Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R – WI) thinks that the Obama administration should get tougher with Daesh (also known as ISIS, ISIL, and the Islamic State):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives challenged President Barack Obama on Tuesday to get tougher with Islamic State militants…

“ISIS showed they are committing an act of war against the West,” House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters after a closed-door meeting of House Republican lawmakers, using a common acronym for the militant group.

So is the GOP going to rush through a budget amendment committing additional funds to the war effort in Syria and Iraq? Are they going to rush through a new War Powers bill to actually give President Obama the authority to wage the war (something that I advocated a while ago)?

No, to combat what nearly everyone agrees is a threat to world peace, the GOP is going to rush through legislation barring the president’s plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States…

Ryan said party leaders had assembled a task force to consider legislation “as quickly as possible” that would suspend at least temporarily Obama’s plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.

“This is a moment where it is better to be safe than sorry. So we think the prudent, the responsible thing is to take a pause in this particular aspect of this refugee program in order to verify that terrorists are not trying to infiltrate the refugee population,” Ryan said.

Several Republicans said they wanted a vote on such legislation as soon as this week.

That is our tougher response? wtf?

Tagged with:

3 Responses to Republicans want tougher response to ISIS ‘war’

  1. Duane12 says:

    “…get tougher…”?

    Thank you, Speaker Ryan-Boehner for your very political and abusive advise to the President of the United states, but isn’t this just more of the same as in the past?

    “…get tougher…”?

    And didn’t the American people in a Gallop poll get tough with you as a member of Congress for not doing your job as suggested by a lowly 16% approval rating and as low as 13% in another?


    “…get tougher…”?

    Also, didn’t the American people get tough in the last presidential election clearly and decisively rejecting your and wazhisname’s weaknessess?

    “….get tougher…?

    Do you mean like with Osama?

  2. Dan says:

    I can understand the hypothetical argument as to why we should not take on refugees, but it doesn’t seem to hold up to a bit of critical thinking.

    If there are ISIS terrorists among the refugees, the certainly aren’t armed. I would assume someone goes through their stuff at customs. Which means that when they get here, they are going to have to hook up with an existing terrorist cell or organize a new one. Either way, this activity should be easily detectable by law enforcement assuming that they are doing their job.

    • Duane12 says:

      I Agree. Another important consideration is that no single men are allowed, only families; that is, husband, wife, and their children..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.