Obama wants to talk to Americans to get them up to speed on ISIS.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Libya....Our conversation is over....

I forget....

Was that before or after our embassy was burned and ambassador murdered?

irrelevant

It will be more relevant in 2016

I doubt it no matter how hard the right tries.

I can see the commercials now:

Remember Hillarys 3 am phone call ad against Obama? Well she got that 3 am phone call herself, and she refused to answer....

 

[BreezeWood]

I dont doubt the CIA and others had ISIS on their radar.

just like they had Benghazi on their Radar ? - they were totally outflanked by IS.

this country is being poorly served by its politically motivated intelligence apparatus beginning from 2000 to the present time.

.

Not only did they have them on their radar they were scared of supplying them by default. It's all out there. You really need to start reading the New York Times.

the mistake was appointing a republican politician Petraeus to the CIA who was more interested in elections than protecting the country.

and no, the intelligence apparatus was not prepared for the IS rout of the Iraqi army, and are being shielded again by the same partisans that attack the Administration rather than the military industrial complex that is responsible and doing so for spurelious and self serving purposes.

.

 

[paulitician]

Oh Gawd, not another one of his preachy "Teachable Moments?" He sure does like to talk down to people huh? I find that to be a trait in most Communists/Progressives. It's very insulting and annoying. Especially when it comes from an inexperienced 'Community Organizer' asshole. I mean, that is his only claim to fame for God's sake. So he can spare us the preachy arrogance. Save it for the programmed Obamabots.

You are so right. It's a waste of breath. Republicans hate teaching because they lost the ability to learn.

**** him and his 'Teachable Moments.' He can save that for you Obamabot dipshits.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont doubt the CIA and others had ISIS on their radar.

just like they had Benghazi on their Radar ? - they were totally outflanked by IS.

this country is being poorly served by its politically motivated intelligence apparatus beginning from 2000 to the present time.

.

Not only did they have them on their radar they were scared of supplying them by default. It's all out there. You really need to start reading the New York Times.

the mistake was appointing a republican politician Petraeus to the CIA who was more interested in elections than protecting the country.

and no, the intelligence apparatus was not prepared for the IS rout of the Iraqi army, and are being shielded again by the same partisans that attack the Administration rather than the military industrial complex that is responsible and doing so for spurelious and self serving purposes.

.

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

 

[tosacco]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I am being realistic. He most likely has been weighing out multiple strategies over the last few months. If I were making excuses, I would be going on about how I have faith in what he will ultimately decide to do. He's had terrible foreign policy, I don't expect anything different here.

What should he have done different?

Well, I think our policy using drones is nearsighted and will most likely lead to serious repurcussions in the future. Not to mention I think using drones in the way we have is inherently unethical. Obama has also increased special operations not just in the middle east, but worldwide, in many countries we are not involved in. His use of special operations missions is a significant increase over how Bush used them (as far as we know). We should have been even less involved in Syria than we already were. It seemed like he began stepping up to the plate just to maintain credibility, which is a poor reason to get involved. I can go on, but part of the issue was Clinton as Secretary of State, and if she gets elected I think our foreign policy will become even worse.

 

[Rozman]

I think we were up to speed before he was...

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama is not worthy of my time. I have to change the oil in my car.

-Geaux

 

[BreezeWood]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

 

[Flopper]

I dont doubt the CIA and others had ISIS on their radar.

just like they had Benghazi on their Radar ? - they were totally outflanked by IS.

this country is being poorly served by its politically motivated intelligence apparatus beginning from 2000 to the present time.

.

Not only did they have them on their radar they were scared of supplying them by default. It's all out there. You really need to start reading the New York Times.

the mistake was appointing a republican politician Petraeus to the CIA who was more interested in elections than protecting the country.

and no, the intelligence apparatus was not prepared for the IS rout of the Iraqi army, and are being shielded again by the same partisans that attack the Administration rather than the military industrial complex that is responsible and doing so for spurelious and self serving purposes.

.

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Being appointed by Obama doesn't mean you're not a Republican. Among others he has appointed 3 Republicans to his cabinet.

Petraeus's official residence in the United States is a small property in the community of Springfield, New Hampshire, which his wife inherited from her family. Registered to vote in that state as a Republican,....
David Petraeus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

I dont doubt the CIA and others had ISIS on their radar.

just like they had Benghazi on their Radar ? - they were totally outflanked by IS.

this country is being poorly served by its politically motivated intelligence apparatus beginning from 2000 to the present time.

.

Not only did they have them on their radar they were scared of supplying them by default. It's all out there. You really need to start reading the New York Times.

the mistake was appointing a republican politician Petraeus to the CIA who was more interested in elections than protecting the country.

and no, the intelligence apparatus was not prepared for the IS rout of the Iraqi army, and are being shielded again by the same partisans that attack the Administration rather than the military industrial complex that is responsible and doing so for spurelious and self serving purposes.

.

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Being appointed by Obama doesn't mean you're not a Republican. Among others he has appointed 3 Republicans to his cabinet.

Petraeus's official residence in the United States is a small property in the community of Springfield, New Hampshire, which his wife inherited from her family. Registered to vote in that state as a Republican,....
If you register as Republican, you are a Republican.
David Petraeus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[BreezeWood]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

The Rabbi: Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal,

two republican made hero's that are not republicans ... and won the wars in Iraqi and Afganistan.


you can with a serious face insist there has been any substantive accomplishments in either the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars to date - after 12 years ?

the very best the Administration can do now is to just say, No More.

.

 

[Flopper]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

The Rabbi: Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal,

two republican made hero's that are not republicans ... and won the wars in Iraqi and Afganistan.


you can with a serious face insist there has been any substantive accomplishments in either the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars to date - after 12 years ?

the very best the Administration can do now is to just say, No More.

.

I think the administration certainly wants to say no more and get the hell out but that's not in the cards. Turning Iraq over to Isis is not really an option.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[The Rabbi]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

The Rabbi: Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal,

two republican made hero's that are not republicans ... and won the wars in Iraqi and Afganistan.


you can with a serious face insist there has been any substantive accomplishments in either the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars to date - after 12 years ?

the very best the Administration can do now is to just say, No More.

.

Are you psychotic? Are you operating from a history that is at odds with everything else?
Calling Petraeus a Republican is stupid. He is anything but. The Iraq War was a success. We won. The Afghan War was a failure. We've lost. This is just obvious

 

[The Rabbi]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

The Rabbi: Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal,

two republican made hero's that are not republicans ... and won the wars in Iraqi and Afganistan.


you can with a serious face insist there has been any substantive accomplishments in either the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars to date - after 12 years ?

the very best the Administration can do now is to just say, No More.

.

I think the administration certainly wants to say no more and get the hell out but that's not in the cards. Turning Iraq over to Isis is not really an option.

Well that's exactly what they did in Iraq. Said no more and got the hell out. And we see what happened. Exactly what Bush had predicted would happen.
And the same will happen in Afghanistan. The Taliban will be back in power in about 24 months after we leave. Because American power is the solution, not the problem.

 

[Flopper]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

The Rabbi: Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal,

two republican made hero's that are not republicans ... and won the wars in Iraqi and Afganistan.


you can with a serious face insist there has been any substantive accomplishments in either the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars to date - after 12 years ?

the very best the Administration can do now is to just say, No More.

.

I think the administration certainly wants to say no more and get the hell out but that's not in the cards. Turning Iraq over to Isis is not really an option.

Well that's exactly what they did in Iraq. Said no more and got the hell out. And we see what happened. Exactly what Bush had predicted would happen.
And the same will happen in Afghanistan. The Taliban will be back in power in about 24 months after we leave. Because American power is the solution, not the problem.

I don't think there is any real support on either side for a permanent military presence in either country. Maybe that will be needed. Time will tell.

 

[The Rabbi]

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.
Obama was being briefed on ISIS and chose to ignore it. That is the story of his administration: no plan other than "dont do stupid shit".

Petraeus was not a Republican. He was appointed by Obama. Twice.


are you saying again it was the "surges" in Iraqi and Afghanistan that won those wars for the US, not withstanding the expense and loss of life the republicans were more than eager to ignore for their praise of Petraeus and other such scoundrels that in the end have accomplished absolutely nothing ?

Petraeus is an exemplification of republican zealotry being forced on a country only to then blame others for what they were responsible for from the beginning.

.

Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal, and then as CIA director. THat hardly makes Petraeus a Republican.
As for your deflection, the Iraq surged worked and we won the war, despite Congressional dems.
The Afghan surge, orchestrated by Obama, was a total failure, a waste of lives and money cheered by Democrats.

The Rabbi: Im saying that Obama appointed Petraeus first as commander in Afghanistan to succeed McChrystal,

two republican made hero's that are not republicans ... and won the wars in Iraqi and Afganistan.


you can with a serious face insist there has been any substantive accomplishments in either the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars to date - after 12 years ?

the very best the Administration can do now is to just say, No More.

.

I think the administration certainly wants to say no more and get the hell out but that's not in the cards. Turning Iraq over to Isis is not really an option.

Well that's exactly what they did in Iraq. Said no more and got the hell out. And we see what happened. Exactly what Bush had predicted would happen.
And the same will happen in Afghanistan. The Taliban will be back in power in about 24 months after we leave. Because American power is the solution, not the problem.

I don't think there is any real support on either side for a permanent military presence in either country. Maybe that will be needed. Time will tell.

What a loser response.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I am being realistic. He most likely has been weighing out multiple strategies over the last few months. If I were making excuses, I would be going on about how I have faith in what he will ultimately decide to do. He's had terrible foreign policy, I don't expect anything different here.

Evidence that he has been weighing strategies over the past several months? What, between putts?
He has been AWOL for the last several months and only became engaged when the news was filled with the crap ISIS was doing. That is the signature of Obama's entire tenure: wait until the situation cannot be ignored and then do the wrong thing.

What a bunch of rubbish. Obama's handlers have been manipulating events in that region his entire term, hell, even before that. Just because you decided to lately take an interest in the issue doesn't mean it's the POTUS that has been asleep at the switch. It is the American Public that hasn't a clue what is going on. This whole, "we are taking our time, analyzing the situation, building a coalition of partners," line is a bunch of hogwash by the president. If you think he and the people pulling his strings don't have a long term strategy you are as obtuse as all the other partisans on this board.

The Covert Origins of ISIS [UPDATED 9.03.14]
The Covert Origins of ISIS UPDATED 9.03.14 SCG News

While a great deal media attention has focused on the fact that the State Department did not provide adequate security at the consulate, and was slow to send assistance when the attack started, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article in April of 2014 which exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a "rat line". The "rat line" was covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.


With Stevens dead any direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria.


It was at this time that jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well. And not just low level militants. Many were experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters.


The U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on taking down Assad's government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights, and now overt support began to supplement the backdoor channels. The growing jihadist presence was swept under the rug and covered up.

Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widened http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-considers-possible-...). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?


Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?


There's a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.


Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]


Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that's when it's time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]


Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]


ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.


Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad's backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.


The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn't an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.


To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.

 

[tosacco]

^^ That video is so bad!It became beyond stupid when the dude mentions "the leader" of the Libyan rebels. Like, it wasn't a bunch of different militants fighting with their own objectives and chain of command. These weirdos also don't seem to understand that the priorities and perceptions of many in the Arab world are not that of the Western world. This doesn't condone what might be regarded as operational efficiency by allying with groups ideologically offensive to the West but it's important to acknowledge.

I stopped watching.