staying in Iraq and wanted such a small force that the Iraq's did not want to bother with it.
Quote :
The White House, meanwhile, wanted to avoid any perception that it was chasing after a deal to keep troops in Iraq after promising that combat forces would be brought home. By August, White House aides were pressing to scale back the mission and to reopen the issue of how many troops might be needed.
Mrs. Clinton and Leon E. Panetta, who succeeded Mr. Gates as the defense secretary, argued that talks should continue and that the goal, as before, should be to keep a force of up to 10,000.
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
But there was no agreement. Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&
What can you teach a "know it all"?
A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.
The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.
The GAI’s alarming findings come on the heels of Obama’s 60 Minutes comments on Sunday, wherein the president laid the blame for the Islamic State’s (ISIS) rapid rise squarely at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.
According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.
“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.
an oral presentation, the difference is…?
The difference identified by the Post reporter –“well, he can drill down deeper and challenge assumptions if he attends the meetings” – is pretty silly, don’t you think? If Mr. Obama prefers to read the report first, he can pick up the phone and call the briefer to do that.
If you have ever been part of a big organization ,you know that too meetings can take over your work day and actually hinder productivity.
But I do think your caption is right on the mark – smart move by the President
They were serving his favorite popcorn those days? Of course it makes sense to attend those meetings in person. Nuance can be lost when he distances himself from direct contact with his advisors and miscommunication can result.
Reading body language and seeing expressions on peoples faces as they are giving you news can be very telling, to someone paying attention that is. Every good manager knows this. These are things he wouldn't get from "picking up a phone and calling the briefer."
It is the LACK of communication that plagues Obama, Mari, not an overabundance of it. Look at the website rollout. He didn't even give a shit to ask just mere days before the launch that the site crashed with only a few dozen users. And it had HIS name on it. lol.
Or look at his relationship with congressional Dems. As many left publications have pointed out, it is nonexistent. Not only doesn't he meet with them on any regular basis, he doesn't pick up the phone unless he needs something.
With something SO important as the DIB to the security of the country, he needs to get his ass in that room every day. I know, this might hurt his handicap in golf, but life is a bunch of sacrifices.
You don’t have to worry about “body language” or “nuance,” like I know you do when you are trying to figure out if she really means “no” when she says “no.”
Anything of significance that is said orally will be reproduced in the written report. And again, if nuance and body language mattered, the President can easily instruct the briefer to brief him orally on the report. No, not a phone call- "come to my office."
Even worse, the enthusiasm of the briefer can mislead the president in making his decision. Two weeks before President Bush decided to invade Iraq, CIA Director George Tenet told him in a meeting that it was a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD. Suppose Mr. Bush had studied the intelligence reports for hours instead of relying on this bozo- the greatest foreign policy blunder of our generation might have been averted. (Tenet also told Mr. Bush by the way, “naw, we’re not torturing anybody.”)
But let’s suppose you're right- by your reasoning, the President should go to 100% of his policy meetings rather than read reports from his policy experts. The result – the President would be in meetings 24/7 -7:00 a.m.; meeting on Obamacare, 8:00 a.m. meeting on Cuba policy, 9:00 a.m. meeting on Iran nuclear negotiations….
The President obviously would never get anything done. That’s why our most successful CEOs keep meetings to a minimum – they rarely are productive.
Let’s keep our criticism of Mr. Obama focused on where he is really at fault – like his utter failure to do anything about gun control
Leaving Iraq was a much bigger blunder than going there in the first place, he succeeded in undoing all that we had accomplished there, and now the place is even more unstable than before. All the heavy lifting had been done. All we had to do was keep Iraq as a place from which to project our power and ISIS never would have been created. We would have been in position to squash them like the cockroaches they are with next to no loss of American lives.
BTW have you reconsidered our proposed bet? Or are you still running scared? Why don't you just admit to the nice folks here that you were wrong about Rick Perry ever going to jail, or put up a couple of bucks and prove me wrong?
Why can't some people understand this simple fact. If you are in a country at the request of the Government and you are asked to leave, you leave, no if's or buts about it. The Iranians wanted the U.S. Military out of Iraq and their puppet Maliki complied.
Yes, what a strong leader we've been blessed with these last six years, I am amazed we haven't been invaded ourselves with such weak leadership.
Do you really think Bush would have left, even if asked "nicely" to do so? And can you really argue that the region is not a thousand times worse off now that we have left? If you can really dispute those facts, you need to go sit in the corner with Hadji.
staying in Iraq and wanted such a small force that the Iraq's did not want to bother with it.
Quote :
The White House, meanwhile, wanted to avoid any perception that it was chasing after a deal to keep troops in Iraq after promising that combat forces would be brought home. By August, White House aides were pressing to scale back the mission and to reopen the issue of how many troops might be needed.
Mrs. Clinton and Leon E. Panetta, who succeeded Mr. Gates as the defense secretary, argued that talks should continue and that the goal, as before, should be to keep a force of up to 10,000.
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
But there was no agreement. Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&
to obtain immunity for the troops left behind.
Given that this was debated with the Iraqis for months, that alternative plans such as diplomatic immunity were floated and rejected, that the US offered various benefits as an inducement, what more should Mr. Obama have done to meet your “trying harder” standard?
Abu Gharib, Blackwater, the CIA agent indicted for murder- these incidents were all fresh in the minds of the Iraq government. There was no visible threat to them at that time and they were steadfast in rejecting immunity. I don’t know what we could have offered to make them change their minds.
And, of course, it is pure speculation that even a garrison of 10,000 troops would have made any difference to ISIS. ISIS is based in Syria and troops in Iraq would not have been allowed to cross the border. Even in Iraq, the most the garrison would have accomplished would have been to keep ISIS away from the sector where the troops were based, unless you are telling me the troops would be sent all thru Iraq to fight the bad guys- in other words, another war.
But, rather than speculate that “maybe” Mr. Obama could have “done more” even though you can’t tell us what “more” is, and "maybe" this would have made a difference, I think I’ll stick with the invasion of Iraq as the greatest foreign policy blunder of our generation. We don't have to speculate- we know how that one turned out.
Back to Fox News for you Timbow.
Quote :
The White House, meanwhile, wanted to avoid any perception that it was chasing after a deal to keep troops in Iraq after promising that combat forces would be brought home. By August, White House aides were pressing to scale back the mission and to reopen the issue of how many troops might be needed.
Mrs. Clinton and Leon E. Panetta, who succeeded Mr. Gates as the defense secretary, argued that talks should continue and that the goal, as before, should be to keep a force of up to 10,000.
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
But there was no agreement. Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&
Leaving aside the complete irrelevance of that topic to my post, I said in a post addressed to you that he would be unable to raise money and would be the first candidate out. In the event that he was convicted, I said I expected a "suspended sentence."
Returning to the topic, did you know that neither Japan, Germany or South Korea grants immunity to our troops? So if no one else is doing that, why was it blunder to not persuade Malicki to do it?
with Gambler.
I suppose because either he is just chicken, or he knew all along that he original statement was bullshit and just didn't expect to get called on it.
Thanks for the try, but Mari pulled the same crap when he predicted that Bush would be tried for war crimes, another statement that he adamantly denies all these years later.
Come on Mari, just admit it. Either you were wrong in your original statement, or you have even less guts than Priapussy, who at least had the guts to MAKE a bet, even though he tried to weasel out of actually paying it. Surely you have bigger balls than Priapussy, don't you??? lmao
Radical Islamists in the Arab world will always rail violently against any majority Christian nation, the so called infidels, that occupies or tries to control the levers of power in their country. Why do you think 911 occurred? It was primarily because of our U.S. airbases/naval presence in the Saudi kingdom. It is telling that all the U.S airbases/naval bases located in Saudi Arabia were moved soon after the 911 attack to Bahrain.
Quote :
The White House, meanwhile, wanted to avoid any perception that it was chasing after a deal to keep troops in Iraq after promising that combat forces would be brought home. By August, White House aides were pressing to scale back the mission and to reopen the issue of how many troops might be needed.
Mrs. Clinton and Leon E. Panetta, who succeeded Mr. Gates as the defense secretary, argued that talks should continue and that the goal, as before, should be to keep a force of up to 10,000.
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
But there was no agreement. Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&
"This article is adapted from “The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama,” by Michael R. Gordon and retired Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, to be published by Pantheon Books, an imprint of Random House, on Tuesday”.
It is an extrapolated opinion. Nothing to do with facts.
The main sticking point was “the immunity of US soldiers”. US position has always been that it will prosecute wrong doings by it force under US Military law but Iraq wanted to prosecute US soldiers under its law.
So you Repugnants are saying you are fine with US soldiers being prosecuted under Iraq’s law for any drummed up charges and to be detained in Iraq’s notorious prisons.
Where is your patriotism and support for our soldiers.
Obama or any POTUS agreeing to that condition will be run out of the country in not time.
The only thing we accomplished by going to Iraq was removing a man so monstrously evil, ISIS would never have the power they do now because all the potential leaders would have been hanging on iron hooks in his many dungeons before they even got any traction to be effective.
It takes a monstrous presence to control that part of the world. According to my Mideast friends, they won't be ready for democracy "for a thousand years." All those dollars and wasted American lives accomplished nothing other than to make the region less stable and enrich war profiteers who supported the Bush administration.
BTW have you reconsidered our proposed bet? Or are you still running scared? Why don't you just admit to the nice folks here that you were wrong about Rick Perry ever going to jail, or put up a couple of bucks and prove me wrong?
and train to fight ISIS? What about this "inclusive government" Obama says Iraq needs to establish?
Maybe Clinton should not have made the removal of Saddam Hussein the officila position of the US government in 1998 when he penned to Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and told the world SH had WMD and would use them some day.
"""The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]""""
Bill Clinton:
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too
NDBF's OP was about "Intel" meetings specifically, was it not?
Are you really so worried about Barry's long iron game that he cant attend just those at least? lol
shiftless grifter, more interested in meeting with beyonce than protecting the country.
I can get much more information in the same amount of time.
Hmmm, let's see, there's the phone, email, textng, calling the person to the office, or asking the person he sent to the meeting to represent him.
“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast
which is it?
Ever try to ask a piece of paper a question? How'd that work for ya??
I have been a part of a large organization, though NATIONAL DEFENSE was not our purpose. And for some really strange reason the organization would pay for me and the other directors quarterly to fly to various venues around the country to meet for 4 days, face to face and discuss the issues of the day. Now why do you think they did that? Go ahead and come up with your snarkiest answer, but the truth is is because of the value of the interactive back and forth you could have face to face.
But lets get back to the question at hand and that is Mr Obimbo's assertion that THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY underestimated ISIS......that's the thrust of the article, right?
“""""""I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.
According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.
“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.""""""
So which is it?
Does he just not read the brieflng or is he just a blame shifting liar?
Take your pick.
To tell ya the truth, I feel for ya. Being an apologist for this fuck up is a tough job. You and Jay Carner have a lot to commiserate about.
Briefings are written so, one can read and determine which one’s need personal attendance and which one’s doesn’t.
Common practice amongst busy executives.
Daily Beast is piece of shit and those who quote them are dumb asses.
Keeping reaching for straws. Besides, is there any historical data?
.........and had his brain in his ass the whole time.