Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Another Scandal In the Making?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Well I see that the reports are out that President Obama as had accurate Intel on ISIS since 2013. Also that he has missed almost half of his Intel daily briefings.

Forgive me for being just a tad bit skeptical of the reports. You see when the reporting is from either of the two sources that are hitting the blogosphere with the stories today, Breitbart or Daily Mail it is always wise to check the stories against shall we say more reliable and newsworthy sources.

The stories can be found at the above links. They make for interesting reading, whatever your perspective going in. If you catch my drift.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. "... it is always wise to check the stories against shall we say more reliable and newsworthy sources" (let me add) BEFORE you publicize them, not during or after.

    1. It isn't just Breitbart, Jerry. ABC News's Jonathan Karl has also reported this to be the case.

  2. Well Jerry, let me just say I feel in a mood to bring some levity into the otherwise dreary and boring news day. One simply need read (and listen to) Breitbart and Daily Mail to appreciate the outrageously obvious bias and lack of serious journalism at these ahem, news sources.

    Time to lighten up and grab a beer, or maybe more.

  3. Maybe if he didn't start so many fires he wouldn't have to spend so much time putting them out.
    NYT is not a shlock outfit but maybe we should rely on Move-On.org or wallace and maddow for our unbiased news.

    I do remember a former president warning against removing all the troops from Iraq because of the potential for extreme groups to get a foothold. I also remember reading a guy named panetta saying obama dropped the ball and a couple of generals warning against setting a date for troop withdrawal. Can't remember who that president was but he also issued warning about sub-prime mortgages. Oh well what does he know

    1. Or skudrunner maybe we should all sit back, chill a bit, myself included, and take in info from reputable sources both left and right and draw our own independent conclusions. Not that you don't, but for some the label is more important than the guts, if you get my drift.

  4. Skud, one of the things you failed to acknowledge and something many other conservatives frequently overlook is that the agreement to leave Iraq was agreed upon by the Bush Admin. Did Pres. Obama want to get out? Of course he did, but a view that posits blame on Obama for leaving a country that refused to grant our soldiers immunity from jail and prosecution, and asked us to leave is short sighted.

    I've seen other conservatives advocating that we should have just told Iraq to stuff it. Is that your view, because Maliki clearly wanted us out?

    If it is not your view, and you believe we should honor our agreements and the wishes of sovereign countries, why do you constantly bring up that Obama withdrew our troops when he was just complying with an already negotiated agreement?

    1. BTW, Dave, amazed that you try to keep up the good fight in the KKK convention that is Lisa's blog now. I went there to look this morning. It's quite depressing.

      More power to you...

      (As for this issue, I don't see as a big deal. All of these administrations receive intel and sit on it. If they chose to act on everything they heard about, we'd have 2,700,000 troops in active conflict in 83 countries).

  5. Replies
    1. So Duck. If he received the cliff notes of the briefings do you not believe he was informed of the advancement the radical movement was making.

    2. I believe a lot of these meetings are pro forma.

    3. Ducky: That the "refutation" you provided came from a hard left opinion site (i.e. something on the level of Breitbart but on the other side) does not add much at all.

      Of course those guys will object and defend, regardless of the merit of anything.

  6. Dave,
    You are correct that Bush wanted to get the troops out of Iraq but not set a definite time line . On July 12th 2007 he said

    "I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda"

    We are living the consequences of advertising our next move.
    We should never have been there in the first place but we will be there again no matter what the current administration says> We know you can keep you doctor and no troops on the ground. They both are appeasement statements that won't hold up.

  7. Skud, you're being obtuse... Did Pres Bush negotiate the agreement under which Obama was obligated to remove US troops? If so, why are conservatives saying this is Obamas fault? Also, in your almost reflexive need to not stay on topic and inject another strawman ("you can keep your health care") you chose not to address the sovereignty issue regarding Iraq.

    I will say I find it amusing that conservatives busy Obamas chops for not keeping promises and yet when he did on Iraq, conservatives bust him for doing so.

    He ran on withdrawing troops from Iraq and ending that war. A majority of people voted for him. Didn't he have an obligation to carry through on that?

  8. David

    He also ran on unifying the nation, national healthcare where you can keep your doctors, bringing prosperity to the US and he has done none of those things. He is not the first politician to lie and I doubt he will be the last.

    No one saying we should be in Iraq forever but telegraphing the date we are heading out was not a bright move and it is not only conservatives who are saying that.

    BTW, through his actions we are back in Iraq.

    1. The left needs more bloggers like Dave. The right needs more bloggers like Skud. I think that I'll probably just leave it at that.

    2. Actually, don't leave it at that, Will. Add BB in there.

    3. its good to be talking about the positive bloggers on both sides rather than the negative.

      Left and right have more in common than they sometimes realize methinks. Of course this observation does not apply to the ultra partisan fringe elements.

  9. Skud... apparently you are fundamentally unable, or unwilling to even try and answer a question or have a real discussion.

    These are complicated questions and problems that require real solutions, something in short supply here in the blogosphere where apparently, many want quick and easy answers.

    I guess that makes it easier to avoid looking for realistic options...

  10. So what is it you are confused about David

    Did GB make an agreement to remove troops = Yes
    Did BHO follow the advice of Generals, Panetta, GB to not be specific on date and leave troops behind = No
    Does BHO have a history of drawing lines in the sand and not following through = Yes
    Does BHO have a track record of lying and not keeping his word = Yes but after all he is a politician

    David... apparently you are fundamentally unable or unwilling to admit BHO has no plan. Even he admitted that part.

  11. So Skud, why is it Obamas fault for telling everyone when we were leaving? That's in Article 24 of the SOFA... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html

    Regarding ISIS, yes, as a matter of fact, the Obama Admin clearly blew that one, underestimated the threat, dissembled when explaining why and generally made a mess, that will continue to haunt, given his stupid promise of no ground troops, even as ground troops are fighting.

    1. Obama has been as militaristic as Bush if not more...unfortunately.

  12. skudrunner, since President Obama made the statement you refer to he has developed a strategy and spoke to it. It may not be to your and many others liking but it is a strategy nonetheless.

    I question the GWB decision to invade Iraq initially. Given that Iraq was a stabilizing force politically in the reqion and a counter force to Shite Iran I would argue it was a political mistake to topple the Iraqi government.

    Dave is correct, the issues are complex and the solutions won't be easily arrived at. Especially so if we focus on the mistakes rather than how to rectify them ans not repeat then.

  13. In regards to the prior commenter who thinks a source being "hard Left" invalidates facts, I say facts are facts, regardless of who reports them. Obama read all the PDBs. bush attended the meetings because he "decided he would prefer to read less”.

    The former president created ISIS. They wouldn't exist if the last president hadn't lied us into war with Iraq.

  14. Okay then...

    Obama read all the PDBs. bush attended the meetings because he "decided he would prefer to read less”.

    obama read all the PDSs. Bush attended the meetings because he decided it was important that he be in attendance. As a leader he believes in being engaged and active.

    The former president created ISIS. They wouldn't exist if the last president hadn't lied us into war with Iraq.

    Bush's decision to invade into Iraq, (with the support of Congress) did in all reality destabilize the region and in the aftermath create fertile ground for radical extremists. It was a mistake IMO. However, to blame President George W. Bush for ISIS is to ignore other realities.

    Appropriate committees in Congress and the Senate were privy to documentation, Intel, etc the president used in making his decision.

    Let it rest DW, focus on the reality of bere and now. Old bones have just turned to dust.

  15. RN quoted: "....Obama read all the PDBs. bush attended the meetings..."

    Um. yeah. It's a real twist to attack a leader for daring to attend meetings.

    Well handled, RN.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.