Analyst's note:  Obama’s incoherent foreign policy and political decisions designed to minimize our United States on the world stage has brought this great nation to the point of being “neither respected nor feared.”  In fact, Mr. Obama continues to replenish our enemy during time of war and has helped infiltrate our national infrastructure to include our Pentagon, DoD, DHS, FBI and other elements of our government with a "Trojan Horse" known as the Muslim Brotherhood  members and provides them with ‘high security clearance’ positions . Obama released the “Next Bin Laden” NOW terrorizing Iraq with the implementation of sharia law.  This is the same Islamist jihadist has Promised to See us Again in New York. 

Mr. Obama is helping this same Islamist enemy work toward fulfilling their mission of creating a global caliphate.as he Arms Both Sides Of Current Iraqi Conflict and is likely even as you read this negotiating with Iran.  This is the same Iranian government that is helping prepare the world for the return of the Mahdi or 12th Imam.  You say you've never heard of the Madi or 12th Imam? Then  I simply can not recommend strongly enough that you read "Shariah, the Threat to America: An exercise in competitive analysis, Report of Team 'B'" II.

Also see Corruption as the children are crying! and White House reportedly considers sending special forces troops to Iraq.  We see that Obama Announces That He is Sending 275 U.S. Troops to Baghdad as Iraq Conflict Escalates.  Clearly it is time for Convincing the American People to Support the Impeachment of Barack Obama.

CHILLING VIDEOs: ISIS Executions, ISIS Shakir Wahiyib sentences three truck drivers traveling through Iraq to death

******

Now that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has taken Mosul and Tikrit and has set its sights on Baghdad, Barack Obama has responded with a strong statement – and in doing so, revealed the deep contradictions in and incoherence of his entire foreign policy.

3. U.S. troops in Iraq vs. no U.S. troops in Iraq

Obama declared Thursday: “Iraq’s gonna need more help. It’s gonna need more help from us, and it’s gonna need more help from the international community. So my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. I don’t rule out anything, because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter.”

Immediately after saying that he was not ruling out anything, however, Obama seemed to rule out U.S. military intervention in Iraq: “We’re not gonna be able to be everywhere all the time. But what we can do is to make sure that we are consistently helping to finance, train, advise military forces with partner countries, including Iraq, that have the capacity to maintain their own security.”

The great man then reminded us that this would not be an instant fix: “And that is a long and laborious process, but it’s one that we need to get started. That’s part of what the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund that I’m going to be calling for Congress to help finance is all about: giving us the capacity to extend our reach without sending U.S. troops to play whack-a-mole wherever there ends up being a problem in a particular country. That’s gonna be more effective, it’s gonna be more legitimate in the eyes of people in the region as well as the international community, but it’s going to take time to build it. In the short term, we have to deal with what clearly is an emergency situation in Iraq.”

So apparently the solution to the problem in Iraq would be the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, but that would take a long time to develop, and in the meantime, we would have to deal with the emergency there, and he wasn’t ruling anything out to deal with that – except the use of U.S. troops, who can’t be everywhere. He thus deftly managed a complete non-elucidation of the question of whether he was actually ruling out direct military intervention in Iraq.

2. “Jihadists”? What?

In referring to the fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria as “jihadists,” Obama broke with his own administration’s policy. CIA chief John Brennan said in 2010 that Islamic jihadists were not Islamic jihadists: “They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing — absolutely nothing — holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

This was not just Brennan’s opinion: in October 2011, the Obama administration placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists, overseeing the scrubbing of all counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism. At that time, Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

But if the people who just took Mosul are indeed engaged in an Islamic jihad, then Islam is at least arguably “a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence.” In this, of course, Obama fell into the chasm between his fantasy-based counter-terror policy and what is obvious and manifest reality: he knows that the warriors of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are jihadists, and in an unguarded moment, said so – thereby demonstrating the incoherence of his own position on this question.