Why oh why is Obama so stubbornly ignorant?

Obama says no boots on the ground, despite sending some troops to Iraq to work with the Kurds. But he has said no ground combat troops, he made up his mind.

(9/17/14)

MR. EARNEST: I did not see the full context of Secretary Gates’s remarks. But with that caveat, let me say that the President has been clear about the need to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in Iraq and in Syria. What the President has ruled out are American servicemen and women being in a position where they are the ones that are responsible for engaging in combat operations against ISIL on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The President will not consider that option.

What the President will do, however, is ramp up the assistance that we’re providing to Iraqi security forces as they take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country. The President has said that he will deploy and has already ordered American airstrikes against ISIL targets in support of Iraqi security forces and their ground operations.

Obama is adamant. “Ruled out” is pretty strong.

General Dempsey said:

“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Islamic State] targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”

To rule them out on a case-by-case basis? But that’s is not the only issue.
Josh Earnest tells Ed Henry that the troops sent can defend themselves.

(9/18/14)

Q The last one on that point — in your exchange with Jon, if U.S. troops are forward deployed, as you say, alongside Iraqi troops, giving them tactical guidance, and these U.S. troops are fired upon by ISIS, are the U.S. troops to do nothing?

MR. EARNEST: U.S. troops will have rules of engagement; they always do when they enter a situation like this.

Q And what would those be? Will they fire back at them?

MR. EARNEST: Again, I’m not going to detail those rules of engagement. The Department of Defense can do that for you. But certainly the Commander-in-Chief would expect that the American troops do what is necessary to defend themselves. That would be –-

Q If they’re defending themselves and they’re firing back they’re in combat.

 

The last statement key. “Defending themselves.” They will have the means of defending themselves, only. So they obviously are only in a an defensive posture. Earnest added:

MR. EARNEST: Iraq is a very dangerous place and American military personnel will have the equipment they need to defend themselves. But what their role will be — and this is what’s real important for people to understand — their role will not be to roll across the border in a long line of tanks to occupy significant territory in Iraq. Their role will be to provide advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces who are taking the fight on the ground against ISIL. In some cases, that could mean being on the ground in forward-deployed locations to call in airstrikes –-

At least they’ll have the equipment they need to defend themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

Dempsey under the gun

Joint Chiefs Chairman Testifies He Was Not Directly Involved in Failure to Prepare for Benghazi Terror Attack

Dempsey says Joint Staff discussed pre-9/11 security with White House

BY: Bill Gertz | Free Beacon
October 11, 2013

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this week that he was not directly involved in preparations by the U.S. military and security forces to respond to possible attacks on the anniversary of the 9/11 terror strikes.

Dempsey told the House armed services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, which is investigating the failed military response to the terror attack in Benghazi, that Joint Staff officials coordinated with the White House on pre-Sept. 11 preparations, according to a congressional aide.

The closed-door testimony raised further questions among investigators looking into why the White House published a statement Sept. 10, 2012—a day before the Benghazi attack—that the United States was ready for any attacks, a committee aide said.

U.S. military forces were unable to defend or rescue scores of U.S. diplomatic and intelligence personnel who were attacked at a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby Central Intelligence Agency facility on Sept. 11, 2012.

The attack by several dozen armed terrorists, some equipped with mortars, killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. Several others were wounded.

Rep. Martha Roby (R., Ala.), chairman of the subcommittee, said she questioned Dempsey about the U.S. military posture during the hearing Thursday.

“General Dempsey confirmed that while he was not personally involved in that review, elements of the Joint Staff were,” Roby said in a statement. “His description of the process leads me to conclude that while it may have allowed the White House to issue a comforting press release, it was far from the rigorous examination and preparation the security of the American people deserved.”

Dempsey repeated earlier statements that no heroic action by the military could overcome “our lack of preparedness during the horrible Benghazi attack,” Roby said.

“We simply were not postured to respond in time,” she said. “I continue to be concerned that more than a year after the attack, our posture has not improved enough to sufficiently mitigate the risks to Americans serving overseas and in harm’s way.”

More> http://freebeacon.com/joint-chiefs-chairman-testifies-he-was-not-directly-involved-in-failure-to-prepare-for-benghazi-terror-attack/

Drip, drip, drip…. the ever-evolving, musical stories. It doesn’t add up. Which is it?
“Not personally involved in that review” — it got personal afterward, I suppose.