"Implied?" Seriously?
Look, I support many of the Presidents policies that I think are getting unfairly criticized. That doesn't mean that everything that he says is anything that I have said or defended. If you want to criticize me, then quote my comments and try to get it right.
Amazing. You completely ignore that the circumstances have changed dramatically and he has taken action in the past. Its the same old "everything Obama does is wrong" mantra. That hasn't flown in a long time .
Then you forgot that Hillary is NOT his Secretary of State, but a Presidential candidate. He has many senior advisors with many different opinions which he weighs when making decisions. His Secretary of State agrees with him.
Hell, I'll quote them . . . "After years of claiming AQ has been destroyed and ISIS is the JV and that W's war authorization was not right, he has reversed himself. Now he is twisting his past words, actions and claims." -- Winston1
Sounds like criticisms to me.
And since you have already criticized me for it, I will address them now.
1. When has Obama claimed that Al Qaeda was destroyed? He didn't. He said that Al Qaeda has been decimated, which is true. Look up decimated, it does not mean destroyed.
2. When has Obama said that ISIS is the JV? He didn't. Here is what he said.
Remnick: "In Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent."
Obama: "Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian."
In context, it is quite clear that he is discussing many groups engaged in local jihads versus Al Qaeda who has actually attacked the homeland.
3. "W's war authorization was not right"? This is confusing. What Obama quote are you referring to?
Not one middle eastern country contributed combat troops to the Iraq War in 2003. It had worked in 1991 because it was an invasion by an ambitious Arab country against a peaceful Arab country. It failed in 2003 because it was the US invading an secular Arab country. This time it is about an radical religious sect waging insurgencies against two Arab countries. It is far more complex because of the radical religious jihadist element and because two very different countries are involved--one an ally, the other an enemy. It will likely take more time than in 1991 to sort out the politics and get Arab troops involved as in 1991.
On this we can agree.