Obama Says U.S. Intelligence Underestimated Islamic State threat

[lostinblue 1,989]

we'd have a ton of shovel ready jobs right now if we could have had something moving in the way of rebuilding infrastructure at the same time as the stimulus rollout. it's about priorities really, not the stimulus itself.

Burn and loot and riot a few more times and perhaps a few shovel ready jobs will start to appear . (all done by undocumented democrats) of course...

[TBoneTX 46,282]

Four posts have been removed for being off-topic, sniping at other members, or both. Please stick to the thread's topic.

VJ Moderation

[Póg mo 1,749]

Seems this adminstration underestimates almost everything!

He certainly was not alone, unless you think those national security committees members of both parties sit. You know the ones where people need national security clearance before joining, and then get to listen intelligence briefings. Edited September 29, 2014 by InKorea

[Dan and Judy 614]

He seems to be a pathological liar, and on a scale unseen in history. Can you agree that's not ideal in a politician?

It's practically a prerequisite.

[Dan and Judy 614]

On ABC News "This Week," House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) indicated that sending in American combat troops could become necessary to eliminate the Islamic State threat.

that is pretty much how we got sucked into Vietnam, stayed there about 10 years. Stayed in Iraq about 10 years we got a lot to show for it.

[Póg mo 1,749]

It's practically a prerequisite.

Indeed.

[UncleBeer 244]

It's practically a prerequisite.

There are varying degrees of willingness to lie to achieve an agenda. O'bama's is unmatched. To say otherwise is to merely serve as an apologist.

[Curmudgeon 227]

There are varying degrees of willingness to lie to achieve an agenda. O'bama's is unmatched. To say otherwise is to merely serve as an apologist.

What agenda is Obama lying to achieve? An improved American economy? Access to better health care for American citizens? Increased American security? Or, some fanciful agenda that only those addicted to conspiracy theories could get their heads around? Oh, and doing the, "if you don't agree with me you are complicit with the scandal I have dreamed up" is pretty lame.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[UncleBeer 244]

What agenda is Obama lying to achieve? An improved American economy?

Do you think he's improved the economy? The public disagrees.

Access to better health care for American citizens?

Again, the public disagrees.

Increased American security?

Also not. Man, you're making this too easy.

Oh, and doing the, "if you don't agree with me you are complicit with the scandal I have dreamed up" is pretty lame.

Huh? You added that in all by yourself. All I said was that if you can't admit that the preznit has lied on numerous occasions about a whole variety of things, that you're simply not being objective and truthful.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Do you think he's improved the economy? The public disagrees.

Again, the public disagrees.

Also not. Man, you're making this too easy.

Huh? You added that in all by yourself. All I said was that if you can't admit that the preznit has lied on numerous occasions about a whole variety of things, that you're simply not being objective and truthful.

I am not making any statements as regards whether the economy is better now than it was when he took the presidency, what I asked was, what is his agenda? You believe that there is some underlying agenda that is governing his 'pathological lying'. What is that agenda?

[Curmudgeon 227]

Do you think he's improved the economy? The public disagrees.

Again, the public disagrees.

Also not. Man, you're making this too easy.

Huh? You added that in all by yourself. All I said was that if you can't admit that the preznit has lied on numerous occasions about a whole variety of things, that you're simply not being objective and truthful.

There are varying degrees of willingness to lie to achieve an agenda. O'bama's is unmatched. To say otherwise is to merely serve as an apologist.

I haven't made a statement that say he's never lied, I have said he is no different to previous presidents and neither he is. What I want to know is what is this 'agenda' that Obama has that is so mysterious that you don't want to reveal it? I think his agenda is clear, he wants to improve the American economy, provide health care to more American citizens and maintain America's freedom. I may or may not agree with how he sets about it, but that's a different question altogether.

[UncleBeer 244]

what is his agenda? You believe that there is some underlying agenda that is governing his 'pathological lying'. What is that agenda?

I've voiced this here before: Either he's a fool: who's in waaaay over his head, without any real-world managerial experience (that's the fact, unless you count "community organizer") armed only with the hubris to buck his own experts, and some kind of unfortunate "reverse Midas" thing, where every well-meant decision he makes turns out badly, or he's a knave: a scoundrel who believes the US needs taking down a notch, working to foment racial strife, destroy businesses and make profitability unaffordable.

After his first four years, I gave up hope that he was merely a fool. Aside from "breaking stuff", I have no idea what his end game is.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I've voiced this here before: Either he's a fool: who's in waaaay over his head, without any real-world managerial experience (that's the fact, unless you count "community organizer") armed only with the hubris to buck his own experts, and some kind of unfortunate "reverse Midas" thing, where every well-meant decision he makes turns out badly, or he's a knave: a scoundrel who believes the US needs taking down a notch, working to foment racial strife, destroy businesses and make profitability unaffordable.

After his first four years, I gave up hope that he was merely a fool. Aside from "breaking stuff", I have no idea what his end game is.

Reporting again? Tsk tsk.

[UncleBeer 244]

Reporting again? Tsk tsk.

Break the rules (as you repeatedly do), pay the price. Grow up and deal with it. Maybe one day you'll even learn to post civilly.

[Curmudgeon 227]

I've voiced this here before: Either he's a fool: who's in waaaay over his head, without any real-world managerial experience (that's the fact, unless you count "community organizer") armed only with the hubris to buck his own experts, and some kind of unfortunate "reverse Midas" thing, where every well-meant decision he makes turns out badly, or he's a knave: a scoundrel who believes the US needs taking down a notch, working to foment racial strife, destroy businesses and make profitability unaffordable.

After his first four years, I gave up hope that he was merely a fool. Aside from "breaking stuff", I have no idea what his end game is.

You say all kinds of things, as people do, but you have no evidence for your conclusions. There is zero evidence that Obama is anti-American and there is zero evidence that he is intent on 'breaking stuff'. This appears to be a fancy you have dreamed up, but you even lack the conviction of your own ideas by refusing to or being unable to articulate just why Obama would be so keen to destroy America. What would Obama gain from deliberately 'fomenting racial strife, destroying businesses and making profitability unaffordable', whatever the latter may mean? Not agreeing with his ideology or methodology is one thing, but what you have said is way beyond that. I have no idea why anyone would believe this with the evidence available, it's simply not credible.

What is credible is that Obama was and is a little to fond of the idea of his presidency than actually achieving set goals. That's not new either

Edited September 29, 2014 by Curmudgeon