"Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting." Plus: Boehner Says Yes to Ground Troops.

[k98nights]

"Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting." Plus: Boehner Says Yes to Ground Troops.

Nick Gillespie|Sep. 29, 2014 9:21 am

Well, that didn't take long. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has signaled that it may be inevitable that American troops will be fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq. From an ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday:

"If I were the president, [said Boehner,] "I probably wouldn’t have talked about what I wouldn’t do — and maybe we can get enough of those forces trained to get them on the battlefield, but somebody’s boots have to be there."

"If no one else will step up, would you recommend putting American boots on the ground?" Stephanopoulos pressed.

"We have no choice," Boehner warned. "These are barbarians. They intend to kill us, and if we don’t destroy them first, we’re going to pay the price."

Needless to say, Boehner is also quite happy not to actually demand that Congress actually vote on current actions in the region, saying that he agrees with Obama that previous authorizations to use military force cover everything OK. Yet he'd "be happy to" call Congress back into session for a vote if the president requested it.

While we puzzle over the twin awfulness of Boehner's position, let's not forget the serious threat inflation at work here. To pretend that ISIS is an existential threat to the United States, or that it has the capacity to actually do harm to us in any serious way is simply wrong. ISIS is a problem for Iraq and Syria and its geographic neighbors—it isn't for us.

And that this latest round of action in the Middle East is starting off under a cloud of stupid. President Obama acknowledged to 60 Minutes that U.S. intelligience had both overestimated the resolve and capabilities of Iraqi troops while underestimating the abilities of ISIS.

Which would be troubling enough but gets even murkier when you consider Eli Lake's must-read story at The Daily Beast. It's simply not true, reports Lake:

One former senior Pentagon official who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq was flabbergasted. "Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting," the former official said.

So we've got a president who is either incompetent or lying and a speaker whose party is calling out the president for weakness when it comes to war-making and is willing to put U.S. troops on the ground as long as they don't have to, you know, vote on it.

This is not going to turn out well.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/either-the-president-doesnt-read-the-int?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Didn't you know, he can't read. LOL

PRAY FOR REVIVAL EVERYDAY

OH WELL, LOL

ETD

[Shabibilicious]

All the more reason it should be a requirement to have served in the military to be president.  The Ivy league is a long ways from the War College.  As always, just my opinion.    

GO RV, and NO BV 

[Man_Kind]

Didn't you know, he can't read. LOL

PRAY FOR REVIVAL EVERYDAY

OH WELL, LOL

ETD

 

Indeed LGD.  Can't walk and breathe at the same time either !

 

He is a disaster !

[ronscarpa]

...... 

[Saint]

Shabs I agree as most would, having a military background makes those types of decisions a might bit more intelligent.

[Medina]

The President never served in the military. Very few in Congress ever served in the military and that can, also, be said of the public. We haven't had a draft since Vietnam. The President was born in 1961. He was just a kid at the time and that can be said of many in Congress and the public too. However, we sure do have a lot of people who think they are experts on matters of war. I guess, waving a flag a couple times a year makes one an expert now.

 

Why should military service only be required of the President?  Shouldn't it be required of Congress too? Good grief, Congress doesn't even have the balls to vote on whether or not military action should be taken. Boehner served, why doesn't he call the House back and have them take a stand one way or the other? I guess, that might take too much courage for the lot of them.

 

Should the draft be brought back? 

 

Here's an article on just how few of those in Congress have ever served in the military.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/members-of-congress-have-little-direct-military-experience/

[MyLadiesDaddy]

As a matter of fact, YES, EVERYONE should be required to serve a minimum of two

years in the branch of service of their choice. That would teach you libretards the

value of hard work, love of country and self respect.

Then you wouldn't blindly follow a moron like Obama, or Pelosi, or Reid. You would

actually know how to form your own opinion.

PRAY FOR REVIVAL EVERYDAY

OH WELL, LOL

ETD

[RV ME]

"Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting."

 

Why "or"?  Can't both be true?

 

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2014/09/30/obama-misses-60-of-security-briefings-and-blames-intelligence-community/

[SnowGlobe7]

Ture i agree.....I have my managers work at least once a pay period with the people they manage. Keeps everyone on the same page and you would be surprised at the low turn over because of it. If my managers feel "below" that then heck move on down the road...those people you manage should e taken care of. Working a shift right next to them also solves many company issues before they are issues such as safety, shrinkage and many others. Culture is built on that as well....and there is a lot of respect all the way around because of it.  Managers do not blindly manage with this policy. 

[gymrat76541]

You know I realize that Obummer may be the worst President in my lifetime, but it does not matter what he does at this point; send troops, don't send troops. The opposition is going to take the opposite point of view!

 

This is borderline stupid! Yes, sending troops will end this conflict much faster & more effectively. It might even save America from spending more money in the end. Spending 10 million a day bombing is NOT going to end the threat. Boots on the ground, racking up a big body count & claiming real estate is the only way to end this conflict. Think of how many new detainees we can add to Cuba?

 

All these Arab countries with budget surpluses should finance this conflict instead of giving the world lip service! ISIS is a DIRECT threat to their nations but only an INDIRECT threat to ours! If they can not send troops then pay fo the expenses we have in sending ours!

[flatdawg]

This isn't about ISIS, this is about toppling Assad. They're just using the back door.

[Maggie123]

This isn't about ISIS, this is about toppling Assad. They're just using the back door.

 

Yep... I figure they probably have another couple of missions for ISIS even after that...

 

That's why the US is adding another 5000 "moderate terrorist" to the mix... keep em coming... keep the #'s up.

[Shabibilicious]

As a matter of fact, YES, EVERYONE should be required to serve a minimum of two

years in the branch of service of their choice. That would teach you libretards the

value of hard work, love of country and self respect.

Then you wouldn't blindly follow a moron like Obama, or Pelosi, or Reid. You would

actually know how to form your own opinion.

 

Are you saying there are no Liberals serving in the military?    

 

GO RV, and NO BV