Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Read m

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

polgara said:

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

So the blame game is now making front page news - right on schedule! Good to know that nothing changes, and it's everyone else's fault when things go wrong. Meanwhile, back at the ranch in DC, we learn that all Maliki needs ifrom us is more equipment and/or money. to fight ISIS. Boringly predictable! Will we take the bait even though we're technically bankrupt?, with our debt exceeding our GDP? Sure, why not? Disregard the fact that the Sunis and Shiites have been fighting this religious war with each other for 1,357 years! We're gonna wade in and fix everything now! :thumbdown:

Click to expand...

Well this time it has backfired on BO.....Lady P. :2wave: As now what BO did.....was just affect all 16 Intel Agencies we have. Which I doubt he can clean up so easily.



The Obama administration national security staffer declined to share any specific information contained inside the PDBs, citing the need to continue to maintain security clearance protocols. The government aide also maintained that he is indeed “familiar” with the Middle East intelligence material that is sent to President Obama. The individual also revealed that the “finger-pointing” at James Clapper is not “sitting well” at the White House. “It’s starting to affect morale around here,” the intelligence staffer added. “Any time you’re hired by a boss to advise him about what to do in a high-stakes area, and he ignores you for a long time, it’s going to gnaw at you.”.....snip~

Obama Missed More Than Half Of Intelligence Briefings, Government Accountability Report Says

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

rocket88 said:

That's not really the claim though. The claim is that he should have done something, Congress be damned. While he has too often given Congress the old end around, I can't say that I wish he had done so.

Click to expand...

No, that isn't the claim. The claim is that he did nothing because doing something would look bad politically. The Congress, at least the Republicans, would have been more than happy to authorize action in Iraq. In fact the Republicans were requesting that Obama listen to his military advisers and heed the intel coming out of Syria.

I suppose the Democrats might have blocked it, but at the time they were still a rubber stamp for Obama.

But perceived political difficulties are a piss poor excuse for not even trying.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

You don't read. I said Obama could do nothing as long as Maliki and his sectarian regime was calling the shots. You wanted us to support a genocidal dictator with American lives? It took ISIS to take out Maliki and that is a good thing. At least Iraq has a chance now.

Click to expand...

Yeah I read.....evidently you don't. And I just pointed out how you missed the mark.....what are you trying to Say BO could not dictate terms of his Assistance if he had choose to help? That's in Nov of this last year. After Maliki came to Washington.

Whats your excuse that BO could not dictate terms of Assistance to Maliki? Does BO have the power or not? Oops, there goes your false equation to supporting a Dictator with American lives.

Oh btw......do we support King Abdullah/Dictator of the Saudi? You didn't think that Crown was Real.....did you?

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

jmotivator said:

Worse than losing Iraq to ISIS control? I beg to differ!

And no, the SOF agreement negotiated by Bush expired under Obama, but Obama was always free to negotiate a new SOF with Iraq. Obama simply didn't try and ignored the warnings of his military advisers in order to meet a campaign promise. It's all politics first and always with Obama.

And none of your defending explains why, when asked by the Iraqis, Obama didn't reinsert US power in the region. He was INVITED IN by the Iraqis and he turned them down. It is this critical failure that gave frickin' IRAN the open door to Iraq. Obama's decisions were all unmitigated disasters for US foreign policy.



So do the Iraqis, long before the disastrous ISIS campaign. When they were still sitting ducks in the desert border with Syria, when air power could have wiped them out, Obama refused. It would have looked bad in the reelection, you know! And the election is what was really important to Obama.




And, like I just said, you can make that argument all you want but the truth is that Obama himself admits to being ignorant of information that was clearly documented in those briefings. You can argue that Presidents don't need to attend those meetings but if the President is as ignorant as Obama is then whatever alternative method of getting briefed he was using was not (is not) working.

Click to expand...

We lost control of Iraq before Obama took office. Maliki refused to make an inclusive Govt. and was killing and locking up Sunni's in reprisal. Giving him more weapons would have made us complicit in genocide. Sending our troops to prop him up would be even worse. As far as helping Iran, Bush installed a Iranian sympathizer as President of Iraq. What could be more helpful than that?
Bush chose POORLY in allowing Maliki to lead. No surprise there.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

polgara said:

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

So the blame game is now making front page news - right on schedule! Good to know that nothing changes, and it's everyone else's fault when things go wrong. Meanwhile, back at the ranch in DC, we learn that all Maliki needs ifrom us is more equipment and/or money. to fight ISIS. Boringly predictable! Will we take the bait even though we're technically bankrupt?, with our debt exceeding our GDP? Sure, why not? Disregard the fact that the Sunis and Shiites have been fighting this religious war with each other for 1,357 years! We're gonna wade in and fix everything now! :thumbdown:

Click to expand...

Yep - because Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and many other "good Muslim" nations simply "lack resources" to fight the (not Islamic) terrorists. Of course, that requires believing that these governments will "do the right thing" if only given such resources which is the biggest Obama (and Bush) foreign policy fault.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

MMC said:

Yeah I read.....evidently you don't. And I just pointed out how you missed the mark.....what are you trying to Say BO could not dictate terms of his Assistance if he had choose to help? That's in Nov of this last year. After Maliki came to Washington.

Whats your excuse that BO could not dictate terms of Assistance to Maliki? Does BO have the power or not? Oops, there goes your false equation to supporting a Dictator with American lives.

Oh btw......do we support King Abdullah/Dictator of the Saudi? You didn't think that Crown was Real.....did you?

Click to expand...

No Obama did not have the power to dictate terms to Maliki or the inclination. Maliki was the problem with Iraq and Obama knew it. We could do nothing to help him stay in power..period. Did Obama expect that the Iraqi army would turn and run? No. But when it did Obama still insisted that there needed to be a new Govt. as a condition for our help. Otherwise he would have been as stupid as Bush was when he signed that agreement to withdraw with Maliki. Look at that grin.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

We lost control of Iraq before Obama took office. Maliki refused to make an inclusive Govt. and was killing and locking up Sunni's in reprisal. Giving him more weapons would have made us complicit in genocide. Sending our troops to prop him up would be even worse. As far as helping Iran, Bush installed a Iranian sympathizer as President of Iraq. What could be more helpful than that?

Click to expand...

Are you saying Maliki wasn't elected? So how did he get re-elected in 2010 and just how did Bush Junior help him with that?

Uhm, you know al Sistani and al Sadr are the real control of the Shia in Iraq......Correct?

Also, if we you are using the excuse about helping with Genocide. How does this Play out for BO with the Syrian MB backed Sunni Rebels who used Chems on people and Slaughtered Christians.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

MMC said:

It wouldn't be hindsight with the Iraq Ambassador filling BO in on all the details.....Also BO could have dictated terms to Maliki since this was after the SOFA.....yet BO wanted out and BO had declared Iraq.....Stable and self reliant. Biden stated it was a Success.

Click to expand...

November of last year was after the election. I could MAYBE see a political motivation of not doing it around the Presidential election but that's a very cynical view.

He definitely would of been able to dictate terms but enforcing the terms is an issue. If we say "cannot be used against population" that requires us to react to a use against the population then it turns into "well they were terrorists, that's why you gave them to me".

I'm just not sure it would of made a difference. Even with the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure giving the Maliki government the requested hardware would be a good idea.

Do you think sending helicopters and jets would of made the difference?

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

No Obama did not have the power to dictate terms to Maliki or the inclination. Maliki was the problem with Iraq and Obama knew it. We could do nothing to help him stay in power..period.

Click to expand...

No one said we had to help Maliki stay in power.....it was stated that BO could dictate terms since he was being invited back in. Yet you are saying BO couldn't do that. Which is not true.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

We lost control of Iraq before Obama took office. Maliki refused to make an inclusive Govt. and was killing and locking up Sunni's in reprisal. Giving him more weapons would have made us complicit in genocide. Sending our troops to prop him up would be even worse. As far as helping Iran, Bush installed a Iranian sympathizer as President of Iraq. What could be more helpful than that?
Bush chose POORLY in allowing Maliki to lead. No surprise there.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you actually adequately parsed what you are saying here. Are you saying that we allowed ISIS to run roughshod over half of Iraq because Maliki was a bad guy? First off, worse then ISIS? And second, worse than Saddam Hussein?

Surely you aren't serious...

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iliveonramen said:

November of last year was after the election. I could MAYBE see a political motivation of not doing it around the Presidential election but that's a very cynical view.

He definitely would of been able to dictate terms but enforcing the terms is an issue. If we say "cannot be used against population" that requires us to react to a use against the population then it turns into "well they were terrorists, that's why you gave them to me".

I'm just not sure it would of made a difference. Even with the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure giving the Maliki government the requested hardware would be a good idea.

Do you think sending helicopters and jets would of made the difference?

Click to expand...

Depends.....BO could have made sure he would have Intel set up like he would have thru a SOFA. Explaining to Maliki whether he would still be around or not. That the Intel Had to come with any Hardware. That we just can't bomb any populations. We will need to identify.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

jmotivator said:

Worse than losing Iraq to ISIS control? I beg to differ!

Click to expand...

So a US occupation against the wish of the people and government would of resulted in [fill in the blank].

And no, the SOF agreement negotiated by Bush expired under Obama, but Obama was always free to negotiate a new SOF with Iraq. Obama simply didn't try and ignored the warnings of his military advisers in order to meet a campaign promise. It's all politics first and always with Obama.

Click to expand...

Since when do agreements expire under a new President? Obama tried to negotiate for an extension or more troops left behind. I guess he can unilaterally cancel the agreement but that would be a mess and lead to the situation of US troops in Iraq against the wishes of the people and government. That's war...

And none of your defending explains why, when asked by the Iraqis, Obama didn't reinsert US power in the region. He was INVITED IN by the Iraqis and he turned them down. It is this critical failure that gave frickin' IRAN the open door to Iraq. Obama's decisions were all unmitigated disasters for US foreign policy.

Click to expand...

When were we invited into the US? I'm not defending I'm just pointing out that there's a lot more to the situation than "Obama left Iraq and now look at it".

So do the Iraqis, long before the disastrous ISIS campaign. When they were still sitting ducks in the desert border with Syria, when air power could have wiped them out, Obama refused. It would have looked bad in the reelection, you know! And the election is what was really important to Obama.

Click to expand...

Please link a reputable news site with an article pertaining to that. MMC linked an article with Maliki asking for US jets and attack helicopters but I'm not familiar with the Iraqi government asking us back into the country or asking for a US bombing campaign before ISIS started gaining territory.

And, like I just said, you can make that argument all you want but the truth is that Obama himself admits to being ignorant of information that was clearly documented in those briefings. You can argue that Presidents don't need to attend those meetings but if the President is as ignorant as Obama is then whatever alternative method of getting briefed he was using was not (is not) working.

Click to expand...

They obviously stated ISIS was a growing threat. Did they state that the Iraqi military wouldn't be able to handle the situation? Did they state that mass desertion would lead to a collapse of the Iraqi military? The agreement to leave Iraq was based on the fact we spent a decade training and outfitting the Iraqi military to handle Iraqi issues.

So using hindsight as a benefit I'm not sure what you state Obama should of done is even correct.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

MMC said:

Depends.....BO could have made sure he would have Intel set up like he would have thru a SOFA. Explaining to Maliki whether he would still be around or not. That the Intel Had to come with any Hardware. That we just can't bomb any populations. We will need to identify.

Click to expand...

True, there are things we could of done. I'm just not entirely sure it would of made a difference. Does it matter how much military hardware you give to guys that throw down their weapons without firing a shot? Good militaries are tenacious. The Iraqi military has proven to have to heart to fight at all. It's an embarrassment actually.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

MMC said:

No one said we had to help Maliki stay in power.....it was stated that BO could dictate terms since he was being invited back in. Yet you are saying BO couldn't do that. Which is not true.

Click to expand...

We have tried to get Maliki make an inclusive Govt. since he took office with no success. Maliki needed to step down and refused. Obama could not make him but ISIS did.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

Anthony60 said:

Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election, says administration insider | Daily Mail Online

A national security staffer in the Obama administration said the president has been seeing 'highly accurate predictions' about the rise of the ISIS terror army since 'before the 2012 election'
Obama insisted in his campaign speeches that year that America was safe and al-Qaeda was 'on the run'
The president said during Sunday's '60 Minutes' program that his Director of National Intelligence had conceded he underestimated ISIS
But the administration aide insisted that Obama's advisers gave him actionable information that sat and gathered dust for more than a year
'He knew what was at stake,' the aide said of the president, and 'he knew where all the moving pieces were'
Obama takes daily intelligence briefings in writing, he explained, because no one will be able to testify about warning the president in person about threats that the White House doesn't act on

Hmmm, this is interesting. This guy isn't even going through the motions.

Read more: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election, says administration insider | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Click to expand...

Kinda hard to do the work you've been elected to do when you spend more hours on the golf course than hours you spend in daily intelligence briefings.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

jmotivator said:

I wonder if you actually adequately parsed what you are saying here. Are you saying that we allowed ISIS to run roughshod over half of Iraq because Maliki was a bad guy? First off, worse then ISIS? And second, worse than Saddam Hussein?

Surely you aren't serious...

Click to expand...

Don't call me Surely. LOL The Iraqi army allowed ISIS to run "roughshod" over Iraq. They refused to fight for their Govt. but we should have? You are for making the same mistakes over and over with the blood of our soldiers. Obama thinks better of them. ISIS must be destroyed by local forces or we are just wasting our time and blood again. Now that Maliki is gone Iraq at least has a chance.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iliveonramen said:

True, there are things we could of done. I'm just not entirely sure it would of made a difference. Does it matter how much military hardware you give to guys that throw down their weapons without firing a shot? Good militaries are tenacious. The Iraqi military has proven to have to heart to fight at all. It's an embarrassment actually.

Click to expand...

Truthfully ILOR.....as soon as ISIS over ran the Iraqi Military base that held US Stinger missiles. We could have jumped on with the Air Strikes then. Which means Half of what ISIS stole and took into Syria. Would have never got there. So many think BO was looking to play off what they could do to Assad. Which Assad was playing off of them as to what they would do to the Syrian Rebels too.

You are Right about the Iraqis folding.....but then allowing ISIS to take 4 more Military bases in Iraq was the outcome of doing nothing. Which also led to ISIS getting our tanks and then over-running 4 of Assad's Military bases. Now they have both American and Russian Tech. The Best of the Best. Others can't even get in range.

Of course this would have taken Intel people out there tracking things down.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

We have tried to get Maliki make an inclusive Govt. since he took office with no success. Maliki needed to step down and refused. Obama could not make him but ISIS did.

Click to expand...

Yes we know this.....but we didn't have to deal with the part on their Government. That was for the Iraqis themselves to deal with. BO still had the Right to go in with terms dictated once US Military Equipment was taken and used. We had the Right to take out any Terrorists with the War on Terror. As ISIL was still part of AQ Prime.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

He should have listened to his advisors. They all told him that we needed to go after Alqaeda....he refused saying he "did not want to swat at flys". He then insisted that the "real" threat was Saddam Hussein and we need to overthrow him instead. And after letting 911 happen, that is what he did. Because like he said " We are either with HIM or on the side of the terrorists".

Click to expand...

OK, great. Bush gets intel in August of 01 saying an AQ attack was imminent and you say he should have gone after AQ. You think Bush could have mobilized the country, the military and the congress to go after AQ to the degree that 9/11 wouldn't have happened? You cant be serious. Accusing Bush of "letting 9/11 happen" as you just did is absurd. There is nothing, NOTHING Bush could have done to stop 9/11. Saying otherwise is moronic.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

Fletch said:

OK, great. Bush gets intel in August of 01 saying an AQ attack was imminent and you say he should have gone after AQ. You think Bush could have mobilized the country, the military and the congress to go after AQ to the degree that 9/11 wouldn't have happened? You cant be serious. Accusing Bush of "letting 9/11 happen" as you just did is absurd. There is nothing, NOTHING Bush could have done to stop 9/11. Saying otherwise is moronic.

Click to expand...

Maybe that is correct but there were things Bush could have done that might have given us a chance to thwart it. That is the point. Bush consistently downplayed Alqaeda to the point where he even told advisors he did not want to hear Bin Laden's name mentioned in briefings. You can't honestly think that he did his best protecting the country. Isn't that the Presidents job? If Obama told advisors that he didn't want to hear the name ISIS would you support him as much as you do Bush? The fact tis that Bush set a dangerous precedent by receiving overwhelming support for all his policies after 911 and he used it to invade Iraq. Some other President might see that and think he could do the same.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iliveonramen said:

So a US occupation against the wish of the people and government would of resulted in [fill in the blank].

Click to expand...

So you assume that our State Department was just too inept to broker a deal? I tend to agree with you, but then that is my point.

Since when do agreements expire under a new President? Obama tried to negotiate for an extension or more troops left behind. I guess he can unilaterally cancel the agreement but that would be a mess and lead to the situation of US troops in Iraq against the wishes of the people and government. That's war...

Click to expand...

No, you really need to go back and read the account of what actually happened in Iraq that lead to the end of US involvement.

In US Exit from Iraq, Failed Efforts and Challenges

Maliki was more than willing to keep the US troops in Iraq but Obama, as is his established MO, kept undercutting the negotiation process and made it impossible to ever really negotiate a SOFA continuance. Obama broke off the talks when Maliki was still willing to negotiate:

On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.

But there was no agreement. Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.

Ending the Effort

On Oct. 21, Mr. Obama held another videoconference with Mr. Maliki — his first such discussion since the talks began in June. The negotiations were over, and all of the American troops would be coming home.

Maliki actually favored the larger troop presence, it was the continuing down sizing by Obama that was hampering the deal as well as his juvenile attempts at reshuffling the Iraqi government as a prerequisite to a SOFA agreement.

When were we invited into the US? I'm not defending I'm just pointing out that there's a lot more to the situation than "Obama left Iraq and now look at it".

Please link a reputable news site with an article pertaining to that. MMC linked an article with Maliki asking for US jets and attack helicopters but I'm not familiar with the Iraqi government asking us back into the country or asking for a US bombing campaign before ISIS started gaining territory.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what part of Maliki requesting US fighter jets and attack Helicopters come back to Iraq to attack ISIS are you not understanding?

More to the point, at the time Obama said he pledged US support for Iraq and.... did not a damn thing. He did what he is best at: He dithered.

They obviously stated ISIS was a growing threat. Did they state that the Iraqi military wouldn't be able to handle the situation? Did they state that mass desertion would lead to a collapse of the Iraqi military? The agreement to leave Iraq was based on the fact we spent a decade training and outfitting the Iraqi military to handle Iraqi issues.

Click to expand...

YES! Obama's military advisers requested a large scale troop involvement in Iraq partly to train the Iraqi military into a competent fighting force. We have known for many years that the Iraqi military was not ready for prime time. Why is it that only you and Obama seem to have been out of the loop?

So using hindsight as a benefit I'm not sure what you state Obama should of done is even correct.

Click to expand...

It was the best he could have done. What he ended up doing was almost the worst possible thing he could have done. He inadvertently supported ISIS in Syria and left Iraq twisting in the wind.

Actually, I'm not sure there is a worse alternative than the path Obama took. From the collapse of the SOFA negotiations to the barbarian horse plowing through Iraqi towns every failure has Obama's finger prints on it. His actions in the SOFA deal make BIDEN seem like the smarter of the two.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

Montecresto said:

What in the hell makes you think that ****?? Obama grabbed hold of that stick Bush stuck into the ME and has stirred the hell out of it!!

Click to expand...

I think your reality check just bounced.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

rocket88 said:

Interesting. But there is a fine line between "had intelligence reports" and "have evidence to take to Congress." In 2012, it would have been hard sell especially with the election coming up.

Click to expand...

Yeah, especially since Obama was running on a platform of having killed Osama, al-Qaeda was on the run and Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration...you're are damned right it would be a "hard sell"..

But note, in Obama's defense his followers immediately turn to the political question and Obama's electoral standing as opposed to what's right. And thank you for documenting so succinctly the nature of the problem with Obama's presidency....it's all for image.

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

We lost control of Iraq before Obama took office. Maliki refused to make an inclusive Govt. and was killing and locking up Sunni's in reprisal. Giving him more weapons would have made us complicit in genocide. Sending our troops to prop him up would be even worse. As far as helping Iran, Bush installed a Iranian sympathizer as President of Iraq. What could be more helpful than that?
Bush chose POORLY in allowing Maliki to lead. No surprise there.

Click to expand...

Oh that's a new one.

Tell me, if things were so unstable and left over from Bush why did Obama decide to leave?

Re: Obama has had accurate intelligence about ISIS since BEFORE the 2012 election Re

iguanaman said:

We lost control of Iraq before Obama took office. Maliki refused to make an inclusive Govt. and was killing and locking up Sunni's in reprisal. Giving him more weapons would have made us complicit in genocide. Sending our troops to prop him up would be even worse. As far as helping Iran, Bush installed a Iranian sympathizer as President of Iraq. What could be more helpful than that?
Bush chose POORLY in allowing Maliki to lead. No surprise there.

Click to expand...

That an absolute lie. But don't take my word for it. Ask Joe Biden who in 2010 (that would be two years after Bush left office) proclaimed that Iraq would be "One of Obama's great achievements." Obama lost control of Iraq and its collapse came six years into Obamas term. To continue to claim its all Bushs fault at this point destroys any credibility you might have.