U.S. intelligence chiefs contradict Trump on North Korea, Iran, and ISIS

[Rexedgar]

Once you realize that Trump creates his own reality and believes wholly in that reality, his behavior becomes less surprising.

....that’s not comforting at all. Chaos is becoming the new “normal.”

 

[Atomic Kid]

U.S. intelligence chiefs contradict Trump on North Korea, Iran, and ISIS
The New York Times

North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear stockpiles and Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, an intelligence assessment says, challenging the president’s assertions. Read the full story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The president has every right to ignore his intelligence chiefs, but why would he do this? How could he possibly know more than they do, and is he putting us all at risk by ignoring their advice?

I can't recall seeing a panel of this ilk publicly contradict a President's viewpoints on as many national security issues as this ever before. This is unique. It's also I would think potentially dangerous for our country to have a President and his Intelligence people to be so out of sync with one another on so many key issues. Also note that none of them mentioned anything about the existence of a "national emergency" at our southern border as the President so often claims exist.

 

[Born Free]

It was the Iraqis that told Obama that he must comply with the agreement Bush signed and it called for our total withdrawal. They flatly refused to renegotiate a new agreement and staying would have meant another war this time against the elected Govt. Bush installed.

Get a clue, there is no ****ing way we would leave a country that we spilt blood and treasure to satisfy any ****ing agreement. We leave on our terms it was our blood and treasure and we're protecting it. Obamafail left because he wanted to in spite of all spilt blood and treasure. And then Obamafail goes back into Iraq, then I guess they changed the agreement. Please come back. And he goes back to deal with ISIS the JV Team that he could not take out. Trump had to do that.

 

[Fearandloathing]

How could the NYT know more about these matters than our POTUS?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That is definitely the stupidest post today.

NO ONE ever said the New York Times knows more about "these matters", the New York Times is a "News Organ". They print news, and this news is that the heads of the intelligence community, who definitely know more than Trump, are suggesting he's lying..

which should come as a shock to no one, the stupid prick is ALWAYS lying.

Meanwhile, I have left over food in my fridge that knows more about international affairs than trump...it IS a five syllable word and likely beyond his Grok.

 

[Jack Hays]

It was no mistake. Bush demanded that only intelligence that supported an invasion would be heard by him. He wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden before 911 either and claimed the intelligence about an Alqeada run attack on the U.S. was a hoax propagated by Saddam. Bush was the entire reason we invaded Iraq, intelligence had nothing to do with it.

Although not entirely accurate, this is more right than wrong.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I can't recall seeing a panel of this ilk publicly contradict a President's viewpoints on as many national security issues as this ever before. This is unique. It's also I would think potentially dangerous for our country to have a President and his Intelligence people to be so out of sync with one another on so many key issues. Also note that none of them mentioned anything about the existence of a "national emergency" at our southern border as the President so often claims exist.

I don't recall any panel of specialists EVER contradicting a president. Individuals yes, but not as a unit.

That should keep people awake at night

 

[Jack Hays]

It was the Iraqis that told Obama that he must comply with the agreement Bush signed and it called for our total withdrawal. They flatly refused to renegotiate a new agreement and staying would have meant another war this time against the elected Govt. Bush installed. Trump has succeeded in allowing the N. Koreans to continue to up grade their ICBM program unmolested by Chinese sanctions which were removed following his "historic: summit which we gave up our joint war games with S. Korea while Kim gave up nothing. Trump has made the N. Korea threat WORSE by falsely claiming there is no threat which causes other nations to doubt the need for sanctions anymore.

Bush set the schedule of the withdrawal from Iraq to leave enough time for his successor to negotiate his own agreement. It was a hand-off from one POTUS to another, and DoD planners fully expected a new agreement and a continued US troop presence. In the end, Obama was unwilling to stay.

 

[iguanaman]

Really, you have to prove that one.

No problem. Now that the DoD info has been declassified it's a piece of cake.

Rumsfeld was not under any legal or administrative obligation to circulate an internal DoD report, but not doing so raises questions about whether the administration withheld key information that could have undermined its case for war. Time and again, in the fall of 2002 and into early 2003, members of the administration spoke forcefully and without qualification about the threats they said Saddam Hussein posed. The JCS report undercut their assertions, and if it had been shared more widely within the administration, the debate would have been very different.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530

 

[Rexedgar]

This topic begs the question, where does Trump get his information? Fox? He needs to cite some specifics and sources......

 

[iguanaman]

Bush set the schedule of the withdrawal from Iraq to leave enough time for his successor to negotiate his own agreement. It was a hand-off from one POTUS to another, and DoD planners fully expected a new agreement and a continued US troop presence. In the end, Obama was unwilling to stay.

LOL It takes 2 to get an agreement and the Iraqi's were not interested. I also differ on your explanation of Bush's reason for signing the agreement to withdraw. He initially tried for a long term agreement and was thwarted by the Iraqi's until time ran out and he had to sign something. It was never his intention to provide your so called "hand-off" that is a bald faced lie.

 

[Jack Hays]

Trump blasts U.S. spy chiefs, disputes assessments on Iran and other threats
The president pushed back against congressional testimony by intelligence officials, tweeting, “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

• By John Wagner and Shane Harris

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL It takes 2 to get an agreement and the Iraqi's were not interested. I also differ on your explanation of Bush's reason for signing the agreement to withdraw. He initially tried for a long term agreement and was thwarted by the Iraqi's until time ran out and he had to sign something. It was never his intention to provide your so called "hand-off" that is a bald faced lie.

Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. The alternative to an agreement was simply to tell the Iraqis we would stay as long as we wished; they were in no position to resist, especially after the success of the surge. Bush never "had to" sign anything because of what the Iraqis did. The agreement was a move to help Obama.
The Iraqis were more interested than you know. But Obama kept cutting the size of the planned residual US force until it was no longer worth the political risk for the Iraqis.

 

[Born Free]

No problem. Now that the DoD info has been declassified it's a piece of cake.

"Rumsfeld was not under any legal or administrative obligation to circulate an internal DoD report, but not doing so raises questions about whether the administration withheld key information that could have undermined its case for war. Time and again, in the fall of 2002 and into early 2003, members of the administration spoke forcefully and without qualification about the threats they said Saddam Hussein posed. The JCS report undercut their assertions, and if it had been shared more widely within the administration, the debate would have been very different"

Where is the collusion, what you posted proves nothing. No legal obligation, and not doing so raises questions. Raises questions, same old Russia / Trump collusion, we have evidence, strong evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. Fact Trump is guilty. Hang that bastard. And IF it had been shared more widely. IF, IF, IF, it was shared more widely, that tells me it was shared but not as widely some liberal would have liked. I thought you had real facts.

 

[iguanaman]

Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. The alternative to an agreement was simply to tell the Iraqis we would stay as long as we wished; they were in no position to resist, especially after the success of the surge. Bush never "had to" sign anything because of what the Iraqis did. The agreement was a move to help Obama.
The Iraqis were more interested than you know. But Obama kept cutting the size of the planned residual US force until it was no longer worth the political risk for the Iraqis.

LOL Trump desperately need a agreement to remain and Iraqi's and their Govt. desperately wanted us out. That is the truth and Obama's hands were tied by Bush's signed agreement to leave and it was far from helpful. It was an indication that the Govt we allowed to form was not friendly to America and it was not. It was much more closely aligned with Iran.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL Trump desperately need a agreement to remain and Iraqi's and their Govt. desperately wanted us out. That is the truth and Obama's hands were tied by Bush's signed agreement to leave and it was far from helpful. It was an indication that the Govt we allowed to form was not friendly to America and it was not. It was much more closely aligned with Iran.

That is almost entirely wrong.

 

[iguanaman]

Where is the collusion, what you posted proves nothing. No legal obligation, and not doing so raises questions. Raises questions, same old Russia / Trump collusion, we have evidence, strong evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. Fact Trump is guilty. Hang that bastard. And IF it had been shared more widely. IF, IF, IF, it was shared more widely, that tells me it was shared but not as widely some liberal would have liked. I thought you had real facts.

You asked for evidence that Trump covered up intelligence that did not support an invasion and I gave it to you. It is not my fault that you cannot read.

 

[iguanaman]

That is almost entirely wrong.

LOL You are denying that the elected President of Iraq spent more time in Tehran than Baghdad?

 

[Born Free]

You asked for evidence that Trump covered up intelligence that did not support an invasion and I gave it to you. It is not my fault that you cannot read.

I asked for proof not subjective evidence. Can't you read.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL You are denying that the elected President of Iraq spent more time in Tehran than Baghdad?

I'm denying that it's important.

 

[iguanaman]

I asked for proof not subjective evidence. Can't you read.

Evidence is proof. How do people get convicted of crimes? Evidence.

 

[iguanaman]

The decision to invade Iraq preceded the intelligence; it did not follow it.

Correct. Bush had decided to invade Iraq by his first day in office.

 

[Jack Hays]

Correct. Bush had decided to invade Iraq by his first day in office.

That is true.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Bush set the schedule of the withdrawal from Iraq to leave enough time for his successor to negotiate his own agreement. It was a hand-off from one POTUS to another, and DoD planners fully expected a new agreement and a continued US troop presence. In the end, Obama was unwilling to stay.

You're right it was Bush who set the time table for withdrawal. Bush set it for the end of 2011. 2 years into Obama's Presidency. And if you recall Bush's 2008 Status of Forces Agreement wasn't all that popular in Iraq when he announced it. "The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq — a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge," he said in a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki at the time.

Moments later, an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at the president. It is important to remember most Iraqis saw the Americans as occupiers and blame them for civilian deaths. This is how Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki summed up those sentiments at the the time.

"The incomplete sovereignty and the presence of foreign troops are the most dangerous, most complicated and most burdensome legacy we have faced since the time of dictatorship. Iraq should get rid of them to protect its young democratic experiment."

State Department lawyers also said that it would be impossible for US troops to stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. Which the Iraqi Parliament was clearly not going to do in the face of Iraqi popular opinion being so dead set against American troops remaining in Iraq. Not to the mention that American popular opinion was against American troops remaining in Iraq as well So in the end Obama was following through on the agreement made by President Bush and abiding by the will of the Iraqi and American people.

 

[Born Free]

Evidence is proof. How do people get convicted of crimes? Evidence.

Well you libs have a ton a evidence of Russia/Trump collusion, but where is the collusion.

Evidence is only good when it's proven to be fact. What you presented was opinion, not facts. There is a difference.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I don't recall any panel of specialists EVER contradicting a president. Individuals yes, but not as a unit.

That should keep people awake at night

And that was just what was said in the public hearing. One can only imagine what was said in the closed door secured session that followed the public session.