1) Not bombing civilians early in the conflict -- US attacks on civilians has been a giant recruiting public relations mechanism for ISIS and other anti-US groups. Any tactical gain from killing civilians could easily be offset by producing more ISIS recruits via anger over civilian deaths.
Now that they have attacked our partner, France, we have justification for stronger offense. For example, if somebody on the street merely threatens to injure you or your spouse via words, then punching them would probably get you an aggravated assault sentence. However, if they strike at your spouse, then you are justified in physically retaliating.
2) Not arming the Kurds more -- Turkey is strategic NATO partner in the region. Our relations with them have been somewhat shaky of late, in large part due to our assistance to the Kurds, such that we are at risk of losing Turkey as an ally. Turkey is afraid that armed Kurds will turn on them, being they've have a tumultuous history and relationship with the non-Kurd portions of Turkey. Giving more arms to the Kurds could easily create heavy blow-back.
You may disagree with how the President has weighed and balanced these tricky factors, but it's very difficult to claim his selection of one over the other was clearly a poor decision based on the known conditions of the time. In hindsight they could indeed turn out to be poor selections, but hindsight makes all of humanity look pretty stupid. Only God has a crystal ball.
3) "ISIS is contained" remark -- It's pretty clear to me the President meant geographically contained in terms of territory occupied. One generally does NOT use the term "contained" or "non-contained" to refer to hit-and-run terror attacks (or hit-and-burst). You are welcome to interpret it differently, but it's probably due to your personal bias against Democrats such that your brain subconsciously interprets it in a way that makes the President appear to fib, because that fits your preconceived notions.
4) "ISIS is the JV Team" -- That's such a highly figurative analogy that it's difficult to measure and compare in a meaningful way. ISIS's military is hardly comparable to China's, Russia's, or even the UK's or Frances. They don't have an air-force; they don't have a navy; they don't have nuclear weapons, etc. From that perspective, they ARE a secondary power.
I don't why conservatives keep bringing up such a very indirect and colloquial analogy, other than perhaps to use repetition alone to increase the alleged embarrassment power of the statement rather than focus on substantive issues and statements. It's marketing 101: go for the shiny red ball because it's visible and easy for the audience to remember, rather than facts and logic. It's yet another way conservatives tick me off.
