The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Analysis of speech
Part 1 of 6

Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”

Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.


The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 10, 2014

Statement by the President on ISIL1

My fellow Americans, tonight I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL. As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people.2 Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq,3 and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain.4 And one of those groups is ISIL – which calls itself the “Islamic State.”


1 This is an analysis of the speech given by the President. It may seem to some observers that this analysis is executed with a scrutinizing eye. Well it is. The author of this analysis believes there is reason to be suspicious and therefore, while trying to be fair, gives no benefit of the doubt. It can be likened to the time-tested American ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” but in this case nothing is assumed, therefore there is neither assumed innocence nor assumed guilt until proven. Since this is an analysis and not a court of law, the preponderance of evidence, to include past behavior can be the determining factor.

Several opinions are expressed (hopefully respectfully) in this analysis and most, if not all, of them are supported with evidence, which is presented. Oftentimes that evidence is overwhelming.

If the reader of this analysis is in complete denial of the author’s opinion as stated above that there is sufficient reason to be suspicious, I would strongly suggest that person not read this analysis because your mind is already made up and you have “drank the Kool-Aid” to a point that you probably cannot recover. If you are only in partial denial of that opinion then this analysis is for you. On the other hand if you are in complete agreement with that opinion then perhaps you wrote this analysis.

The President refers to the term “ISIL” while this analysis refers to the term “ISIS.” The difference is not all that clear yet but there is ample evidence to suggest that the term “ISIL” refers to a condition where the nation of Israel does not exist (a specific and stated goal of many Arab countries).

Israel is our most important ally in the region; contrary to the respect they get from President Obama. As such in this analysis, other than inside quotation marks where the term “ISIL” was used by Obama in his speech, the term “ISIS” will be used.

This started with a transcript of the speech as downloaded from the Whitehouse website. The text of the transcript has not been altered with the single exception of numbered references to end notes. The endnotes contain the analysis. Sometimes there are several endnotes for one sentence in the speech.

2 It is actually comforting to see that he is at least aware of this. Not a single one of his actions over the last six years indicates that he practices this.

For absolute and unquestionable proof that this is the highest priority of the President and Commander-in-chief please refer to the Declaration of Independence.

Briefly that document spells out our rights, which are bestowed upon us by our creator, as being the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Declaration goes on to state in the very next paragraph “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This says that the purpose of government is to “secure these rights.” Notice that it does not say that the purpose of government is to hand out cell phones to welfare recipients. Nor does it say that the purpose of government is to involve itself in anything related to health insurance.

A brief note for clarity. Many believe their only rights are those listed in the “Bill of Rights.” Not true; these are specific and detailed rights but if you give it some thought, you will quickly see that all of those rights in the Bill of Rights are included in the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

If there is a single thing that could drastically improve this country it would be a thorough and competent understanding of that phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” because that basically states that you have the unalienable right to do anything you want to do as long as you acknowledge that I have those same rights. We cannot deny those rights of each other so the only limit on your rights is my rights. If you let that guide your life you will do well.

3 It is arguable by most rational people that had you not prematurely ended the war in Iraq, ISIS would not exist today and this entire speech would not happen.

President Bush set out to force the Iraqi regime to allow access to the United Nations Weapons Inspectors so that they could prove to the world either the existence of WMDs or the lack of WMDs. Saddam Hussein declined that request and instead opted for war with coalition forces.

That war, which was not wanted by the United States and I would debate anyone who says it was desired but that is beyond the scope of this analysis, was to designed to rid Iraq of suspected WMDs (or prove that they didn’t exist because Hussein would not allow the United Nations to prove it) AND eliminate the support given to terrorist groups by Saddam Hussein.

In the process the majority of Iraq’s defenses were taken out. Iraq could not be left defenseless in a dangerous world for obvious reasons so the United States, under the leadership of George Bush set out to build, train, and equip the Iraqi defenses. This was going to take time and Bush clearly warned about what would happen if we pulled out too early.

Pulling out early is exactly what Obama did and EVERYTHING Bush predicted would happen, in fact happened. The current state of degradation in the Middle East is 100% the fault of Barack Obama and his actions or lack thereof.

4 Actually, Mr. President our greatest threat comes from your inability to correctly identify the threat. You have consistently misidentified the threat and as such you are never in a position to correctly act against the threat.

You have incorrectly identified the threat once again and this will cause you to not be able to deal aggressively and effectively with that threat. This is due (respectfully) to none other than an ongoing leadership deficiency on your part, but that’s nothing new, the entire world knows about this leadership deficiency.

For clarity, those deficiencies include:

Misidentifying the target in the economy -­‐ specifically the wrongheaded notion that government provides jobs when the only sector that provides real jobs that contribute to the economy is the private sector. All government jobs, even the few necessary ones, are a financial drain on the economy (some of that drain is necessary, most is not). Spending money on the government sector was a drain on a damaged economy and creating unnecessary regulations which burden the private sector further damaged and prolonged the recovery.

Minimum Wage – government raising of the cost of labor to business is irrational in an economic sense. Business will produce and sell widgets in the marketplace as long as there is a profit to be made. That profit isn’t calculated until expenses are paid. If the government randomly raises those expenses with no consideration for the market, that profit might disappear or become so thin as to no longer justify the risk of being in business.

If the business owners decide that is the case they will close their business, or maybe reduce the total number of employees through automation to reduce their total labor expense. Either way raising the labor cost with no consideration for the marketplace is like trying to place a tourniquet on a wound that does not exist. Unfortunately that unneeded tourniquet will then cause a severe wound and can kill the proverbial patient.

Syria with the “red line.” You severely misidentified the target here and almost committed murder on a grand scale as a result. As bad as things were in Syria a year ago when you wanted, or threatened to go in if certain conditions were met (and they were met), that was an internal civil war and was none of our business. Syria was and still is a sovereign nation and going-in uninvited is an act of war.

That said if our national security is threatened then their “sovereignty” becomes a moot point and we act in our national security interest (and we no longer care about their sovereignty). Ironically our national security was threatened by Syria having WMDs that could fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against us.

Using this rationale we had EVERY RIGHT to get involved. However you made it very clear that we would specifically NOT go in to secure those weapons. You took away the ONLY legitimate reason to get involved. Absent that only legal reason, all other reasons were illegal. Ironically, had we gone in for that legal reason we could have done a lot under the guise of “self-­‐defense” to eliminate the “bad” guys which would have legally accomplished that which you wanted to illegally accomplish. Next time you might want to consult a competent defense analyst.

Libya in 2011 (prior to Benghazi): Similar to Syria discussed above. This was an internal civil war inside a sovereign nation. We may not have liked the notion that civilians were being killed in this civil war but unless we were invited by the sovereign nation of Libya, our involvement would constitute a violation of Libyan sovereignty, an act of war.

An act of war is a serious thing and should be avoided if reasonably possible. An act of war should be avoided ESPECIALLY if our national security was not threatened. The killing of civilians inside Libya was not a threat to our national security.

Similar to the case in Syria, Qaddafi’s stockpile of weapons was indeed a threat to our national security and would have been a legitimate reason to get involved. Weapons cannot be secured by airstrikes alone, only by “boots on the ground.”

You refused to put “boots on the ground” which meant that we were NOT there to secure those weapons (the ONLY legal reason for our involvement). Every person, good or bad, who died as a result of our airstrikes was MURDERED and with all due respect, you sir have blood on your hands. The unfortunate part is that you soiled our proud military with your ill-conceived actions.

By the way, those weapons we refused to secure in Libya are being used against our soldiers on many battlefields today to kill our people. That is not leadership but it could be considered “aiding and abetting the enemy.”

Benghazi 9/11/2012: Extreme misidentification of the target. Forget the cover-up because even though that was blown on day one it is still used to create a smoke screen for what really happened that day. The blown cover-up still serves to detract the public’s attention from an extremely gross dereliction of duty. How do you say it “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

The terrorist attack on the United States in our United States compounds in Libya, as bad as it was, is not the worst thing to happen that day. The death of four Americans, to include the official representative of the United States in the nation of Libya, as bad as it was is not the worst thing to happen that day.

The worst thing to happen that day, and unfortunately most Americans don’t understand this, is that their president/commander-in-chief, whose sole responsibility it is to defend our nation, our freedom, and our way of life (you admitted this in the opening of your speech) DID NOTHING TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA when we were attacked.

It’s not as if you tried and failed, you might get some credit for that. The worst part is that you didn’t even try to defend the United States when we were attacked. The idea that it took the most powerful nation in the world nearly 30 days to secure the site so that FBI investigators could get in is ample evidence of leadership failure, but sadly there is more.

There are many more examples of you misidentifying the target but in the interest of time I will forgo the long list.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Analysis of speech
Part 2 of 6

Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”

Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.


Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.”5 No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.6 And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border.7 It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.8

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle- hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we’ve conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have also helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.9

But this is not our fight alone.10 American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves,11 nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. And that’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government,12 which they have now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.

Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.13

End Notes:

5 Actually, yes it is and your refusal to understand that is very revealing. Not only will they tell you they are Islamic but that is in their name. Add to that the notion that the whole body of Islam, that to which you refer, cannot and will not as a group denounce terrorism and ISIS.

They claim to be Islam and act in the name of Islam and Islam accepts them as one of theirs. Proof of acceptance is in the lack of Islam denouncing, as a group, these terrorists.

Furthermore they claim to do this in the name of Allah. This is not an ideology, this is a faith. Ideology is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. It is possible for one side to talk the other side out of their ideology and into accepting the other or opposing ideology.

Faith is a different matter. If you are called upon from on high, or if you believe that you are called on from on high, all of a sudden the difference between right and wrong becomes unimportant. At that point you will do that which you believe you have been told to do by that higher power because we all know that the “higher power” would never tell you to do something that is ultimately wrong.

If that higher power tells you to kill those with whom you disagree, all of a sudden your internal warning system that tells you murder is wrong becomes moot because you are doing the work of the “higher power” and most people would agree that the “higher power” has a better sense of what is right and wrong that we mere mortals have.

6 This is not evidence of anything. You use this statistic to attempt to convince us that these terrorists are not Muslims but unfortunately this is evidence of nothing except possibly an effort to detract from some agenda you might have

7 Mostly ISIS has taken advantage of the fact that nobody has tried to stop them and in fact has given them room to organize themselves from nothing to a formidable terrorist power capable of threatening the world.

This, among other things demonstrates your inability to lead.

8 As a side note, Sharia law endorses most of this and ironically due to the progressive liberal movement led in great part by you Mr. President, the United States is becoming more and more accepting of Sharia law and some people can’t wait until it is widely accepted here.

Back to the paragraph. Why would they fear retribution from the United States when they can clearly see that the United States has done NOTHING to seek retribution for the murders of four Americans in Benghazi including the official U.S. Ambassador?

Additionally ISIS stood witness to the United States drawing “red” lines in Syria only to re-draw that line when Syria crossed it. Then they were witness to the fact that the United States did nothing to enforce their threats – nothing.

Additionally ISIS stands witness to the fact that Putin has completely overstepped his authority on the world stage in regards to the Ukraine and the United States once again stood by and did nothing to stop that aggression.

If the only thing ISIS has seen from the United States in reaction to aggressive treatment is cowardness and lack of leadership, why would they be concerned about the repercussions of beheading a couple American journalists? For that matter, as discussed above, if beheading people because Allah directed them to, or they believe that Allah directs them to murder innocent people in that fashion, these terrorists will see no wrong whatsoever in the act.

Mr. President, I don’t expect you to understand that because I know neither where your faith or loyalties lay. According to our way of life you are free to practice whatever faith you wish. It is becoming more concerning every day, however, where your loyalties are. Fewer and fewer people each day, as you know by looking at the poles, believe your loyalties are with America.

Perhaps the requirement to be a “natural born citizen” to qualify to be president as defined in the days of the founding fathers and founding documents as being born not just on American soil (as I presume you were, I don’t question that) but ALSO having parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time and clearly you fall short here. By the way, that requirement as you know is to hedge the bet against having a president with loyalties to other than America. This is not an accusation, just an observation.

By the way, the beheading of the two Americans has yet to be answered and this speech is not only not an answer but is an indication that an answer is NOT forthcoming. This respectfully, further demonstrates a lack of leadership on your part.

Speaking of your lack of leadership allow me to highlight that, or throw some salt into that open wound as the case may be. Let’s jump for a minute to your failed efforts on immigration reform because that is very revealing:

What you desire to do to change immigration is wrong for a long list of reasons that are immaterial to this analysis. That said, during your first term you had control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was clear that with those majorities and just a very small amount of leadership on your part you would have gotten your way and would have passed immigration reform.

Respectfully, your leadership was so inept that you couldn’t even pull it off when the cards were incredibly stacked in your favor. The reason you didn’t get it done then wasn’t because you were overruled; it was because you didn’t try. Talk about the ultimate example of failed leadership.

9 Please address this as if you were the President of the United States and the Commander- in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth. I think you would enjoy more credibility with the people if you acted as if you were one of us.

If you state the single most important aspect of this threat, which is that ISIS is a significant threat to the United States AND if that threat to the United States is eliminated, the rest of the pieces will fall into place.

This is simple. You need the support of the American people so tell them how first and foremost you will tend to their defense needs and that, as icing on the cake the rest of the region will benefit from our good work. Try putting America first and see if that helps.

Don’t put the worth of foreign nationals above the worth of the American people if you want the support of the American people.

10 With all due respect this is absolutely our fight alone and to sell the concept any other way is borderline treasonous.

If nobody else chooses to stand with us this will be our fight and our fight alone. If nobody stands with us and because of that we decide that defending ourselves is not worth it, the commander-in-chief needs to be considered by the House of Representatives as the target for immediate Articles of Impeachment for dereliction of duty. And yes, the Senate needs to stand shoulder to shoulder with the House in this.


By your own admission in the opening of this speech, you are first and foremost responsible for the security of our country, our freedoms, and our way of life. You were so accurate in that admission that I went to great length to prove unquestionably that you are correct and responsible above all else for the defense and security of our country. Subordinating that awesome responsibility is a dereliction of duty at the highest level.

11 If the goal of this is to do something for the Iraqi’s that they cannot do for themselves then we need to re-evaluate what we are doing in the first place.

If we are doing something for somebody else then by definition we are not doing it for ourselves (our defense).

If we can engage in offensive combat operations and kill people in order to do something for somebody else that they can’t do for themselves (especially when, by your very words there is no threat to us) then we can use that same logic to justify killing a few thousand people in an effort to build a dam in some remote country in Africa that they might use to irrigate their crops. Your logic here is unsound, illogical, unreasonable, and dangerous (respectfully).

Additionally, if we are not acting in our own national defense then we are doing it for “humanitarian” purposes.

If we are doing it for “humanitarian” purposes then we had better not kill anyone because that would be MURDER.

With all due respect Mr. President, please don’t shame the United States of America by ordering the military to commit murder like you did in Libya in 2011.

The bottom line, because I know you don’t get this, is that killing the enemy in war is justified by the laws of war and by our Constitution by reason of self/national defense. Killing people, even those we don’t like, in an action OTHER THAN war (such as a “humanitarian” mission) is MURDER by every definition and is absolutely a denial of the due process of law.

12 This is inconsistent with the entire purpose of our federal government, it is inconsistent with the very reason why you occupy your office, and it is inconsistent with your authority to act on your own versus the need for you to obtain approval from congress for this action.

To be clear, as commander-in-chief you do not need approval from congress to defend this country because that approval is inherent in your office and your oath of office.

However, to use the United States military in an offensive role when our national security is not in question (you have made this clear by saying that this is an Iraqi problem and not ours) absolutely requires the consent of congress. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty and a breach of your sworn oath to the constitution.

13 STOP. STOP. STOP. Stop here! Do not go any further. You have stated the objective and that is your job, to give a clear objective to the military.

The military takes that clear objective you, the commander-in-chief have given them and develops a “strategy” to accomplish that objective. The strategy needs to be made by those generals and war planners who know intimately the capabilities of the military, not by you. As commander-in-chief it can be appropriate for you to assist and oversee but you are NOT the military expert and planning wartime strategy in not for the unqualified.

In addition, strategy is NOT something you reveal to the enemy on day one unless you want your strategy to not work. Revealing strategy in this manner will be considered by some to be aiding and abetting the enemy.

For the record, politicians making military strategy is how we lost Vietnam. As president I would have thought you were aware of that. Perhaps knowledge of history is not a requisite for being president.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Analysis of speech
Part 3 of 6

Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”

Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.


First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions,14 so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense.15 Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are.16 That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria,17 as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.18

Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground.19 In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi security forces. Now that those teams have completed their work –- and Iraq has formed a government –- we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq.20 As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission21 –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.22 But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training,23 intelligence and equipment. We’ll also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom
from ISIL’s control.

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people — a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost.24 Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL,25 while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.26

Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks.27 Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence;28 strengthen our defenses;29 counter its warped ideology;30 and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.31

Fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization.32 This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.33


14 Please tell me that we did not put our people there solely so that you could have a reason to get involved to “protect” them. If our people were not there defending our country then there would be no reason to “protect” them. You cannot use the means to justify the ends.

If we are going to be using offensive combat tactics, we will be intentionally killing people. This is inconsistent with “humanitarian” missions. That said killing people in the name of “humanity” (not war) seems to be a common theme in your administration (reference aforementioned analysis on Libya 2011 and Syria).

15 Prior to you pulling out United States military forces some time ago the Iraqi forces were just getting to the point that they were ready to stand on their own and start going on the “offensive.”

You pulled our forces out and that set back the Iraqi defenses forces to nearly the beginning. It took some eight years to get them to the point of readiness time, how long do you think it will take this time? Meanwhile our country will be threatened each day you wait.

16 Is this a new thing? You have NEVER had this concept.

17 Britain, our number one ally has made clear they will NOT go into Syria. Why is that?

For the record I believe that we will have to go into Syria eventually but two things are of concern first.

Why is Britain so adamant about NOT going into Syria? Could they know something we don’t know? Is it that they do not trust your leadership? Let me rephrase that question, could they know something that YOU don’t know? I am quite certain they know something you don’t know; your often-demonstrated lack of leadership substantiates that.

The second thing of concern is that we need to be very careful if we go into Syria that we do it for the right reasons. We cannot afford another bonehead decision (respectfully) like the one you made last year when we nearly went into Syria for “humanitarian” reasons because as previously discussed that would be a breach of Syrian sovereignty and an act of war by the United States on the sovereign nation of Syria. There is one way to do this without breaching sovereignty but last year you specifically said that we would not take that route. Have you re-thought your position?

18 Actually this was a core principle of the George Bush Presidency but has NEVER been part of your arsenal. Are you continuing to admit that George Bush was right?

19 Dicey but if done with the utmost of care, meaning that we do it for the right reasons (and there are plenty of them), you will have my support.

20 One more time, allowing decisions on our national security to hinge on the actions of an incompetent third world nation is NOT presidential, in fact it is reckless.

21 You have tried to make the case that our nation is threatened by these terrorists (I believe it is), in fact these terrorists have made the case that they are a threat against us. In light of this WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE NOT TAKING COMBAT MEASURES TO DEFEND OURSELVES?

Either we are a nation who has been threatened and we need to take ALL precautions to defend ourselves, or we are not being threatened in which case if ANYONE dies as a result of our actions it will be considered MURDER and once again you, Mr. President, will have blood on your hands.

22 You needn’t consider it to be another ground war because it is really the same war you ran away from over a year ago. We are just now paying for our national surrender by our president.

23 When our country is being actively threatened you DO NOT go train another nation. You DEFEND this nation first. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of your duty, a violation of your oath, and considered by most intelligent Americans as treasonous

24 Much like the Obama regime that has lost it’s legitimacy, which with all due respect will never be regained

25 The best counterweight to ISIS is for the United States military to destroy them. There is no better counterweight. Betting the national security of the United States of America on the notion that an incompetent and unprepared third-world nation such as Iraq will be able to defend our nation is irresponsible, reckless, dangerous, unpatriotic, and un-American, not to mention probably treasonous (respectfully). Once again, you have trouble identifying the target and that trouble is endangering our country.

26 If the crisis is Syria’s crisis as you say it is, then we have NO AUTHORITY to get involved.

If the crisis is our crisis we have a requirement to get involved. Again Mr. President, target identification.

27 Didn’t you have a hand in removing our most capable counter terrorism and counter insurgency commanders? Are you now suggesting that we might need them back?

28 Our intelligence is the sum total of many different types if intelligence such as satellite imagery and others. You have single handedly destroyed one of the most useful aspects of intelligence and that is intelligence gathered by having “boots on the ground.”

Unlike many of your detractors I will never condemn you for running a “drone war.” I think there is value in drone warfare.

However, when you replace “boots on the ground” with drone warfare (not running them side by side) you risk losing all potential intelligence gathered from captured enemy personnel.

You have forever been bent on closing GITMO to the extent you will not capture enemy personnel for the purposes of interrogation (sometimes “enhanced” interrogation) because you cannot stand the notion that you might capture somebody so bad that you might be forced to put them in GITMO.

Intelligence is a force-multiplier. With good intelligence you win wars quickly and with fewer casualties. Without that good intelligence you are forced to use nothing but brute force and hope that wins the war.

One thing is for certain, fighting a war without good intelligence WILL NECESSARILY lengthen the war and cost more in dollars AND in blood. But you know that, don’t you? Well certainly a competent commander-in-chief would know that.

29 You talk about “strengthening our defenses” at the same time you are single-handedly reducing our defenses to a weaker size and capability. Which is it? Strong defense or weak defense – you say one thing and do the opposite.

I speak for all patriotic Americans when I say that intentionally endangering my freedom (such as downsizing the military while our enemies are growing) is unacceptable. I am quite certain you will find Americans who do not support that statement but I would refer you to the words “patriotic Americans.”

30 This I agree with and my only comment here is that this will take at least one and probably two generations because these people are taught to hate freedom at a very early age.

Ironically George Bush said the same thing when he braced this country for this fight to last a long time, perhaps fifty years. We were well on our way until you surrendered our position upon taking office. Now we need to regain the initiative we lost when we pulled out prematurely. That sacrificed blood and treasure will probably be written off as we spend even more blood and treasure retaking what we already had when you won election and then surrendered our hard fought-gains.

31 Have a meeting if you so desire because sometimes meetings are necessary but remember that meetings do not protect nations from those who want to destroy them.

Actually, if our military was exceptionally big and more importantly exceptionally capable, as President Kennedy warned us it should be in his inaugural address on 20 January 1961, perhaps a meeting would suffice because at that point if the United States declared it would take action, many enemies would capitulate in fear.

A recent example of that power strategy was when Qaddafi voluntarily surrendered his WMD to the United States because he knew if he didn’t he would be next on the list after Saddam Hussein. I guess Kennedy was right that a powerful military is a good deterrent. Somehow you either didn’t get the memo or your goal is the weakening of America.

32 “Humanitarian” assistance falls under the category of MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War) and is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

That said I think a substantial percentage of the American people probably have no problem with a legitimate “humanitarian” mission. A perfect example of a legitimate “humanitarian” mission was our participation and help for the Japanese people after the hurricane and tsunami and especially the problems with the damaged nuclear reactor in 2011.

Curiously though, we did not kill people on that “humanitarian” mission but we are getting ready to kill some 32,000 people (estimated ISIS numbers) on this “humanitarian” mission. I hope the American people can stop you before you engage in murder on a grand scale on their behalf. Unfortunately last time you tried this, the American people were unsuccessful in stopping you and the only person who had the power to get your attention was your good friend Vladimir Putin.

Humanitarian missions should only be authorized if time permits and it can be argued that time did not permit during the Japan mission, however that was special in that because of the nuclear aspect time was of the essence and that moved the importance up the list of things to do.

The important thing to note is that we do not have the time or manpower to fight a significant and imminent threat to this country at the same time we conduct a large-scale humanitarian mission. Furthermore we are not equipped, nor is anyone else, to conduct a humanitarian mission on the same battlefield where we are conducting warfare in our national security interest.

In order to NOT shoot our own people conducting the humanitarian mission we will have to slow down the war and that is counterproductive and inconsistent with the defense of our country.

Properly executed war on our part will reap those desired benefits from a humanitarian standpoint for those we wish to help. To restate that (which should be obvious, but obviously isn’t), a properly executed war will reap the desired benefits of the “humanitarian” mission but the “humanitarian” mission cannot and will not reap the desired benefits of the war to defend ourselves. Even you, Mr. President should be able to see this.

Keep in mind that the purpose of a military is NOT to help others deal with war. The purpose of a military is to deter war and fight it if necessary so that others (mostly us) don’t need to seek humanitarian assistance.

33 Mr. President, take care of the ONLY people you have the authority to take care of and that is the American people (NO OTHERS) and by virtue of doing that you will have also taken care of these other groups.

We are a noble and peace-loving country. If the world is safe for Americans, by virtue of the caliber of people we are, the world will be far safer for the other groups for which you weep. Ironically we will have spent treasure and blood defending OUR way of life and Americans across the country will rally behind that. You can indeed kill two birds with one stone.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Analysis of speech
Part 4 of 6

Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”

Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.


So this is our strategy.34 And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.35 Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq;36 sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry37 was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity. And in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria, to drive these terrorists from their lands.38 This is American leadership at its best:39 We stand with people who fight for their own freedom,40 and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security41 and common humanity.

My administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL,42 but I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together.43 So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL.44 And any time we take military action, there are risks involved –- especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions.45 But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.46 This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.47 And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests,48 but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.49

End Notes:

34 And now that you have discussed this strategy in detail on national television, the enemy has a copy of it as well. Unfortunately, since many Americans take their freedom for granted they will not put a single thought into this but rest assured that our enemies will study this every day.

35 The more you reveal of the strategy the less willing our coalition partners will be to stand at our side. You know that because you have been told that every day since you were sworn in back in 2009.

36 This sentence underscores your inability to understand how to defend this country.

A competent Commander-in-chief would simply change a couple words to demonstrate his appreciation for the importance of this matter.
You make the extremely weak statement that “allies are flying planes with us over Iraq” and that means nothing but probably impresses the uninformed among us (and there are many and you count on them for votes).

Do a simple word change and say something like “allies are patrolling the Iraqi skies side by side with our forces.”

Simple word change but has incredibly more meaning.

To put this more bluntly so even you might understand it, companies like Lufthansa are probably flying planes over Iraq but that is of no consequence. A competent commander would know this simple stuff.

37 Secretary Kerry told the American people that this would not be a “war.” Once again, if there is no need for a “war” to defend ourselves then there is no need for us to be there defending ourselves with offensive combat operations (in fact as previously explained this is illegal). Please rein in your Secretary of State before his lackadaisical attitude gets Americans killed, much like the attitude and inattention of the last Secretary of State got Americans killed in Libya.

38 Ironically George Bush sought to do exactly that and you fought him every step of the way. You turned back the war on terror to pre 9/11 levels thereby endangering the lives of every American. Now we are forced to count on you to defend our freedom, which you first put in jeopardy.

Did you endanger this country for your legacy? Or was it incompetence that caused you to endanger this country?

39 A proper and thorough analysis of current events shows this statement of yours to be extremely inaccurate. America is a great country but a country completely lacking in leadership. As evidence of this I offer this entire analysis.

40 I know we haven’t done this since you took office but can we this time stand with the United States of America in their quest for freedom and protection thereof?

41 If it were true that we rallied with other nations on behalf of our common security we would be standing side by side with Israel in their time of need because Israel is OUR first line of defense against attack from countries like Iran and therefore supporting Israel is absolutely in our national security interest.

This completely destroys your statement.

42 I believe you not only have the authority to address this threat without the blessing of congress but since you are Constitutionally bound by sworn oath to defend this country and our Constitution against all enemies, you are duty-bound to act even without the blessing of Congress.

43 In light of the previous comment where I agree with you that you have the authority (and duty) to act even without the blessing of Congress, I also agree with you here.

I also agree that if you can secure the blessing of congress you should do exactly that and for the correct reasons you state. We are stronger when we work together. Bush did this. As is the case here, he did not require the blessing of Congress to defend the nation but he did seek and obtain that blessing both for Afghanistan AND for Iraq.

Here though lies the biggest problem with your administration. Much of the rhetoric of this speech (and your rhetoric outside this speech) suggests that we are in imminent danger from this terrorist enemy. This is why you are absolutely justified even without Congress.

Yet in the next breath you often describe the issue in terms of “waiting for the Iraqi government to form” or “we can’t do for the Iraqi’s what they must do for themselves” inferring that the effort we are about to extend is not for our country and the American people but for the Iraqi’s or in many cases, somebody else. There are many other contradictory statements such as this.

If we are not in imminent danger as those statements suggest then you ABSOLUTELY do need to get the approval of Congress and to do otherwise is extremely dangerous and highly unconstitutional. You got whacked for doing exactly that in Libya in 2011 when you went on offense using offensive combat tactics designed to kill people in the civil war INSIDE the sovereign nation of Libya when there was no identified and stated national security interest. Why do you want to do this again?

If you are going to conduct warfare when our national security is not in question and you do so without congressional approval, then EVERY person (good or bad) who dies at the hands of the United States military will be the result of MURDER.

For clarity, killing people in self-defense is always authorized and it matters not if there is war or peace. If we are at war in our national security interest then that authorized killing (in self defense) extends to authorized killing in “national” defense.

All other killing that is not in self-defense or national defense is MURDER. Sadly there is no other way to describe that. National defense is invoked ONLY if we feel we as a nation are duly threatened, and we are the sole determinant of that, not someone else. Are you ready sir, to order our military troops (as you did in Libya in 2011) to commit murder on behalf of the American citizen? As a voting and tax-paying citizen I am not ready to have my president/commander-in-chief commit murder on my behalf and I never will be ready for that.

For clarity I believe we are in imminent danger from these terrorists and I do believe that this demands that as commander-in-chief you step up to your sworn Constitutional oath to defend this nation in any manner necessary. Furthermore I believe that you have the authority AND obligation to do this with or without the blessing of congress (although I agree that if you can get it that is a benefit).

My problem is that you describe this both as an imminent threat demanding our immediate action AND as something that can be taken care of by others which means that this is NOT an imminent threat worthy of our immediate action. Indecision like this can get thousands of Americans killed.

It either is an imminent threat or it isn’t and the consequences of getting this wrong will probably have the most profound and negative consequences on this country of anything this country has seen in its history.



44 Again, Bush told us time and time again that this war on terror would take years (perhaps fifty years) and the time, treasure, and blood, we had invested in this was surrendered by you when you took office.

It is nice to see you finally get on board with America and I hope you are sincere but I am very skeptical because of your past anti-American performance.

45 You single-handedly erased the sacrifice that those same men and women made in Iraq before you surrendered our gains and I hope this time you are sincere about the efforts of those who put their lives on the line for their country.

46 Ah yes, just when I was starting to give you some credit for your patriotism you revert to your previously failed tactics.

You re-state your position that defending America, your self-admitted most important duty (I would argue with substantial evidence is your ONLY duty) by stating that this country WILL NOT entertain the idea of American combat troops fighting for America. Instead you contract our national security out to an incapable and incompetent third-world nation who arguably hates the United States of America.

Treasonous? Let the American people make the call!

47 Keep in mind that we have not won either of these fronts as you acknowledge by saying “for years.”

Airpower is a great tactic and does an awesome job softening up the battlefield so that we experience fewer casualties but airpower alone, as good as it is WILL NEVER completely win a war UNLESS you are willing to annihilate the enemy from the air and that means the use of nuclear weapons. Yes, airpower can, by itself win a war but generally only with the use of nuclear weapons. Think about Japan in WWII. Airpower alone stopped and won the war with Japan but two atomic weapons were needed to bring about that surrender.

Mr. President, are you ready to employ nuclear weapons just so you don’t have to commit American “boots on the ground?”

I don’t think the American people want their leader to take the cowards’ way out, but I could be wrong. As much as I am against the actual use of nuclear weapons, if that is the only available option to maintain America’s freedom, then and only then would I support such a measure. To be clear, I do not support the use of nuclear weapons solely to keep you from going back on yet another of your campaign promises.

For even more clarity, nuclear weapons serve best as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons, not as a means of avoiding “boots on the ground” for pathetic political reasons.

48 This has NEVER been consistent with your approach. However, since your actions almost never match your words, you are probably technically correct that this matches some meaningless words you spoke previously. Respectfully.

Keep in mind Mr. President that you are only satisfying the comical whims of the uninformed and unintelligent voter, but without them you never would have been elected once let alone twice.

49 I believe this is your way of saying that you would rather let another country provide the national security of the United States of America. If that is your position then I respectfully disagree.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Analysis of speech
Part 5 of 6

Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”

Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.


My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked.50 Next week marks six years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks, through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back,51 America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched.52 Our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving.53 Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades.54 For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history.55 Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day –- and that makes me more confident than ever about our country’s future.56

Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world.57 It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists.58 It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression,59 and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny. It is America –- our scientists, our doctors, our know-how –- that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons so that they can’t pose a threat to the Syrian people or the world again.60 And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism,61 but in the fight for opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful future.


50 You would think by now we would have a clue as to how to defend this nation but judging by this speech we still have no clue. President Bush had us on a good path to defending this country, and by extension, the free world. He didn’t do everything right but his actions collectively were considerably more right than wrong.

You surrendered those gains and look where we are now, in more danger than prior to 9/11

What happened that made you drop the ball?

51 It is arguable by even the most casual observer that your policies have served only to slow down this recovery. I don’t think I would brag about that shameful act.

52 So why are you driving these companies overseas with your overburdening and unconstitutional regulations and punitive taxes?

53 See previous comment on over-­‐regulation and punitive taxes

54 This is a NOTHING statement but will be worshipped by your uninformed supporters who cannot think for themselves.

Since the dawn of civilization, every single day you could say with ABSOLUTE certainty that we are closer to energy independence. You could accurately say this if for no other reason than advances in the simple timeline. If you don’t understand this, just picture a timeline with energy independence at the end and you will easily see that if we do nothing this week toward energy independence but resume our efforts next week, we will be closer each day. Your uninformed voters will take comfort in your meaningless statement and give you substantial credit. However, those with a brain will see this for what it is – a hollow and meaningless statement designed to mislead (respectfully).

55 It is true that if only one job is created each day (regardless of how many were lost that day, regardless of the net creation of jobs) statistically that counts as “uninterrupted” but fortunately many people are starting to wake up to your manipulation of statistics.

Do you want to discuss manipulated employment/unemployment figures? Probably not because if those uninformed voters tried to understand that manipulation you might be in political trouble (oh, you’re already there).

56 Ironically, despite all the divisions and discord you have single-handedly caused in this country, I also see the grit, determination, and common goodness of the American people every day.

And when you leave office in two years, if there is a country left to salvage, I too will be optimistic about our countries’ future. Sadly I am not sure there will be an America left to salvage – I sincerely hope I’m wrong on that.

57 A truer statement has never been made but let me help you out by providing some context for this statement.

American leadership, at least in your administration has been consistently uncertain in this troubled world. Our allies know with certainty they cannot count on us to protect their secrets because your administration, usually in an effort to take credit for something you deserve little or no credit for doing, will “spike the ball” and in an effort to look important you reveal classified information.

To add context to that statement of “classified information” for those who might read this, there is a matter called OPSEC (Operational Security) and this concept basically means that if a person is privy to enough non-classified information about a certain subject they can draw fairly accurate conclusions about what is happening on the classified level.

The casual revelation of classified information is damaging to this country but so is the revelation of substantial amounts of non-classified information about a certain topic or mission. Mr. President, your administration and especially you, are plagued with this and it is very damaging to this country and the faith our allies put in us.

58 But according to this speech it is America who is NOT willing to fight for itself.

As you say, America under your leadership (and I use that term loosely) is willing to organize others in hopes that they will fight for us in our stead but apparently under your leadership America is not interested in fighting for itself. This is a sad state of affairs.

59 Only America is strong enough to put down Russian aggression against our ally Ukraine. How is that going so far? Don’t answer that because I don’t want to be further disappointed.

60 For what it is worth, the ONLY valid reason for going into Syria last year when you drew the red-lines that you moved once Syria crossed them, was to secure those WMDs from falling into the hands of those who would do us harm. There was NO OTHER legitimate or legal reason because this was a civil war inside a sovereign nation; and we were not invited in by the government of that nation.

Sadly you made it clear to the world that we specifically WOULD NOT go into Syria for that reason (the ONLY legitimate reason). As such, had we gone into Syria at the time the world would have seen Americas’ illegal entry into a war, coincidently the only illegal war America engaged in in modern times. Iraq was a legal war on many avenues that had NOTHING to do with WMDs but coincidently the WMD issue by itself made it legal.

It is difficult to admit this but you and this country are very lucky that your good friend Vladimir Putin pulled your feet out of the fire when he did. Unfortunately Putin learned a great deal from that about what you would and would not do and he successfully applied that knowledge of weakness in foreign policy on your part to his campaign to conquer parts of the Ukraine.

61 I don’t mind helping people when and if we can. Of course it must be legal and many times when you set out to “help” others you don’t consider the Constitutional legality of your measures.

It would be nice if before you help any more in the “Muslim” community that you ask, and demand that they stand with us and not against us.

By this I mean it would be nice if the Muslim community as a whole would stand up and denounce “radical” Islam.

Individually some Muslims will do this but as a group they will not. This has gone on for enough years, at least since 9/11/2001, that it now seems not only that the entirety of the Muslim community refuses to denounce what I at one time considered the “bastardization” of the religion of Islam, but now by their long standing refusal to denounce it they actually likely secretly endorse it.

As President of the United States you do not have the authority to demand that they make any statement nor would I suggest you make such a demand. However, as president and commander-in-chief you do have the power to wield considerable sway in the international community and next time Muslims ask for help fighting off those who would destroy them, you do have the power to deny that help until such time as they do wholly and publicly denounce “radical” Islamic terrorism. They are free to speak what they want and we are free do provide or deny them help if they stand against us.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Analysis of speech
Part 6 of 6

Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”

Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.


America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden.62 But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead.63 From Europe to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East, we stand for freedom,64 for justice,65 for dignity.66 These are values that have guided our nation since its founding.

Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward.67 I do so as a Commander-in-Chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform –- pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East, and servicemembers who support our partners on the ground.68

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here’s what one of them said: “We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.69”

That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for –- timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.70

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.


62 Yes they do! Our endless blessings include first those blessings that come from our creator. We were created equal and blessed with freedom and rights. Those rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as discussed in the beginning of this analysis.

And yes Mr. President that incurs an incredible burden. That burden is for us to maintain that freedom and those rights because those rights put into word-form all that is good and as long as they are followed they protect us from all that is evil (for example I cannot murder someone just because it might be in my “pursuit of happiness” because they have the “right” or more accurately the protected right to “life”). As previously mentioned, the only limit on your rights is my rights and vice-versa.

Yes Mr. President these blessings bestow upon us one hell of a burden. That short paragraph in our Declaration of Independence describes the freedoms I enjoy every day and at the same time compel me to honor and respect those same rights and freedoms of my neighbor. When I acknowledge and respect the rights of my neighbor I protect my rights in the process.

This and this alone should be enough to differentiate for everyone the difference between right and wrong. The only purpose for any written laws is to make this clear to those who may have trouble understanding that their “rights” are limited ONLY when and where they interfere with the identical rights of others.

This in no way allows you to mobilize our military to kill for reasons other than national defense. If you want to use our military for purposes other than national defense you may but you have different rules to which you are obligated to adhere.

When at war, killing is authorized in the interest of national defense. When on a “humanitarian” mission killing is NOT authorized at ANY time other than SELF defense.

When on a “humanitarian” mission killing is not authorized EVEN in national defense because if national defense were an issue it would be WAR and not “humanitarian” (Hello John Kerry, are you listening?)

Until you manage to understand the difference between war for national security reasons and “humanitarian” missions engaged in because of matters of the heart, you will never be successful as commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in the world.

Such will be your legacy!

63 Many Americans say that we have no business playing “police” for the world. In concept I might agree but in the real world I strongly disagree.

Leadership abhors a vacuum and if we decide to NOT be the “police” of the world, somebody else will. Who would you suggest? Iran where the people have precious few rights? Perhaps a modern-day Hitler who murders those with whom he disagrees? Perhaps North Korea where the people have no rights whatsoever and can be shot for failing to clap their hands in the presence of “dear leader?”

Regardless, there will be a “police” of the world and if we enjoy our freedom we are the best and only country qualified to be that police force.

We have a perfect and recent example. Our country has ALWAYS been the police of the world and we have for years enjoyed a position of high standing in the world as a result.

Rogue dictators who want to take their brand of thuggery on the road choose not to do so because of our position on the world stage. As a result not only are we safer but the world is also safer.

When you took office you vacated that position our country enjoyed on the world stage in your attempt to relegate us to the status of a Banana Republic. As we have always known, leadership abhors a vacuum. Sadly that has come true. You vacated that position of leadership on the world stage and ISIS has assumed that position.

Now, because of your inept leadership we will spill blood and treasure in an effort to get it back. Most informed Americans are willing to pay that price to get back the position this country should occupy (not for purposes of status but because that position is necessary to protect our freedom) but I fear that once we pay that price, if you are still in office we will vacate it once again.

The $64,000 question then becomes: is it worth it to spill blood and treasure to get it back just so you can surrender it again? I believe that because doing otherwise will likely mean the end of America, and I am willing to pay any price to see that this country does not fade away.

64 Mr. President you have yet to demonstrate how you stand for freedom. As evidence I offer this entire analysis, but sadly your entire six years in office stands witness to your failure to hold our freedom in high regard.

65 Mr. President you have yet to demonstrate how you stand for justice. In fact there is ample evidence that you do NOT stand for justice.

Of course there is the non-black-and-white issue of improper command influence such as you have demonstrated time and again. For example your undue influence on the Travon Martin case when you said “if I had a son he would look like Travon.” Anyone with half a brain will know that this is inappropriate and improper but unfortunately things of this nature are difficult to pinpoint exactly when and where you crossed a legal line and as such are often not prosecuted. A more direct example of your disinterest in justice is appropriate and there are plenty of them:

We have on the books the Defense of Marriage Law and you single-handedly and illegally chose to not enforce that. You don’t have that choice sir because only congress writes legislation.

You have written many Executive Orders and while Executive Orders themselves are not illegal you have tried many times to mislead the public and justify them by saying that “George Bush had more EOs than me.” So what, the EO itself is not illegal, it is what is in the EO that can be illegal.

You have changed many laws with Executive Orders and this is highly illegal and a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers (a high crime and misdemeanor punishable by impeachment each and every time).

One of the more obvious illegal uses of the Executive Order is each time you issued a waiver to a certain group of people regarding Obamacare. You had NO AUTHORITY to do this and you did it many times. This is also a violation of the separation of powers in the Constitution and is grounds for impeachment. Sadly there are numerous other examples but it only takes one at this level to draft Articles of Impeachment.

66 Mr. President you have yet to demonstrate how you stand for “dignity.” For evidence of this I refer you to this entire analysis.

67 I would support your leadership if only you would provide some leadership. You have not provided leadership and this speech is a demonstration of how you intend to not provide leadership in this endeavor.

I will put my life on the line to defend this country as I have done before (details here are irrelevant) but I have to know that you have the best interest of this country at heart and so far, in six years that this nation has witnessed you at the helm, you have not demonstrated that leadership we so desperately need.

68 I know this is a long shot, but just for a minute can you (pretend if you have too) be proud of the men and women who have put their lives on the line for this country, many of whom actually paid the ultimate price for freedom?

For clarity, when you single out the “pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger…” you leave out many of those patriotic Americans who defended and continue to defend this country in areas other than aviation.

For even more clarity, when you talk about those “servicemembers who support our partners on the ground” you actually insult everyone who has ever worn the uniform of this great nation.

ALL service members, by virtue of voluntarily signing on the “dotted line” are willing and ready to give their lives for this nation if called upon to pay the ultimate price to defend OUR FREEDOM.

As commander-in-chief you need to know that not one of them volunteered to die for another nation especially when, as you have gone out of your way many times to make so clear, we are doing this for them and NOT for ourselves.

When and ONLY when you have the proper perspective on America will you be able to effectively be the president and commander‐in-chief.

69 This is nice but it is immaterial because yes, there are many countries and non-countries alike who owe their existence to the dedication of the American soldier, and for doing that action this country is proud of their sons and daughters in uniform.

But rest assured that if we wage battle (offensive combat actions) we do that for ourselves. If another people or allied nation benefits from our action that is icing on the cake.

On the other hand, if our commander-in-chief orders them into battle when there is no national security concern at stake (as you have tried hard to emphasize that there isn’t) those soldiers will be following an unlawful order and that is illegal and dishonorable. Please do not put us in a position that we would disrespect the troops just because of your inability to lead.

Once again, for clarity I do believe that our national security is at stake and I do believe that offensive combat tactics (and killing of the enemy) are warranted and warranted in the name of OUR freedom and the protection thereof. I am very concerned with your inability to make this case.

The consequences of getting this wrong are unfathomable!

70 I sincerely wish you could read and understand this paragraph. Sadly this thorough analysis demonstrates unquestionably your inability to not understand that which you write and speak.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

Please overlook any errors in pagination in the previous six posts on the speech analysis. I wrote this in Word using endnotes, which I don’t have much experience with. Then I wasn’t sure if I could break it into stand-alone parts without the endnote numbers updating themselves. I think it worked for the most part but there were pagination issues when I loaded it to the Volkalize site. I hope none of them are confusing.

An error I didn’t see until I posted these is that sometimes in the transcript I inadvertently placed the endnote number inside existing quotation marks. At no time do I try to change the wording or the meaning of the transcript because the speech itself is not mine to change in any manner whatsoever (although in this case I don’t know but there are often copyright laws to consider).

I don’t believe these few errors change any meaning and I ask that you take that into consideration. Obviously I have my opinions on the speech but the transcript is not the place for them – that is what the analysis in the endnotes is for and endnote number one makes clear that all the endnotes are my analysis and not part of the speech.

I hope everyone can find benefit in this and add to it. At no time do I believe that I am always correct but I do generally offer substantial evidence to support my positions.

I eagerly await constructive comments.

September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


September 17, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


September 17, 2014

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com


Can’t say I disagree. I also can’t say that you didn’t cover everything pretty thoroughly. I think we all have figured out by now that our pretender-in-chief is not only inept but he will also go down as not only the worst president, but also the most anti-American president in the country’s history. Nothing he does surprises me anymore. If there is a way to make this country look bad or to bring it down further than what it is, he will do it.

Even when he appears to do something that will benefit us, he has a hidden agenda to drag us down further.

September 21, 2014

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar



Thanks for the comment on the thoroughness of the analysis. I hope that was meant as a complement because that is how I take it. I take pride in the effort to be thorough, no matter the author.

I have made the offer on this site on numerous threads for anyone to suggest something that Obama has done good for this country and nobody can provide an answer to that. I don’t believe he has done ANYTHING good for this country in the last six years. Although that is my opinion, it is an unchallenged opinion.

I have also made the case on several threads on this site that the single worst thing Obama has done to this country is his gross mishandling of the attacks on our embassy personnel in Benghazi.

Briefly on the Benghazi thing you can make a very good case that he is ultimately liable for the lack of adequate security prior to the attacks but that is not the most serious breech of his Constitutional oath to defend this country.

The lack of security prior to the attack can be explained away as the result of having incompetent people in the offices of State and President. The bottom line is that while being stupid (respectfully) can be very harmful and even deadly, as it was in this case, being stupid is not in and of itself a crime and the people had every right to knowingly vote for stupid people and they did, not once but twice. I prefer to refer to these voters as “uninformed voters.” As Forest Gump said “Stupid is as stupid does.”

The presidential crime on the Benghazi thing is that the president/commander-in-chief did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to even try to defend the United States of America when attacked by those who would deny American citizens of their CONSTITUTIONALLY protected rights.

For those not in the know the president/commander-in-chief is constitutionally bound by sworn oath to defend those rights and freedoms using all the powers of the United States government and he didn’t even lift a finger in our defense.

For further clarity (sorry if I get repetitive here but for some reason this has not been repeated enough because he and his supporters still do not get it), those four “dead Americans” and all Americans have the constitutionally guaranteed and constitutionally protected right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This oath is taken by ALL government officials but only Obama is the commander) The President’s first and foremost authority and responsibility is to use the complete power of the United States Government (a considerable power) to protect those rights.

Pardon me, my intention is not to be morbid but to make a point – how are those four Americans enjoying their constitutionally guaranteed right to “LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS” now?

The President/Commander-in-chief has ONE responsibility and ONLY one responsibility and that is to GUARANTEE to PROTECT those rights. In acknowledgement of this incredible task he voluntarily takes a sworn oath to do just that. Don’t take this as thinking that this is all he has to do and has unlimited free time to golf. On the contrary this is an awesome responsibility and takes considerable time. That is why he has really NO OTHER RESPONSIBILITY.

For the record, I once again challenge anyone to identify a responsibility he has that is not associated with his responsibility for the guaranteed protection of our rights and freedoms.

When the investigation on Benghazi is correctly completed I am absolutely convinced that both the President and the former Secretary of State can and should be impeached and removed from office (forcefully if necessary). Yes, the Secretary of State was smart enough to vacate her office but I believe she is still partly liable.

That said, even though I believe (as of today) that Benghazi is the single worst thing this president has done to this country (of a rather long list of bad things), the potential for him to do far worse harm is incredibly high.

I am of course talking about his failed-before-even-starting strategy in the Middle East regarding ISIS. If one American gets killed in the execution of this grossly-negligent strategy it will make the Benghazi thing look like Sunday School.

Unfortunately this does not include journalists already there because they are not part of the strategy, and just as unfortunate we can be reasonably assured that at some point an American will be killed in this because people dying is a part of war. Regardless of what John Kerry calls it, we are at war.

It is my strong opinion, supported with overwhelming evidence, that ANY and ALL American blood spilled in the execution of the current strategy will be American blood on Obama’s hands and furthermore it will be American blood on the hands of those who voted for him.

I can somewhat excuse those who voted for him in 2008 because those voters didn’t like Bush at all even though each day that goes by seems to prove Bush more right. I can also give those voters in 2008 a pass because the alternative was McCain and although he would have been a better choice he was not a particularly good choice.

However, the people who voted for him in 2012 did so even though all these facts on Benghazi were known. Those people, in my opinion will share that American blood on their hands. In full disclosure, yes, I do have a couple friends who fall in this category.

September 21, 2014

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com


Kev, it was in fact, a compliment that you had covered these points thoroughly. You left little out that could be refuted or debated.

I have no doubt that the blame for the deaths of our people over seas, that are being murdered, is being shared by those that put our Moron-in-chief back in office. It is my hope that enough people have woken up and we can keep the socialist liberals out of office in the next election, democrat or republican.

I am on an outage right now in Virginia, so I have little time to comment. Thus the brevity in my comments.

September 21, 2014

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must: