13
13
0
DOJ
Democrats
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
We could make the claim that Obama failed America when it came to Russian clandestine activities. In fact, he publicly downplayed it as "impossible" to hack our election system. No doubt, there was a failure here.
But I would extend the view on this. Failure to deal with Russia effectively precedes by far the 2016 election. They failed to deal effectively when they seized Crimea. They failed to deal with them on Dombass (Eastern Ukraine). They allowed the Russians to prop up Assad and take over the initiative in Syria. And that is just Russia.
How about China.
Syria.
ISIS.
North Korea.
Iran.
Yemen.
Libya.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Seems to me every chance they got to confront a national security/ stability problem, the Obama Administration F'd it up.
So this isn't about Russian activities per se, but rather just how incompetent this cabal of Brennan, Rice, Comey, Clapper, and yes, Obama really was.
But I would extend the view on this. Failure to deal with Russia effectively precedes by far the 2016 election. They failed to deal effectively when they seized Crimea. They failed to deal with them on Dombass (Eastern Ukraine). They allowed the Russians to prop up Assad and take over the initiative in Syria. And that is just Russia.
How about China.
Syria.
ISIS.
North Korea.
Iran.
Yemen.
Libya.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Seems to me every chance they got to confront a national security/ stability problem, the Obama Administration F'd it up.
So this isn't about Russian activities per se, but rather just how incompetent this cabal of Brennan, Rice, Comey, Clapper, and yes, Obama really was.
(6)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Jack S - Except at the time, the rationale for engagement was to punish Assad and the Syrian Army for employing Chemical weapons against civilians. We let the Russians broker a deal to turn over their weapons to the Russians for destruction. This gave the Obama Administration cover to retreat from a "red line" that they never truly wanted to enforce.
Except the Syrians didn't turn over all their chemical weapons, and continued to employ them against civilians. Meanwhile Obama looked away, exposed for not being serious about the issue. And our enemies took notice.
Except the Syrians didn't turn over all their chemical weapons, and continued to employ them against civilians. Meanwhile Obama looked away, exposed for not being serious about the issue. And our enemies took notice.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Everything you just stated, I am still trying to figure out how a Trump Presidency helps out Russian more than a Clinton Presidency. My only guess is the Clintons at some point really shit on Putin.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Jack S - Are you kidding me? Where the hell did any of the factions get the means to deliver nerve agent to a target? Most of it was delivered by helicopter, in so called barrel bombs. Much of the rest was delivered by artillery.
While it is possible rebel elements laid hold of artillery or even chemical shells, and may have been able to produce chlorine, I don't buy the notion that they would employ them hundreds of times against civilian targets in their own base of support on some Machiavellian attempt to get the West to intervene. That just doesn't pass the common sense test, nor anything in evidence, Neutral observers say it was the Assad regime. Reporters in the ground say it was the Assad regime. Even the Russians don't say it wasn't them, it just said there was no "proof". The only ones saying it wasn't them is Assad.
So real non-linear thinking aside it was them. And Obama said it was a red line, and he pussed out. And don't get me started on how Obama was supporting the Free Syrian Army. What he did was give them weaponry we took from disarmed Libyan factions. Wow. That was helpful.
Lastly, I can't help but observe the difference between the Trump Administration's engagement with ISIS and the Obama Administration. Which way worked better?
What about the rest of those countries I list? Good job, Barry. I don't know how history could judge this period of US foreign policy other than a giant clusterfuck, and Hillary was Secretary of State for much of it.
Now, on the subject of "Trump is an agent of Russia". Think about that for a moment. You are Director of National Intelligence, or the CIA, or whatever. And you genuinely believe this to be true. What that means is that the Russian President controls 90% of the world's nuclear arms and a healthy percentage of the world's combat power. Don't you think that would warrant immediate action? Don't you think the Russians would leverage that reality into some kind of action on their part?
Except they didn't. Because of course it isn't true, and they bloody well knew it. Instead, we embarked on a 2 1/2 year long investigation for political reasons. THAT was successful; they basically kept the Republicans who controlled all three branches of government from successfully enacting their agenda. That is what this was all about from the beginning, and anyone that thinks otherwise is frankly insane or deep, deep in the bag for their preferred party.
While it is possible rebel elements laid hold of artillery or even chemical shells, and may have been able to produce chlorine, I don't buy the notion that they would employ them hundreds of times against civilian targets in their own base of support on some Machiavellian attempt to get the West to intervene. That just doesn't pass the common sense test, nor anything in evidence, Neutral observers say it was the Assad regime. Reporters in the ground say it was the Assad regime. Even the Russians don't say it wasn't them, it just said there was no "proof". The only ones saying it wasn't them is Assad.
So real non-linear thinking aside it was them. And Obama said it was a red line, and he pussed out. And don't get me started on how Obama was supporting the Free Syrian Army. What he did was give them weaponry we took from disarmed Libyan factions. Wow. That was helpful.
Lastly, I can't help but observe the difference between the Trump Administration's engagement with ISIS and the Obama Administration. Which way worked better?
What about the rest of those countries I list? Good job, Barry. I don't know how history could judge this period of US foreign policy other than a giant clusterfuck, and Hillary was Secretary of State for much of it.
Now, on the subject of "Trump is an agent of Russia". Think about that for a moment. You are Director of National Intelligence, or the CIA, or whatever. And you genuinely believe this to be true. What that means is that the Russian President controls 90% of the world's nuclear arms and a healthy percentage of the world's combat power. Don't you think that would warrant immediate action? Don't you think the Russians would leverage that reality into some kind of action on their part?
Except they didn't. Because of course it isn't true, and they bloody well knew it. Instead, we embarked on a 2 1/2 year long investigation for political reasons. THAT was successful; they basically kept the Republicans who controlled all three branches of government from successfully enacting their agenda. That is what this was all about from the beginning, and anyone that thinks otherwise is frankly insane or deep, deep in the bag for their preferred party.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
LTC Eugene Chu
It is an opinion piece from CNN. Although it was written by a former Mitch McConnell aide, it also shows that mainstream media makes steps for balance
(1)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
LTC Eugene Chu - Yes I was shocked this was published by CNN. Maybe there's hope.
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
LTC Eugene Chu - OK... the author is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. So what? Where is Scott Jennings either factually or analytically incorrect?
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google