Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

On four of any given seven days, Obama does not get an intel briefing

+3
Wordslinger
ZVUGKTUBM
Floridatexan
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Markle

Markle

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2775047/Report-White-House-intelligence-gap-Obama-skipping-FOUR-seven-daily-briefings.html

But he can blame the choices he makes on the intel community.....sheeeesh. You know the guy can't understand an intel brief given to him on an Ipad. There's no way...

Guys with stars on their shoulders and three decades of experience ask questions and want clarification after an intel brief....and Obama is none of that at all. He just doesn't care.

You're right, he just doesn't care. This has come out in the news previously. He "reads" them on his I-Pad...maybe. This provides no interaction with his advisor with regard to asking questions and getting answers back from his advisors.

This is especially true if it interferes with his "T" time.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:If Obama received daily briefings-- daily-- why did he, or as he said, "we underestimated ISIS?

The same reason George Bush invaded for WMD's. He was given the information from intelligence.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=related

He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010


How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is45Jwqizc

And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….
###

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:If Obama received daily briefings-- daily-- why did he, or as he said, "we underestimated ISIS?

He explained this.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:If Obama received daily briefings-- daily-- why did he, or as he said, "we underestimated ISIS?

He explained this.

This is simply ANOTHER massive cover-up. If something good happens or he perceives as good, the semi-retired President uses the word "I" dozens of times. If it is bad or perceived as bad, THEN the word is always "THEY". The buck NEVER gets to desk.

Even Sal and the other hard left Progressives know this to be true but they'd rather get a root canal than admit the truth.

Sal

Sal

No, he explained that a large part of underestimating ISIS involved overestimating the Iraqi army's willingness to fight them.

This all, once again, leads back to Dubya's dumbfuckery in invading and occupying in the first place, compounded by the asinine government they installed in Iraq.

By allowing a Shia dominated government an iron hand and not insisting on inclusiveness, it was inevitable that when we left, the Shia would purge Sunnis from the government and the military.

Then when ISIS came a'callin' in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, the only army there to defend it were Shias who don't a rat's ass about the Sunni Triangle, and the Sunnis were happy enough to see them routed.

All the intelligence in the world wouldn't have kept that from happening, given the circumstances and dynamics left by the Dubya administration.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:No, he explained that a large part of underestimating ISIS involved overestimating the Iraqi army's willingness to fight them.

This all, once again, leads back to Dubya's dumbfuckery in invading and occupying in the first place, compounded by the asinine government they installed in Iraq.

By allowing a Shia dominated government an iron hand and not insisting on inclusiveness, it was inevitable that when we left, the Shia would purge Sunnis from the government and the military.

Then when ISIS came a'callin' in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, the only army there to defend it were Shias who don't a rat's ass about the Sunni Triangle, and the Sunnis were happy enough to see them routed.

All the intelligence in the world wouldn't have kept that from happening, given the circumstances and dynamics left by the Dubya administration.


Oh ok.....so it's the Iraqi army at fault......

Gosh what is your explanation regarding Obama's top advisors and military leaders warning him this would happen with a complete withdrawl......dammit!

Waiting for the......Next excuse for failed foreign policy abilities.

Vikingwoman



Markle wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2775047/Report-White-House-intelligence-gap-Obama-skipping-FOUR-seven-daily-briefings.html

But he can blame the choices he makes on the intel community.....sheeeesh. You know the guy can't understand an intel brief given to him on an Ipad. There's no way...

Guys with stars on their shoulders and three decades of experience ask questions and want clarification after an intel brief....and Obama is none of that at all. He just doesn't care.

You're right, he just doesn't care.  This has come out in the news previously.  He "reads" them on his I-Pad...maybe.  This provides no interaction with his advisor with regard to asking questions and getting answers back from his advisors.

This is especially true if it interferes with his "T" time.

Ya'll just make up shit as the day goes on, don't you? Must be nice to just sit there and imagine you're in the White House and personally observing all these truths? LOL!

Vikingwoman



Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:No, he explained that a large part of underestimating ISIS involved overestimating the Iraqi army's willingness to fight them.

This all, once again, leads back to Dubya's dumbfuckery in invading and occupying in the first place, compounded by the asinine government they installed in Iraq.

By allowing a Shia dominated government an iron hand and not insisting on inclusiveness, it was inevitable that when we left, the Shia would purge Sunnis from the government and the military.

Then when ISIS came a'callin' in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, the only army there to defend it were Shias who don't a rat's ass about the Sunni Triangle, and the Sunnis were happy enough to see them routed.

All the intelligence in the world wouldn't have kept that from happening, given the circumstances and dynamics left by the Dubya administration.


Oh ok.....so it's the Iraqi army at fault......

Gosh what is your explanation regarding Obama's top advisors and military leaders warning him this would happen with a complete withdrawl......dammit!

Waiting for the......Next excuse for failed foreign policy abilities.

You're another one. LOL! So tell us word for word what you heard the advisors and military leaders tell the president? Don't leave out a thing!

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Th Dude wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:Again, Pres. Obama nor Hillary Clinton are sitting there doing their own intelligence. Apparently, our intelligence hasn't improved all that much.

The same intelligence agencies that advised bush? That he solely takes all the blame for in leftist land?

Double standards are very useful. I wish people could look at the results without the ideological party lenses.

As if you ever look at anything without your "commie specs". Ridiculous.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Vikingwoman wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:No, he explained that a large part of underestimating ISIS involved overestimating the Iraqi army's willingness to fight them.

This all, once again, leads back to Dubya's dumbfuckery in invading and occupying in the first place, compounded by the asinine government they installed in Iraq.

By allowing a Shia dominated government an iron hand and not insisting on inclusiveness, it was inevitable that when we left, the Shia would purge Sunnis from the government and the military.

Then when ISIS came a'callin' in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, the only army there to defend it were Shias who don't a rat's ass about the Sunni Triangle, and the Sunnis were happy enough to see them routed.

All the intelligence in the world wouldn't have kept that from happening, given the circumstances and dynamics left by the Dubya administration.


Oh ok.....so it's the Iraqi army at fault......

Gosh what is your explanation regarding Obama's top advisors and military leaders warning him this would happen with a complete withdrawl......dammit!

Waiting for the......Next excuse for failed foreign policy abilities.

You're another one. LOL! So tell us word for word what you heard the advisors and military leaders tell the president? Don't leave out a thing!

Look it up.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:

Oh ok.....so it's the Iraqi army at fault......

Gosh what is your explanation regarding Obama's top advisors and military leaders warning him this would happen with a complete withdrawl......dammit!

Waiting for the......Next excuse for failed foreign policy abilities.

I'm offering a timeline and facts about what actually occurred.

You are offering idle speculation of that might have happened had Obama tried harder, or wanted it more, or something ....

There's a qualifiable difference in these arguments.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
Markle wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2775047/Report-White-House-intelligence-gap-Obama-skipping-FOUR-seven-daily-briefings.html

But he can blame the choices he makes on the intel community.....sheeeesh. You know the guy can't understand an intel brief given to him on an Ipad. There's no way...

Guys with stars on their shoulders and three decades of experience ask questions and want clarification after an intel brief....and Obama is none of that at all. He just doesn't care.

You're right, he just doesn't care.  This has come out in the news previously.  He "reads" them on his I-Pad...maybe.  This provides no interaction with his advisor with regard to asking questions and getting answers back from his advisors.

This is especially true if it interferes with his "T" time.

Ya'll just make up shit as the day goes on, don't you? Must be nice to just sit there and imagine you're in the White House and personally observing all these truths? LOL!

Specifically what has been made up? Be specific an cite where you got the information that it is a lie.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:

Oh ok.....so it's the Iraqi army at fault......

Gosh what is your explanation regarding Obama's top advisors and military leaders warning him this would happen with a complete withdrawl......dammit!

Waiting for the......Next excuse for failed foreign policy abilities.

I'm offering a timeline and facts about what actually occurred.

You are offering idle speculation of that might have happened had Obama tried harder, or wanted it more, or something ....

There's a qualifiable difference in these arguments.

You are also avoiding the fact Obama was warned about what would happen.....and it did. Obama gave terrorist a timeline for complete withdrawl.......all they had to do was wait.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:

You are also avoiding the fact Obama was warned about what would happen.....and it did.

So, fucking, what?

Everyone knew what was going to happen.

That was established when we invaded, occupied, and installed a government dominated by one side of an ancient sectarian conflict.

You didn't have to be a fucking military mastermind to see this coming.

But it's their country, and they didn't want us there.

So, we had to go.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:

You are also avoiding the fact Obama was warned about what would happen.....and it did.

So, fucking, what?

Everyone knew what was going to happen.

That was established when we invaded, occupied, and installed a government dominated by one side of an ancient sectarian conflict.

You didn't have to be a fucking military mastermind to see this coming.

But it's their country, and they didn't want us there.

So, we had to go.

Calm down......we all know Obama still doesn't not have what it takes.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:

Calm down......we all know Obama still doesn't not have what it takes.

To fix Dubya's massive, global clusterfuck?

Of course, he doesn't have what it takes.

No one does.

He's just trying to keep a lid on it, so we get as little blow back as possible over here.

Thank gawd, some adults are in charge this time.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:

Calm down......we all know Obama still doesn't not have what it takes.

To fix Dubya's massive, global clusterfuck?

Of course, he doesn't have what it takes.

No one does.

He's just trying to keep a lid on it, so we get as little blow back as possible over here.

Thank gawd, some adults are in charge this time.

Well he failed at keeping a lid on it.

Guest


Guest

by Sal Today at 2:14 pm
Joanimaroni wrote:

If Obama received daily briefings-- daily-- why did he, or as he said, "we underestimated ISIS?

He explained this.
------
He blamed everyone else except himself

Guest


Guest

Obama sucks-
It is quite simple.

Guest


Guest

Obama sucks-
It is quite simple.

Vikingwoman



Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
Markle wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2775047/Report-White-House-intelligence-gap-Obama-skipping-FOUR-seven-daily-briefings.html

But he can blame the choices he makes on the intel community.....sheeeesh. You know the guy can't understand an intel brief given to him on an Ipad. There's no way...

Guys with stars on their shoulders and three decades of experience ask questions and want clarification after an intel brief....and Obama is none of that at all. He just doesn't care.

You're right, he just doesn't care.  This has come out in the news previously.  He "reads" them on his I-Pad...maybe.  This provides no interaction with his advisor with regard to asking questions and getting answers back from his advisors.

This is especially true if it interferes with his "T" time.

Ya'll just make up shit as the day goes on, don't you? Must be nice to just sit there and imagine you're in the White House and personally observing all these truths? LOL!

Specifically what has been made up?  Be specific an cite where you got the information that it is a lie.

You all made the statements. You prove it is the truth.I want to hear it from the mouths that heard it.

Vikingwoman



Hey now you both have something in common! How about that?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum