Mediaboss Marketing

President Obama sent seemingly conflicting signals Wednesday about his ultimate goal in the fight against the Islamic State, saying at a press conference in Europe that the aim is to "degrade and destroy" the terror group -- but moments later, claiming he wants to make it a "manageable problem."

The president spoke as lawmakers on Capitol Hill and others urge the White House and Pentagon to pursue a tough approach against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Those calls mounted after the group released another video showing the execution of an American journalist; the White House on Wednesday confirmed that video as authentic.

Speaking in Estonia during a visit to Europe, Obama at first took a hard line. He condemned the execution as "horrific" and "barbaric" and vowed "justice will be served."

After taking some heat for admitting last week that "we don't have a strategy yet" to address the militant group in Syria, Obama said they do have a regional strategy. Ultimately, he said, "our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States."

But later in the press conference, Obama returned to the topic and noticeably softened his tone.

He clarified that if the U.S. is joined by an international coalition, they can "continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem."

The remarks are likely to sow confusion on Capitol Hill, and possibly among allies.

"Are we going to contain ISIS or are we going to crush ISIS? And the president has not answered that," Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., told Fox News, reacting to the president's remarks.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., in a written statement, criticized the president's "mixed messages" on the Islamic State. "The time to stop and destroy ISIL is now," he said.

See original here:
OBAMA: 'Degrade and destroy' ISIS but let's keep it 'manageable'

Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS.

By: Keyur

Link:
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS - Video

A funny thing happened over the weekend: While President Obama took heat for saying he didn't havea strategy to deal with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and isil) in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a pretty remarkable statement.

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

The quote didn't really make the rounds and was buried deep in the AP story, but it's a pretty telling little nugget.

Why? Because, to date, it's one of the most hawkish things that any potential 2016 presidential contender has said about the Islamic State. And Paul is supposed to be the non-interventionist in the bunch.

Below isa sampling of what the others have said.

Hillary Clinton: Has not weighed in recently.

Chris Christie: ""The ISIS situation is one that deserves a really detailed answer, which I'm not going to give you while walking down the boardwalk and taking selfies."

Marco Rubio: "If we do not act now to assist our Iraqi partners and moderate Syrians who oppose ISIL, as well as utilize our own forces to directly target ISILs leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.

Paul Ryan: "What we need to have is a strategy to finish them off, to defeat ISIS. Not contain them, not to react, but to fundamentally finish them off."

Ted Cruz: Said that the Islamic State is "mocking America" and "we ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Read more from the original source:
The Fix: Rand Paul just said something very important, and almost nobody noticed

A funny thing happened over the weekend: While President Obama took heat for saying he didn't havea strategy to deal with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and isil) in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a pretty remarkable statement.

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

The quote didn't really make the rounds and was buried deep in the AP story, but it's a pretty telling little nugget.

Why? Because, to date, it's one of the most hawkish things that any potential 2016 presidential contender has said about the Islamic State. And Paul is supposed to be the non-interventionist in the bunch.

Below isa sampling of what the others have said.

Hillary Clinton: Has not weighed in recently.

Chris Christie: ""The ISIS situation is one that deserves a really detailed answer, which I'm not going to give you while walking down the boardwalk and taking selfies."

Marco Rubio: "If we do not act now to assist our Iraqi partners and moderate Syrians who oppose ISIL, as well as utilize our own forces to directly target ISILs leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.

Paul Ryan: "What we need to have is a strategy to finish them off, to defeat ISIS. Not contain them, not to react, but to fundamentally finish them off."

Ted Cruz: Said that the Islamic State is "mocking America" and "we ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Here is the original post:
Rand Paul just said something very important, and almost nobody noticed

U.S. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky gives the keynote speech to the delegates of the Texas GOP Convention in Fort Worth, Texas Friday June 6, 2014.(AP Photo/Rex C. Curry) AP

Two-thirds of registered voters in Kentucky oppose legislation that would ease a potential headache for Republican Sen. Rand Paul should he decide to seek reelection to his current seat while simultaneously mounting a White House bid, a poll out Tuesday found.

Earlier this year the Bluegrass State's senate majority leader sought to clarify an ambiguous law that Paul argued is unconstitutional if it indeed bars running for reelection to the Senate and for president concurrently. The purpose of his proposed legislation, Republican Sen. Damon Thayor said at the time, "will be to make clear that Rand Paul or anything in a smiliar situation in Kentucky can run for both offices in the same year."

Democrats running the state House ultimately blocked the bill, which is a move that seems largely popular among Kentucky voters: Only 15 percent said they believe Paul should be able to campaign for both seats, and a third say the freshman lawmaker shouldn't run for anything.

But among those who back Paul as a voice in the political arena, a slim margin - 24 to 22 percent - favors him in the Senate chamber then in the Oval Office. Some voters who spoke to the pollster, like 67-year-old Harvey Tincher, made the case that Paul's libertarian-guided foreign policy would preclude his qualifications for president.

"He's more of an isolationist, and we don't live in an isolated world," he said. Tincher added that "the fear of losing" shouldn't establish grounds for a candidate to seek multiple offices: "You've got to run for one or run for the other," he said. "If you're going to do it, go all the way."

Of course there are those in the minority who back Paul's potential double candidacy, including Mary Dean, a Kentucky Democrat.

"I do think he's a good senator and I think he'd make an excellent president, if they would change the law to allow that in the state of Kentucky," she said. "I think he's a personable candidate -- you can talk to him and he will answer you."

Paul, who's made no secret of his presidential ambitions, isn't the first potential White House candidate to seek two offices concurrently. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, then-Sen. Joe Biden and former Sen. Joe Lieberman all sought reelection while running for vice president.

2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Original post:
Kentucky voters oppose Rand Paul running for two offices concurrently