Remember When Obama Gave Classified Info To Russia?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: AboveBoard

We learned that the Russians used this intelligence
Against us as they bombed some of our installations
In Syria knowing full well what they were doing.

Source?

Russia attacked US backed rebels in Syria after gaining our intelligence as to where they were...

Too US General: Unwise to share intelligence with Russia

You mean Russia attacked ISIS and AL Nursa, who the US happen to be arming in Syria.

Not what my source said - please provide your source for this?

My source indicated that we should not trust the Russians and why.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I think it's also not being happy with one's self. Depression. Unhappiness. Looking for a cause to take up and to join to make them feel better about themselves, mostly by shirking accountability and blaming someone else.

It's all emotion.

If they actually gave a # about half the crap they cry about, they'd have been hammering Obama for 8 years and stood strongly against Hillary.

It's insane. They suddenly are in an uproar about sharing classified info when governments do it every single day, including Obama when he was in charge, including Hillary too who sold secrets to China. Israel just shared classified info with us. They suddenly are in an uproar about filling Russia in on a new ISIS plot because someone might get hurt....while these same fools had zero issues with Obama running arms to Mexicans cartels which were then used to kill US citizens!

Brainwashed fake outrage to make people feel better about themselves. That's what's happening.

a reply to: AboveBoard

There are tons of articles on the moderates actually being Isis and Al Nursa. Just like how the moderates we backed in Libya we accidentally Isis.

Here is one to get you started.

Once again confirming that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Syrian rebel (although there certainly is for State Department funding and arming purposes), on Friday, two prominent ISIS commanders have left the ranks of the calliphate to join forces with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters, i.e., "moderate rebels" on the provincial border between Homs and Deir Ezzor, al Masdar news reported.

www.zerohedge.com...

I am well aware that you mainstream establishment media would not dare be critical of the warmongering deepstate and tell the truth about these moderates.

Just like they towed the line with Iraq WMD's. Just like they did with Libya. I am sure ten years from now the media will be wondering how terrorist got such a strong foothold in Syria.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: FauxMulder

Obama offered and the intel he was offering was most likely cleared by his advisors. Trump on the other hand, freely gave intel on a whim to impress the Russians without anyone's knowledge or advice. On top of that, the intel was very sensitive provided by Israel who may no longer be so forthcoming with future reports. Obama never put himself in such a stupid position. You can't compare the two because it's literally apples and oranges..

Orange, ha!

oh you were there?? is that how he did it to "impress" the russians. GTFO you believe the MSM too much. GO LIBTARD

Liberals are suddenly afraid a Syrian asset might get compromised when they were dead silent when Obama bombed the # out of Syria, killing many, while arming ISIS which in turn, killed many more, while also causing the refugee crisis which has negatively affected many, many more in Europe.

Liberals are suddenly afraid about some unknown Syrian asset getting compromised when they were dead silent on Benghazi, where a US ambassador to the country was beaten, raped and murdered in the streets....with Obama and Hillary in charge.

You can't make this up. It's all fake. They just don't like Trump.

a reply to: Grambler

Hypothetical here..

Say the US had a civil war, the government will label all those that resist as terrorists.

Does that mean they are? No.

So how come just because Assad and Putin label all rebels as terrorists, it automatically means that's true?

It's not as black and white as you want it to be, thought you'd be smart enough to realise this.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Liberals are suddenly afraid a Syrian asset might get compromised when they were dead silent when Obama bombed the # out of Syria, killing many, while arming ISIS which in turn, killed many more, while also causing the refugee crisis which has negatively affected many, many more in Europe.

Liberals are suddenly afraid about some unknown Syrian asset getting compromised when they were dead silent on Benghazi, where a US ambassador to the country was beaten, raped and murdered in the streets....with Obama and Hillary in charge.

You can't make this up. It's all fake. They just don't like Trump.

Exactly, and they believe this because they believe Russia to be the most evil country on Earth. In their minds WW3 with Russia and the millions that would die is preferable than trying to work with Russia.

Any loss of life is acceptable as long as it gets Trump out of office.

...there was a third party not long ago to voice constructive opinion through

- tptb torpedoded that - for us to Ally vs one another

Reform party had a chance imo

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Grambler

Hypothetical here..

Say the US had a civil war, the government will label all those that resist as terrorists.

Does that mean they are? No.

So how come just because Assad and Putin label all rebels as terrorists, it automatically means that's true?

It's not as black and white as you want it to be, thought you'd be smart enough to realise this.

Of course I realize this. I am basing my opinion off of past experiences.

Why is it that the US has about a one hindred year period of going into an area, arming rebels, and then twenty years later claiming those rebels are now are enemy.

Irans with the Shaw, Cuba with Castro, Afghanistan with Al Queda, Libya with those moderate rebels. Every. Single. Time.

But this time its different with Syria, right? I am not taking Russias word for anything. I am using common sense.

And how about you. Do you accept the US intel that all of these rebels are moderate?

I am willing to say they are not all ISIS, but I know some of them are. And thats suppose to be our greatest enemy. Yet somehow its ok to arm and defend them in this part of the world.

So my rights as a US citizen to things like privacy or to be able to fly without being molested have to be sacrificed because Al Queda and Isis are such a threat, but at the same time we are arming them in Syria? And why, because Assad is a bad guy. Well so are the Sauds, but we don't do anything to them.

The whole situation is BS, and anyone with any common sense, after seeing this situation repeat for nearly a century knows it.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Russia attacked US backed rebels in Syria after gaining our intelligence as to where they were...

Too US General: Unwise to share intelligence with Russia

Right, so Obama gave the Russians intel that led them to the jihadist 'rebels' that we trained and ultimately Russia took care of the problem, which is apparenly us for ever even suggesting the idea of a 'moderate' rebel force in Syria in the first place.

But Marine General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested any such military coordination at a so-called "joint integration cell" would be extremely limited. The military, he said, had no intention of forging an intelligence sharing arrangement with Russia.

"I do not believe it would be a good idea to share intelligence with the Russians," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, without elaborating.

The ceasefire quickly collapsed, making the possibility of future cooperation between the former Cold War foes look remote.

So of course some Neocon Marine General is going to throw a fit over giving the Russians the info that they need to take out the terrorists that we created.

Republican Senator John McCain, the committee's chairman, fiercely criticized the possibility of future cooperation and called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who brokered the ill-fated deal, "delusional" for seeking it.

"It would mean that the U.S. military would effectively own future Russian airstrikes in the eyes of the world," McCain said.

One document published by the State Department said the two countries would share information on things such as training camps, storage sites for weapons and concentrations of personnel from Nusra Front.

And a senator with known ties to the deep state petroleum war machine, one who's been photographed with future IS operatives, apparently opposes the sharing of intel with the Russians.

I wonder why?

a reply to: Grambler

Where did I say all are moderate? I fully know that not all are, and I know full well that many who were moderate have become radical. That's the nature of such a skirmish. America can't sit back because Russia won't sit back. These are all just proxy wars between the US and Russia. Neither will take a step back, so that's why the US keeps making the same mistakes, they must believe it's worth the risk time and time again.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Grambler

Where did I say all are moderate? I fully know that not all are, and I know full well that many who were moderate have become radical. That's the nature of such a skirmish. America can't sit back because Russia won't sit back. These are all just proxy wars between the US and Russia. Neither will take a step back, so that's why the US keeps making the same mistakes, they must believe it's worth the risk time and time again.

So you admit that fighting Isis is secondary to beating Russia in a proxy war.

Exactly the mentality I am criticizing. So never ending regime change wars are justified because those damn Ruskies!!!!

Sorry, but I would rather have a world were we don't murder innocents and arm blood thirsty terrorists that we then have to give up rights and spend billions of dollars fighting in the future.

I know the left and many establishment right people now wants to have a world war with Russia, I will happily be on the side fighting that propaganda to lead there.

a reply to: FauxMulder

1)The US Government offered Russia intelligence publicly and with strings attached to prevent civilian casualties. Trump allegedly spontaneously shared it to showboat the Russians.

2) The intelligence shared was already vetted by other officials on what was appropriate to share. Trump allegedly did it off the cuff. No one had an opportunity to see if what Trump allegedly shared could cause conflicts or issues.

3) The intelligence Trump shared involved more than just US sources. This goes to the above point about vetting what sensitive information is shared in advance. He may have inadvertently compromised other nation's intelligence and anti-terrorism operations.

4) The American public and press were aware of the potential intelligence sharing prior whereas Trump did it in a closed meeting where he didn't even fully disclose the guest list and only allowed the Russian press.

How is any of that even close to hypocrisy?



You really ought to stay away from the memberberries; they rot your brain.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: FauxMulder
Do you believe that obama should have been impeached for doing that?
Do you believe that trump should be impeached for doing the same?

No and no.

I just like showing the blatant partisan hypocrisy. You know, I'm just using "enhanced information sharing".

lol

a reply to: FauxMulder

So you're still acting as if one side is any different than the other??? How long are we all going to play this little blame game anyway???

During the presidency of Barack Obama, certain Republican congressmembers stated that Obama may have engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office.[1] Rationales offered for possible impeachment included allegations that Obama was born outside of the United States, that he allegedly allowed people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, an alleged White House cover-up after the 2012 Benghazi attack and failure to enforce Immigration laws. No list of articles of impeachment was ever drawn up and proposed to the Judiciary Committee.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that the clear majority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, while most Republicans were in favor; for example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported efforts while about two thirds of adult Americans in general disagreed.
Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

I could ask the question, "So it's ok when Republicans do it to Obama, but not when Democrats do it Trump." But I think I've already pointed out just how pointless that would be.

Doesn't matter anyways. The commander in chief can share information with whomever he likes. Obama could do it. Trump can do it.



Imagine if treasonous official in Obama's Whitehouse leaked classified intelligence to a hostile media for the sole purpose of discrediting the leadership.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: FauxMulder

Obama offered and the intel he was offering was most likely cleared by his advisors. Trump on the other hand, freely gave intel on a whim to impress the Russians without anyone's knowledge or advice. On top of that, the intel was very sensitive provided by Israel who may no longer be so forthcoming with future reports. Obama never put himself in such a stupid position. You can't compare the two because it's literally apples and oranges..

Orange, ha!

#1 Exactly what Intel did Trump share that he wasn't supposed to?

#2 IF Trump did share classified information, what law did he brake?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Liberals are suddenly afraid a Syrian asset might get compromised when they were dead silent when Obama bombed the # out of Syria, killing many, while arming ISIS which in turn, killed many more, while also causing the refugee crisis which has negatively affected many, many more in Europe.

Liberals are suddenly afraid about some unknown Syrian asset getting compromised when they were dead silent on Benghazi, where a US ambassador to the country was beaten, raped and murdered in the streets....with Obama and Hillary in charge.

You can't make this up. It's all fake. They just don't like Trump.

Exactly, and they believe this because they believe Russia to be the most evil country on Earth. In their minds WW3 with Russia and the millions that would die is preferable than trying to work with Russia.

Any loss of life is acceptable as long as it gets Trump out of office.

Ummm...all while busily trying to socialize every...it takes a village...into carbon copy communeville...

Talk about a disconnect...Liberals have contorted themselves so much that they are literally Oroboros...swallowing their own ass...No wonder they talk # all the time...


"Now that thars a funny joke"...



YouSir

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: RazorV66

Funny, I dont remember all of these media people screeching about jeopardizing Isreali lives when Obama allowed the UN to draft that resolution against them on his way out the door.

How is a resolution that would condemn illegal settlement building going to jeopardise Israeli lives?

By the way Obama didn't support the resolution, he decided that he would not use the vote nor veto it.

Also, the media demonised him anyways so I don't know what pot of glue you've been sniffing, must be strong though.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Note the use of the expression "Obama administration." This implies that high level discussions were made about the wisdom of sharing this intelligence. President Obama did not just suddenly say "Hey Sergei! Check this out!" Also, it says that the administration offered to share the information, not that it was actually shared. Trump supporters need to learn to read the news more closely. There is a reason why they have a hard time telling news from fiction.