his inept handling of America’s exit from Iraq that enabled ISIS to grow from an acorn to an oak in the first place. In precipitously pulling our forces out of Iraq, Obama claimed on national television that terrorism was on the run. The reader might recall that President Obama’s initial response to the ISIS threat was to label the group irrelevant. He called ISIS the “junior varsity.” In fact, he is so unconcerned about terrorism that he couldn’t even be bothered to tear himself away from a ballgame long enough to represent the United States at the march for peace in Paris following the terrorist attacks on the staff of Charlie Hebdo. To Obama those attacks weren’t terrorism, they were workplace violence and the Jewish citizens who were singled out for slaughter in Paris were, according to Obama, just a “bunch of folks” who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Another reason so many people disapprove of Obama’s handling of terrorism is that—in point of fact—he isn’t handling it. ISIS and other terrorist groups are in the driver’s seat. The rest of the world is just reacting, and Obama isn’t even doing that. Instead he continues to deny there is even a problem. Recall that when the president announced the onset of bombing attacks on ISIS, he stated emphatically that there would be no “boots on the ground.” People who actually know something about military operations—unlike Valerie Jarrett and the few other political hacks Obama listens to—counseled the president that a group like ISIS could not be ferreted out and destroyed without boots on the ground, but he would not listen. He was told that as soon as the bombing campaign began to have an effect ISIS would disperse its fighters and mingle with the Syrian and Iraqi populations, thereby making it impossible to use bombs to stop them. Again, the president refused to listen.
The warnings given President Obama by military advisors have turned out to be prescient. ISIS has mixed in with the civilian populations rendering our bombing campaign ineffective. Now in his request to Congress for authority to step up the military response to ISIS, the president has asked for permission to put boots on the ground. However, he is still insisting on the smallest possible footprint—just a few Special Forces units who will train Iraqis to defend themselves. Once again those who understand military operations have tried to tell the president that when you go into battle there is only one acceptable approach: go in with overwhelming force. Inserting a few Special Forces or small Marine units in dribs and drabs will do no good, and training Iraqis is a waste of time. We have already seen what kind of fighters they are.
Americans have no confidence in Barack Obama’s handling of the terrorism threat. In the eyes of most he is a modern-day Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. But the rest of the world, including the Islamic nations, are beginning to wake up to the threat posed by ISIS and other terror groups that feel compelled to prove their street cred by outdoing ISIS in conducting barbaric attacks. The President of the United State is supposed to be the leader of the free world. As France, Great Britain, Egypt, and Jordan have now learned, the current president cannot even lead his own country much less the rest of the free world. In fact, had Barack Obama been president at the beginning of World War II, he would have claimed the that Nazis were just a junior varsity team and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a case of workplace violence. Obviously terrorist groups throughout the world have a good friend in high places.