Obama briefed for over a year on ISIS and still has 'no strategy'

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

[homersapien 11,385]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an entrenched insurgency.

Now we are getting somewhere. We already knew this to be the case. This is why H.W. Bush didn't "go all the way to Baghdad". You cannot destabilize a country without knowing how the vacuum of power will be filled. Bushed failed it in Iraq, Obama failed it in Lybia. Hopefully, our next President will have a better understanding of the Middle East and the world.

Cheney et al portrayed that as H.W.'s fatal mistake, when in fact it was a good example of wisdom and vision.

(There's an example for you within the last few decades EMT.)

[autigeremt 6,642]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an entrenched insurgency.

Now we are getting somewhere. We already knew this to be the case. This is why H.W. Bush didn't "go all the way to Baghdad". You cannot destabilize a country without knowing how the vacuum of power will be filled. Bushed failed it in Iraq, Obama failed it in Lybia. Hopefully, our next President will have a better understanding of the Middle East and the world.

Cheney et al portrayed that as H.W.'s fatal mistake, when in fact it was a good example of wisdom and vision.

(There's an example for you within the last few decades EMT.)

True...but brief.

[autigeremt 6,642]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you!

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Stry....you must not have seen the latest polls.

Polls told me that more people favored removing Saddam in 1992, more people supported invading Iraq in 2003, and then that more people supported withdrawing from Iraq leading up to and during the actual withdrawal. Polls tell me that more people support bad ideas, probably because they had their opinion given to them by the media as opposed to looking into the situation for themselves.

The reality of fighting terrorism is that you cannot bomb it, or eradicate it with special operations. You can kill terrorists, but they are not really the problem. The problem is the ideology, the cause and effect that leads to it, and any potential solution requires long-term strategic thinking (which most politicians I've seen in my lifetime lack), and a substantial commitment of men, hardware, resources, diplomacy, and joint action. It is expensive, difficult, very drawn out, and it is not politically expedient.

It's not the media who is at fault. It's "leadership" that was driving American opinion. Otherwise you are totally correct.

I would say it was "leadership" driving partisan media, that subsequently drove American opinion. The main point, however, was that polls tell me that more people support bad ideas, and that is the important part.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Well said. I pretty much agree with everything stated.

But regarding the highlighted statement I would add that the original problem is the American public - including our leaders - never appreciated the fact that if we invaded Iraq it would be necessary to stay. Indefinitely.

Regardless that was a very insightful post - even if "long and verbose" by PT's standards. :rolleyes:/>

I entirely agree. We tried using the quick "Desert Storm" application to warfare and quickly found ourselves in an entrenched insurgency.

Now we are getting somewhere. We already knew this to be the case. This is why H.W. Bush didn't "go all the way to Baghdad". You cannot destabilize a country without knowing how the vacuum of power will be filled. Bushed failed it in Iraq, Obama failed it in Lybia. Hopefully, our next President will have a better understanding of the Middle East and the world.

Cheney et al portrayed that as H.W.'s fatal mistake, when in fact it was a good example of wisdom and vision.

(There's an example for you within the last few decades EMT.)

Exactly and, is the perfect example of why you cannot pretend that every situation is 1938 all over again and, this time we can stop Hitler before the world war begins.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

This doesn't make sense.

[AUUSN 823]

AUUSN......again I don't disagree. But I don't think I have said anywhere that I thought Bush was a fantastic CIC and I could use some of the same things you said earlier about the CIC in his case. You brought up Bush not me, and I would note Bush is not the current POTUS, Obama is.

Are you kidding me? None of that is germane to my point which leads me to believe you just want to be argumentative. I'm not into that.

[homersapien 11,385]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you!

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you!

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Possibly. Without Bush it might have been Cheney as President and Rumsfeld as Vice President.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you!

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Very true. I wish that he had listened to Colin Powell. Then again, what would he know about Iraq or war.

[Tigermike 3,034]

From the article.

The official -- who asked not to be identified because the President's Daily Brief is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product analyzing sensitive international events for the president -- said the data was strong and "granular" in detail.

The source said a policymaker "could not come away with any other impression: This is getting bad."

[autigeremt 6,642]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

This doesn't make sense.

Unless you were on the ground in 1991 and again in the region in 1994. You can believe what you want.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you! ;)/>

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\/>

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld. ;)/>

Imagine Al Gore........a lose/lose

[homersapien 11,385]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you! ;)/>

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\/>

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld. ;)/>

Imagine Al Gore........a lose/lose

Imagine focusing on what we know for a fact.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

This doesn't make sense.

Unless you were on the ground in 1991 and again in the region in 1994. You can believe what you want.

Suddenly, we are talking about the first Gulf War? We're not on the same page.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you! ;)/>

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\/>

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld. ;)/>

Imagine Al Gore........a lose/lose

I doubt he could have done any worse and, at least there would be a chance that Social Security would be safe. You remember Mr. "Lock Box" don't you.

[autigeremt 6,642]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

This doesn't make sense.

Unless you were on the ground in 1991 and again in the region in 1994. You can believe what you want.

Suddenly, we are talking about the first Gulf War? We're not on the same page.

Geez. I'm talking about the reality on the ground in Iraq moving forward from that time in history.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Yeah, it was "leadership" that put us in Iraq to begin with.

Allowed through bipartisanship so let's move on, shall we?

I never said otherwise. It was faulty leadership on both sides. But then, we only have one POTUS and he pretty much has the last word.

And this thread is about leadership, so where do we move on to?

This thread is about current leadership. I didn't see Bush in the topic, did you! ;)/>

Oh, you mean the thread is about bashing Obama! :-\/>

Well, I get that is the intent of many on here, but others are trying to take a more expansive and objective view.

And BTW, no Bush, no Iraq either.

Respectfully disagree Homer. No Cheney/Rumsfeld, no Iraq.

No Bush, no Cheney/Rumsfeld. ;)/>

Imagine Al Gore........a lose/lose

I doubt he could have done any worse and, at least there would be a chance that Social Security would be safe. You remember Mr. "Lock Box" don't you.

Yeah, Ole Al would have kept SS safe!?!? Lololololol

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Don't let those bad old GOPers go messing around with me and my wife's SS. We are enjoying the heck out of it. To bad a lot young DEMs won't be able to.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

That's not true! If 9-11 hadn't happened few would have approved.

Respectfully disagree EMT. The support for Iraq was primarily based on two lies, WMDs and, ties to Al Qaeda.

Oh, I missed that Bin Laden led Al Qaeda? The WMD "lie" was a half truth. Syria was a benefactor of the window of time between invasion preparation and the actual invasion itself. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Saddam had some WMD left over after using a lot of it against the Kurds.

This doesn't make sense.

Unless you were on the ground in 1991 and again in the region in 1994. You can believe what you want.

Suddenly, we are talking about the first Gulf War? We're not on the same page.

Geez. I'm talking about the reality on the ground in Iraq moving forward from that time in history.

I'm sorry but, I have no idea what you are talking about now. I thought we were discussing the reality of what led to our invasion of Iraq. Saddam's past has little to do with it in my opinion. The emphasis was on him being a CURRENT and immediate, extreme threat.

[autigeremt 6,642]

You brought up the WMD and I stated that he (Saddam) had it up until the point he realized we were coming. He had 6 months to send it across the Syrian border (satellite images along with other intel along with his known use) prior to our invasion. The Al Qaeda link was a stretch to say the least.

I wished we had continued to contain Saddam and put our 100% effort into Afghanistan but that's water under the bridge. The current issue with ISIS is real, there's no guess work, and they need to be exterminated.

[homersapien 11,385]

You brought up the WMD and I stated that he (Saddam) had it up until the point he realized we were coming. He had 6 months to send it across the Syrian border (satellite images along with other intel along with his known use) prior to our invasion. The Al Qaeda link was a stretch to say the least.

I wished we had continued to contain Saddam and put our 100% effort into Afghanistan but that's water under the bridge. The current issue with ISIS is real, there's no guess work, and they need to be exterminated.

Bomb 'em.

[autigeremt 6,642]

You brought up the WMD and I stated that he (Saddam) had it up until the point he realized we were coming. He had 6 months to send it across the Syrian border (satellite images along with other intel along with his known use) prior to our invasion. The Al Qaeda link was a stretch to say the least.

I wished we had continued to contain Saddam and put our 100% effort into Afghanistan but that's water under the bridge. The current issue with ISIS is real, there's no guess work, and they need to be exterminated.

Bomb 'em. ;)/>

That should be part of the strategy.