On Friday morning in an interview on Good Morning America, President Obama proclaimed to George Stephanopolous that ISIS was “contained.” He went on to state:
“I don’t think they’re gaining strength. From the start, our goal has been to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”
Mere hours later, tragedy struck in Paris as ISIS carried out terrorist attacks that killed at least 140 people. ISIS was not contained, but in fact very much alive and strong enough to decimate six different locations in France.
After Obama’s defenders wiped the egg off their faces, they claimed that Obama really meant that ISIS was “contained” in terms of territory. From where I am sitting, Paris is quite a bit outside of the Iraq/Syria region which maybe means the territory where they exert influence isn’t shrinking so quickly after all.
Meanwhile, [mc_name name=’Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’F000062′ ], the staunch Democrat Senator from California, doesn’t usually find much common ground with the Republican Party. She supported Barack Obama’s candidacy, supported his key piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, and even presided over his inauguration as the mistress of ceremonies.
That’s why it was surprising yesterday to see, of all people, [mc_name name=’Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’F000062′ ] deviating from Obama’s remarks on ISIS. Foreign policy is obviously an important component of what separates the two parties from each other, but in the wake of the Paris attacks, Feinstein and other Democrats finally understand what we are up against.
Feinstein disputed Obama’s remarks on Monday, expressing, “I’ve never been more concerned. I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding…We certainly need more than 50 special ops and we need the ability to really make a difference on the ground.”
Feinstein has always taken national security more seriously than almost all of her Democrat counterparts in the Senate, but her willingness to specifically single out one of Obama’s statements for disagreement is surprising, even though Obama is term limited. After all, none of the other Democrats have been willing to point out the obvious: that Obama has no clue what he is even talking about in the Middle East, much less what he is doing.
This is how bad it’s gotten. Obama is so out of touch with foreign policy, and how to best respond against terrorist attacks, that his top leaders are calling him out on the record to distance themselves from his opinion. To put this into perspective, Democrats aren’t yet disagreeing with Obama on Obamacare, even though the law remains terribly unpopular nationwide and promises to be a major source of Republican fundraising and attacks in 2016.
Even [mc_name name=’Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’F000062′ ], so liberal she brought the failed assault weapons ban to the Senate floor in 2013, has found common ground with Republicans by repudiating Obama and his failure to act on terroristic threats.
President Obama is so dangerously naïve about handling radical Islamic terrorists even his own party is contradicting him. But Democrats want us to trust the party who can’t seem to make up their minds whether or not ISIS is an actual threat to Americans?
Obama’s foreign policy, ladies and gentlemen: even more indefensible than Obamacare.
Even to a Democrat.