Posted on 12/07/2015 12:03:23 PM PST by Servant of the Cross
President Obama addressed an anxious nation last night in an instantly-forgettable, perfunctory speech that was largely devoid of news and announced no meaningful changes to US policies or military strategy. In an effort to reassure Americans that he's confronting the terrorist threat aggressively (his public approval rating on handling terrorism and ISIS is weak) Obama said, "for seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing."
The public learned several years ago that this president skips his in-person briefings far more frequently than his predecessor, though his staff insists that he reads through the written version of the file on a daily basis. More important than how he ingests this information is what ends up in front of the president. We've been following serious, credible claims leveled by dozens of current and former US intelligence professionals who allege that their work product was regularly altered and manipulated to downplay the growing threat and alarming advance of ISIS. The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has stated that the current investigation into these accusations should start at the White House, which he says has subordinated accurate information to political narratives. Other American spies have alleged that the Obama administration also deliberately kept a lid on intel gathered during the Bin Laden raid that contradicted the White House's messaging about Al Qaeda. Yesterday afternoon, prior to the president's Oval Office remarks, a former NSA analyst and Naval War College professor with deep ties to the US intelligence community tweeted something provocative:
on Twitter: John Schindler @20committee
Talked 2 an old friend, snr IC official - who said on #ISIS: "If the public knew the truth, Obama would be impeached."
Friend's a Dem, btw.
Hmm. Could the truth somehow be worse than the Obama White House systematically dismissing or doctoring urgent national security assessments on burgeoning threats, for nakedly political reasons? With the public's attention focused on these issues after the massacres in Paris and San Bernardino, America's intelligence community seizing the moment to confirm what has already been painfully exposed by events -- ISIS is not "contained," as Obama wrongly asserted last month. The "new" take-away is fairly dire:
A new U.S. intelligence report on ISIS, commissioned by the White House, predicts that the self-proclaimed Islamic State will spread worldwide and grow in numbers, unless it suffers a significant loss of territory on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, U.S. officials told The Daily Beast. The report stands in stark contrast to earlier White House assurances that ISIS had been "contained" in Iraq and Syria. And it is already spurring changes in how the U.S. grapples with ISIS, these officials said. It's also a tacit admission that coalition efforts so far - dropping thousands of bombs and deploying 3,500 U.S. troops as well as other coalition trainers - have been outpaced by ISIS' ability to expand and attract new followers, even as the yearlong coalition air campaign has helped local forces drive ISIS out of parts of Iraq and Syria. The White House commissioned the intelligence report prior to last month's deadly strikes in Paris, and long before last week's terror attacks in San Bernardino, California, three senior U.S. officials said...After reviewing its grim conclusions, President Barack Obama asked Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford to come up with new options to beat the group back.
Some of the intensified anti-ISIS measures outlined in the Daily Beast story sound like sensible steps, including an increased emphasis on tactical raids conducted by elite American military operators, described last week by Defense Secretary Ash Carter as discrete deployments of an "expeditionary targeting force." The president also recently beat a further rhetorical retreat from his "no boots on the ground" stance, explaining that his use of that phrase was merely intended to rule out a large-scale ground invasion and occupation. This recalibration appears to effectively concede that more American special forces will engage in direct combat with ISIS, which is quite literally the definition of boots on the ground. These changes were not clearly communicated in last night's presidential address, perhaps due to Obama's abiding aversion to admitting that his policies have created such a mess that he's now faced with no choice but to send combat troops back into a region he'd ostentatiously abandoned. These expanding operations were referenced only extremely briefly last night: "In both countries [Iraq and Syria] we're deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that [anti-ISIS] offensive," the president said. The biggest problem with Obama's belated and partial about-face (his speech was mostly an endorsement of the status quo) is distilled in a revealing comment from an unnamed intelligence official quoted in the piece excerpted above:
"This intel report didn't tell us anything we didn't already know."
As Americans' awareness that the administration's ISIS strategy was not working increased, those shortcomings morphed into a political problem for the White House, which commissioned the intelligence analysis whose "grim conclusions" they'd been actively disregarding for years. A cynic might argue that Obama's shifting posture and speech last night are at least partially explained by numbers like these:
Additional tweets at link
I'll leave you with journalist Michael Weiss, who's written a deep-dive book on ISIS, just eviscerating President Obama's speech on CNN last night. It's well worth three minutes of your time. Brutal:
video at link ...
Aiding and abetting the enemy certainly is.
Reads to me that ValJar is the one doctoring reports because Barry Soetero is just too disinterested/stupid to GAS.
Agreed. Barry is too intellectually lazy to be interested in managing the hard stuff when there is always a game on ESPN to watch.
This just shows what confidence the dems have in their ability to win the next election through fraud.
They control the electronic voting machines, so they can orchestrate any kind of win that is needed. A landslide, a squeaker, a sound thumping....
The machines can be programmed to turn 10% of the R votes to D.. or 20%, or 50%. Whatever is needed and with no fear from the congress to call them on it. Of course, said programs will erase themselves at the closing of the polls so it will be impossible to prove.
I think no cheating was done this last, off-election to lull us into not expecting the big fraud coming next November.
‘I don’t recall of any high ranking civilian or military officer resigning over Obama’s ineptness on military matters.’
I know several.
They are class acts like Gen Ron Fogleman who retired early from CSAF, they do so with respect for their position as military men subordinate to civilian over-sight.
As much as they hate the guy and despise him for what he is doing to the military and country, they have core values that bind them to avoid political entanglements and public fights—a great military tradition in the United States.
Therein lies the rub: Resigning because of obummers treasonous actions and doing so with quiet integrity gets them no recognition or respect for what they did. Those that remain are not so restrained and can spew all sorts of supportive nonsense for obummer’s idiocy and these guys get positive press. . .sycophants.
No. Obama could strangle a baby on live TV and still have the support of every democrat in the House and the Senate. The GOP will not impeach the traitor unless they think it will help them in the elections, and losing on impeachment would hurt republicans.
So? What would that change? The media wouldn't report it anyway.
Ask Dianne Feinstein, head of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee
Oh wait, she knows “nothing”
The headline does not say the public would impeach him. It says he would be impeached if the public knew the truth.
An accident in the offing? No pun intended
Ping to the “I” word.
Impeachment is one thing. Been done twice. Actually removing a sitting president is another. It has never been done in our 239 years of history. And I doubt that it will be done any time soon......................
Sitting behind a desk or standing Obama was just Wanking
bump
So, if you’re a whistleblower in this case, who do you go to? Who do you trust? I’m not saying someone, somewhere in our government shouldn’t stand up, no matter what. Im just thinking ...who would I trust?
Your elected representatives reflect public opinion, they will not lead. His approval has to go under 30% for anything to happen.
Considering the makeup of the electorate, and the propaganda abilities of the media, I'm not sure what event would cause his popularity to dive under 30%.
It is called taqiya and is taught and encouraged by a certain part of society that is currently in the news often, and not for good things. Guess which one?
So why doesn’t this official stand up like a Patriot and reveal the facts about the TREASONOUS USURPER?
That’s the question. The information is no doubt there, so where are the whistleblowers? There has to be at least one, right?
Scott Bennett? He worked for the Army as a Capt and was loaned out to Booz Allen Hamilton as a consultant in his field as a Military Terrorist Finance analyst.
He found out that the west was funneling money through gulf states to support Al Queda/ISIS and was promptly thrown in jail. He sent his report (unclassified version) to most politicians, Generals and anyone with a need to know. Never heard back from anyone, except a form letter from Sen Paul.
Good interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8Xm46s62I
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/17/estulin-bennett/
So, if you’re a whistleblower in this case, who do you go to? Who do you trust? I’m not saying someone, somewhere in our government shouldn’t stand up, no matter what. Im just thinking ...who would I trust?
One of Donald Trump’s attorneys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.