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

[iguanaman]

I'm denying that it's important.

Maliki was a Shia terrorist who was exiled to Iran for most of his life. He wanted the U.S. out so he could take revenge on the Sunni. His persecution of the Sunni while in office facilitated the ISIS takeover of much of Iraq and his final ouster from office. He never should have been vetted by Bush and allowed to run for President.

 

[Rexedgar]

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.

Lol, wut?

 

[Hawkeye10]

However bad they are, Trump seems worse in comparison.

Trump is very temporary, the failure of our military runs near 70 years.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

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

I only claim it to be true, not comforting.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Manafort gave Trump campaign data to a Russian agent so it could be used by Russian trolls to target key voters. Trump knew it was the Russians hacking the DNC and yet spouted Putin's words denying it was Russia for the whole campaign. That is collusion in plain sight. Don't be blind.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

Sorry, but those are just talking points. No one cared what State Department lawyers thought. No one cared about thrown shoes or what the PM said to score political points. Bush and just about everyone at DoD expected we would keep a residual force in Iraq. The folly of not doing so was quickly apparent when the absence of US troops directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.

 

[Jack Hays]

Maliki was a Shia terrorist who was exiled to Iran for most of his life. He wanted the U.S. out so he could take revenge on the Sunni. His persecution of the Sunni while in office facilitated the ISIS takeover of much of Iraq and his final ouster from office. He never should have been vetted by Bush and allowed to run for President.

Nope. He wasn't perfect but he could be dealt with.
And it was the US departure which enabled the rise of ISIS.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Bush and just about everyone at DoD expected we would keep a residual force in Iraq.

That is so much hooey.

In 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq

 

[Vern]

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

this question is wrong on so many levels. It literally requires a new term because "cognitive dissonance" just doesn't cut it anymore. Its either "cognitive ignorance" or "cognitive dishonesty". when you and yours destroy democracy in this country, they will use one of those terms.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Sorry, but those are just talking points. No one cared what State Department lawyers thought. No one cared about thrown shoes or what the PM said to score political points. Bush and just about everyone at DoD expected we would keep a residual force in Iraq. The folly of not doing so was quickly apparent when the absence of US troops directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Just talking points? Really? I think everybody cared what the State Department thought. That would certainly seem to be an insurmountable hurdle to keeping US troops on station there given all the civilian casualties. What Bush thought or what everyone thought or 'expected' isn't the point. What the Iraqi government and the Iragi and American people thought and expected is the point. Whether it was folly or not it was nonetheless the political reality of the situation. Not to mention there were many other caveats for the rise of ISIS in Iraq. Like the fact that the rift between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq has been going on for centuries. And that wasn't going to be permanently solved by American troops. And actually during the surge the US military organized Sunni tribes to fight against the insurgents. We paid them. We armed them. We gave them air cover. Also corruption was running rampant in Iraq. Supplies were stolen; soldiers were paid, who never reported for duty. Another crucial event was Syria sinking into civil war after 2011. Suddenly, just over Iraq's borders were vast ungoverned spaces and lots of weapons. It became a safe haven for ISIS to grow in. You may have the benefit of hindsight now to make your claim. But you couldn't have predicted that all those things would happen back in 2011.

 

[iguanaman]

Nope. He wasn't perfect but he could be dealt with.
And it was the US departure which enabled the rise of ISIS.

LOL Tell that to the Iraq Sunni's who's homes were raided in the middle of the night and they were taken away never to be heard from again. That is why the welcomed ISIS into their territory becsue they were desperate to end Maliki's persecution. Maliki threw the Americans out so that he could wage a reign of terror om Iraqi Sunnis.

 

[Jack Hays]

That is so much hooey.


Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq

Already dealt with, and it's inconsiderate of you to expect me to repeat. Withdrawal was scheduled for well into successor's term to allow successor ample time to strike his own deal. Bush and DoD planners expected that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Just talking points? Really? I think everybody cared what the State Department thought. That would certainly seem to be an insurmountable hurdle to keeping US troops on station there given all the civilian casualties. What Bush thought or what everyone thought or 'expected' isn't the point. What the Iraqi government and the Iragi and American people thought and expected is the point. Whether it was folly or not it was nonetheless the political reality of the situation. Not to mention there were many other caveats for the rise of ISIS in Iraq. Like the fact that the rift between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq has been going on for centuries. And that wasn't going to be permanently solved by American troops. And actually during the surge the US military organized Sunni tribes to fight against the insurgents. We paid them. We armed them. We gave them air cover. Also corruption was running rampant in Iraq. Supplies were stolen; soldiers were paid, who never reported for duty. Another crucial event was Syria sinking into civil war after 2011. Suddenly, just over Iraq's borders were vast ungoverned spaces and lots of weapons. It became a safe haven for ISIS to grow in. You may have the benefit of hindsight now to make your claim. But you couldn't have predicted that all those things would happen back in 2011.

No one cared what State Dept. lawyers thought, period.
This is not hindsight; it was known at the time. In 2011 the elements who would become ISIS were still dormant. In early 2012 there was a superb opportunity to support the good guys in the Syrian opposition, but Obama declined and the moment passed. I saw grown men (hardened pros) cry when they had to tell the Syrians we could not help. The moment passed and then by late 2012 ISIS was ascendant. By leaving Iraq too soon, and hesitating in Syria, we helped bring about the tragedy of Syria.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL Tell that to the Iraq Sunni's who's homes were raided in the middle of the night and they were taken away never to be heard from again. That is why the welcomed ISIS into their territory becsue they were desperate to end Maliki's persecution. Maliki threw the Americans out so that he could wage a reign of terror om Iraqi Sunnis.

You are making my point. Had we stayed ISIS would not have expanded.

 

[iguanaman]

You are making my point. Had we stayed ISIS would not have expanded.

Had Bush vetted an Iraqi patriot instead of a Shia terrorist with ties to Iran as President we would have still been there and ISIS would not have found wiling partners in Sunni territories either. We both know the best defense against jihadists in Iraq would have been to leave Saddam in power and saved 100's of 1000's of lives and TRILLIONS of dollars too. Bush's invasion was the ultimate cause of the rise of ISIS that is quite clear. It destabilized the Sunni-Shia balance of power in the ME and it is still percolating, causing the immoral war in Yemen today.

 

[Atomic Kid]

No one cared what State Dept. lawyers thought, period.
This is not hindsight; it was known at the time. In 2011 the elements who would become ISIS were still dormant. In early 2012 there was a superb opportunity to support the good guys in the Syrian opposition, but Obama declined and the moment passed. I saw grown men (hardened pros) cry when they had to tell the Syrians we could not help. The moment passed and then by late 2012 ISIS was ascendant. By leaving Iraq too soon, and hesitating in Syria, we helped bring about the tragedy of Syria.

That's all very touching and all. But the reality is that you simply can't divorce the politics from the strategy. At times it's gets messy. But that's how it is. And with that I shall conclude our conversation on this as I already wasted enough time with the all the other 'it's was all Obama's fault' people on here.

 

[HumblePi]

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?

Trump says the intelligence community is wrong. Actually, he is

https://wapo.st/2GbZkUU?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.8bdc7034696a

NOTHING DESCRIBED in the intelligence community’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment presented to Congress on Tuesday should be surprising. The 42-page report declared that North Korea is “unlikely to give up all of its nuclear weapons and production capabilities.” Iran continues to make trouble in the Middle East but “is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities” needed to build a nuclear weapon. Russia and China are both challenging the liberal democratic model long advanced by the United States. The Islamic State commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria, and with eight branches and more than a dozen networks, will keep attacking. Climate hazards are intensifying. These are sober findings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mine....

Listen, for all you disbelievers, Donald Trump gets a brief each and every day from each of these intelligence agencies. Of course it doesn't help any that he doesn't bother to read then. Yeah, there's some really important stuff in those Donald. It would be great if they made those briefs with colored pictures and great big bold font. So what did he do with the information and warnings they each gave publicly? He scolded them! He "delivered a public tongue-lashing to his intelligence chiefs". I mean.....what in the **** is wrong with him.

Sorry, people but at this stage, it's now become dangerous for everyone and if you still insist this piece of **** for brains jerk is still worthy of your intense support, well I have news for you. You're on the wrong side of history right alongside this inept, incompetent, ignoramus.

 

[Tangmo]

Sorry, but those are just talking points. No one cared what State Department lawyers thought. No one cared about thrown shoes or what the PM said to score political points. Bush and just about everyone at DoD expected we would keep a residual force in Iraq. The folly of not doing so was quickly apparent when the absence of US troops directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Summary and arbitrary dismissals of contrarian facts and points of view is insufficient and inadequate. It is a failed style of argument because it is vacuous. You did get to the rise of Isis for example but only via your own biases, hindsight, verities. The one thing everyone agrees on is the absence of US troops "directly contributed to the rise of ISIS." So the post spins its wheels while thundering absolute verities ex cathedra.

 

[Tangmo]

That is so much hooey.


Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq

Indeed the only thing the Bush War Family cared about was seeing Saddam swing from a yardarm. Once the Bush Boys got that they wanted out. The neocons such as Bolton and Wolfowitz got in their way which is how US got bogged down in the Iraqi desert. Hays has a blind spot on this and most of it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Had Bush vetted an Iraqi patriot instead of a Shia terrorist with ties to Iran as President we would have still been there and ISIS would not have found wiling partners in Sunni territories either. We both know the best defense against jihadists in Iraq would have been to leave Saddam in power and saved 100's of 1000's of lives and TRILLIONS of dollars too. Bush's invasion was the ultimate cause of the rise of ISIS that is quite clear. It destabilized the Sunni-Shia balance of power in the ME and it is still percolating, causing the immoral war in Yemen today.

The world is a better place without Saddam. And by the end of Bush's presidency Iraq was calm. No, Obama's early exit from Iraq and slow response in Syria enabled ISIS.
We're in the wrong subforum for this discussion. Please start another thread if you wish to continue.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's all very touching and all. But the reality is that you simply can't divorce the politics from the strategy. At times it's gets messy. But that's how it is. And with that I shall conclude our conversation on this as I already wasted enough time with the all the other 'it's was all Obama's fault' people on here.

As you wish. What was missing in 2012 was leadership courage.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

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

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

While I realize attacking a credible source is popular when it presents information one does not like, the information was offered by the highest level intelligence officials in the country, not the NYT.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Its alarming that a generation that grew up on the Pentagon papers and who has witnessed all of the failures of our military since that time....most disastrously in Iraq...reclines with a "Oh those Military folks are fine folks, the best we have, what ever they say must be right".





WILLFUL IGNORANCE

The military and the intelligence community are not the same thing.

 

[Tangmo]

We are indeed talking about the intelligence chiefs both civilian and military and Potus Trump.

Trump-Putin-Trump.

The geographic theater threat threads have their own specific topic whether it might be North Korea, Iraq, Iran or whichever.

So the task here is to compare and contrast Potus/CinC with the intelligence chiefs. We know already that's a nonstarter for the Putin-Trump-Fanboys. Yet the intelligence chiefs know Putin owns Trump. The only question is what to do about it, by whom specifically and of course when. One suspects most of the operational functions have been settled by now as we enter 2019 with Putin cranking up for the 2020 election. There are the three branches of government sworn to the Constitution and its "We the People" nature plus other duly sworn components. Trump meanwhile is the guy who took his oath and wiped his ass with it. Putin and Fanboys keep handing him the copies to use daily. We know this because we see it every day.

 

[Atomic Kid]

As you wish. What was missing in 2012 was leadership courage.

Yeah,well Obama asked a Republican Congress for authorization to launch a missile strike on Syria in 2013 and they denied him that authorization. So it would seem that there wasn't a lot of 'courage' or 'leadership' on the other side aisle either. As I said Jack, as much as you would like to be able to do so, you can't divorce the politics from the strategy.