Do you agree with this columnist's opinion of America's political leaders' responses to the Da'esh attacks in Paris this week?

I've already responded to half of this elsewhere. Name-calling is just a form of ad hominem attack. Why not respond to their very rational questions regarding the wisdom of bringing Syrian "refugees" here. Look at the videos of these refugees. No, you won't find them on the news media. They don't look anything like the widows and orphans that the President says the GOP is afraid of. They look like military-age, virile young men and their rioting and demanding that cultural traditions be abandoned to cater to their religious beliefs.

As to the President's behavior. Does anyone really have to comment on it? Just watch. He is acting petulant, tone-deaf, and arrogant.

1. President Obama has said, and said this week that large numbers of US troops on the ground in Syria just won’t work. And CMOH winner Col. Jack Jacobs said the same thing on Saturday. It is total folly for us to have our guys killed on the ground where no one we support will work to keep it.

2. I heard half a dozen times this weekend that President Obama’s –strategy- of containing ISIS HAS WORKED. ISIS now controls about 25% less territory than it did a year ago. This, according to analysis I heard yesterday, is why ISIS is now fomenting locals in various countries to attack civilians at will. Otherwise, ISIS is irrelevant and powerless.

3. Refer back to #2. The president’s policy on ISIS is working.

4. The type of attack we saw in Paris is -undetectable-. No intelligence agency can discern who is in their basements looking at ISIS websites and coordinating the receipt of assault rifles, suicide vests, communication gear and the other tools of terror attack.

5. An appeal to hearts and minds is the only way to address the underlying causes of these attacks. That would absolutely include allowing carefully vetted Syrian citizens into this country. And the president knows that is “Who we are.”

6. Refusing any Syrian refugees at all would evoke Sun Tzu’s dictum that “He who defends all defends nothing.”

It is better to take 10,000 Syrians among whom may be a few martyrs than it would be to refuse to take them. It is a hearts and mind thing. We have to be the great nation we have been in the past, and resist:

1. Fear
2. Racism.


For it is clearly pandering to the racist element among the voters that the GOP presidential candidates are saying we should reject any refugees at all. It also will show us as not standing with our NATO allies if we reject refugees.


Walt

My feeling about Xenophobia that the president is definitely that and I believe he hate white christians.. His comment about "popping off" is more than insulting and seeing that countries, like Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, Germany and all of the Arab States, tell me if there is racism going on, POTUS exemplifies the worst in human nature.

There is a simple answer to this dilemma. My biggest concern is that the vast majority Ovi is refugees are males of military age between 18 and 35. Where are the women and children? Why are these men leaving their homeland? Have they been adequately screened before being permitted into the United States? There are too many questions that need answers before we can just blanket accept all of these refugees.

I think the author hits the nail on the head with his opener. Unfortunately after events like these hysteria and overreaction tends to permeate the air.

I find the author's interpretation of current events rather interesting since at least as far back as 2005, the US has been financing and training anti-government opposition in Syria with a view toward regime-change. This policy goes back beyond the current POTUS. So maybe a better question to examine is how did our historical foreign policies contribute to the crisis with ISIS in Syria. How did we get to the point were American the land of the free is so eager to embrace isolationism. He makes it appear that the state of the Middle East was a conscious decisions of one President and that is clearly not the case. I think even if we look at our victories in the region we will be less than satisfied - Afghanistan's defeat of Russia leads to Taliban. Taliban leads to Iraq. Iraq leads to al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda leads to ISIS and then ISIS leads to Syria. The wing's of our foreign policy butterfly have created this hurricane. However I do believe our current president has weakened our efforts in the region as well there is a difference in being a xenophobe and one with a rational concern. I think an approach of secular reformation would have provided much better results.

I have emailed my state and federal representatives asking them to not take any refugees due to the possible terrorist among them. I hope you will all write your representatives and let them know what you think about this issue.

It's no secret POTUS cares a lot about what others think of him, and he often takes actions which will result in a political decision which is not necessary the best decision for others.

My own personal opinion....senior leadership at the top is not listening to the concerns of the people and making decisions based on what he wants to do. If what I have read is correct, while most of the states that want to NOT take Syrian refugees, at least 1 of them is Democrat. From a couple of my own perspectives and stuff that I have seen and read:
1. The use of mass flux of refugees offers the strong probability of the Trojan Horse tactic (already used for the Paris event, so we know they are already using it). While most of the refugees are probably good people that are in a bad way, some will be wolves in sheep's clothing.
2. Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Countries share common religious beliefs and can better accommodate these people....are not taking them due to their concerns of there being terrorists in the group. Saudi Arabia already has a town with Air Conditioned Tents that can accommodate 3 million people that is sitting empty! They set it up for the yearly migration that lasts a week or something....If these countries are not taking "their own people", what do they know that our leadership is not accepting?
3. Our welfare system is already over-taxed. I do not think that we need to be the world's savior at the expense of the taxpayer.

I will re-state my position on the refugees. I agree that we should not take in any refugees. Not because of religion, fear, intolerance, xenophobia, or anything external. My reason for believing that we should not be taking in any refugees is that we have a homelessness problem in our own country. We are terrible at dealing with this issue. We have people who work and still don't earn enough of a living to put food on the table. I think that if, as a nation, we want to house refugees, then we should house refugees from the streets of America first. Then we can take in those displaced from foreign shores.
As for Mr. Obama, he reminds me of the emperor in the Emperor's new clothes. He is walking through the streets naked, daring anyone to question him on it, then taking the person who does question him to task for doing so. Oh, your feelings are hurt and you are frustrated. TOUGH SHIT! You are the President of the United States, not a sales person at the mall. You set a policy. It failed. Stop whining, go back to the drawing board, and try again.
So I am voting yes on this, but I wish there had been an Other Opinion option.