It was pointed out that the Democrats are using ISIS and the Paris murders to push their anti-gun, disarm the citizens agenda. That is certainly true; the Left is worried by citizens who might resist its nostrums. (So is the Right, for that matter; being caught with a sword if you were not a noble was death in the old days. ( That was why Robin Hood and Little John dueled with wooden staffs in the movie.)
Both parties are using ISIS as a distraction from our oncoming financial debacle and the ongoing impoverishment of the U.s. and Europe presently attributed to saving the planet. Ebola failed to hold up so now, it’s ISIS. The Prez is downplaying it so he must be incompetent, uncaring, etc.
Apologies, but we see the Prez as too warlike by half. We see ISIS as a local problem for the Sunni Arabs and their Shia relatives to sort out on their own. Arabs and Iranians (Persians) have been jousting for millennia; why are we now supposed to go broke interfering?
We are much more interested in what our Mighty Leaders are planning to do about our national insolvency, declining economy and every-increasing spending of non-existent money. Instead, everyone seems bound to goad the Prez into hyping up war we can’t afford and won’t gain anything from. Those doing the hyping will gain, though. But we won’t. We’ll just owe more money that our grandchildren will have to repay. If they can fain a job.
So the Prez’ refusal to escalate re ISIS is one of the rare cases where he seems correct.Relatively correct anyway, better if he ignored ISIS altogether. Then, it would have no motive to send nutcases to shoot innocents in Paris or Washington. Or so we suppose.
The Prez can afford his position; he can’t run again, so long as the Constitution holds up. But the Democrats in Congress and their Republican clones all need financiers for upcoming elections, many of whom sell weapons and such for a living. Could that affect their attitudes?