U.S. Lawmakers Make STUNNING Move To Investigate Obama For Helping ISIS

a reply to: DJW001

Again, incorrect.
You are the one taking elements out of context from my posts above

I provided the PENTAGON's assessment.

www.breitbart.com...

" "About 5,000 rebels would be trained in 2015, the Pentagon said, and three times that number this year.
But $500 million later, the program is shuttered after it successfully trained just four or five rebels.
Not four or five thousand. Not four or five militias. Four or five people — the only rebels who made it through the training and into the battlefield without defecting to al-Qaeda " ""

The IAR was dated 2012. The article above is from 2015.
I also gave you numerous other references that showed that US funding kept going after the 2012 IAR showed these were radicals.
But, clearly, you don't care

I also provided you the following two links of examples of what the `syrian opposition` does (one from an iranian web site, one from you tube)

en.alalam.ir...
www.youtube.com...

Seemingly, you don`t care.

maybe some of the American military boys should be asked about going into Syria, and possibly being injured or killed. as opposed to letting radical islamists kill each other?

originally posted by: jimmyx
maybe some of the American military boys should be asked about going into Syria, and possibly being injured or killed. as opposed to letting radical islamists kill each other?

Fully agree.

The US should not be there and must not fund them.

a reply to: M5xaz

I provided the PENTAGON's assessment.

www.breitbart.com...

" "About 5,000 rebels would be trained in 2015, the Pentagon said, and three times that number this year.
But $500 million later, the program is shuttered after it successfully trained just four or five rebels.
Not four or five thousand. Not four or five militias. Four or five people — the only rebels who made it through the training and into the battlefield without defecting to al-Qaeda " ""

The IAR was dated 2014. The article above is from 2015

So you did change the subject! I asked you to provide proof that the US was still funding rebel groups after they became radicalized. Instead, you linked to a report about the failure of the Pentagon's training program. No wonder I got confused.

I also provided you the following two links of examples of what the `syrian opposition` does (one from iranian web site, one from you tube)

en.alalam.ir...
www.youtube.com...

Seemingly, you don`t care.

Seemingly, you don't consider alalam to be Iranian propaganda.

a reply to: DJW001

Changed the subject ?
Nope.
Stayed right on topic.

The reference is not about failure of some Pentagon training program.
It's about failure of training/arming "syrian opposition". Read it again

Perhaps the following is easier for you to follow:

Timeline:
- August 2012:
IAR identifies that the Syrian "opposition" is becoming radicalized

- August 2012: Obama/Hillary approves funding for this "opposition"
( at this point, they know these are radicals, from the IAR. How could they fund this?)

- September 2012:
Proxy "radicalized" army they supply weapons to raids the CIA compound in Benghazi
and murders the ambassador and many others
( at this point, the dead bodies should be clear evidence that these are radicals that
should not be funded)
- BUT FUNDING CONTINUES

- 2012-2015:
CIA pours a further $500M+ training and supplying weapons to "syrian opposition"

- September 2015:
General Austin (CentCom chief) in testimony to the Armed Services Committee of
the US Senate is forced to admit that after spending $500M+ and training thousands,
only 4 to 5 people remain, e.g. there is NO moderate opposition.

a reply to: M5xaz

In other words, you agree with Assad that all opposition groups are radical Islamists, and that the United States does not bother to vet the groups it supports.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

In other words, you agree with Assad that all opposition groups are radical Islamists, and that the United States does not bother to vet the groups it supports.

No.
Again.
I don't CARE what Assad,Putin, Kim Jong Il, Stalin think.

The facts on the ground, US vetting and the testimony made in the US Senate is what I agree with.
US vetting shows that there are no moderates.

Provided the link.
Again

Continuing to try to arm and train "opposition" when US vetting shows there are no moderates is what I disagree with

a reply to: M5xaz

The failure of the Pentagon to find more than five people through their vetting process is sad, surely. But where is the evidence that the US is continuing to support groups that have become radicalized?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

The failure of the Pentagon to find more than five people through their vetting process is sad, surely. But where is the evidence that the US is continuing to support groups that have become radicalized?

This arming and training ran from at least 2012 to 2015, AFTER the August 2012 IAR, and numerous other red flags.

Provided the timeline, above/previous post

Clinton, Benghazi Back in the News

We took a media inquiry from a Breitbart.com reporter last week asking us about an important Obama administration Benghazi scandal document that we revealed last year.

The reporter’s focus was a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, which revealed that the opposition in Syria was driven by several groups, including the precursor to ISIS — al-Qaida in Iraq. The intelligence document stated that the growing sectarian direction of the war would have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS: "The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows: This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters.

"ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.’"

Well the Breitbart inquiry led to the blockbuster story, “Hillary Clinton Received Secret Memo Stating Obama Admin ‘Support’ for ISIS." The Breitbart piece reported, “Hillary Clinton received a classified intelligence report stating that the Obama administration was actively supporting al Qaida in Iraq, the terrorist group that became the Islamic State.”

Breitbart further reported: "The memo made clear that al Qaida in Iraq was speaking through Muhammad Al Adnani, who is now the senior spokesman for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Western and Gulf states were supporting the terrorist group to try to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, who was being propped up by the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese."

Breaking News at Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

clock for remainder of article...

a reply to: xuenchen

I found a US NEWS article that says nothing about Obama, but rather the supervisors of analysts may be trimming intelligence reports to create a better picture -- here ya go:

US News & World Report

Specifically, they will investigate:

The chairmen of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees and the Appropriations Defense subcommittee said the task force would "investigate allegations that senior U.S. Central Command officials manipulated intelligence products" and "examine whether these allegations reflect systemic problems across the intelligence enterprise in CENTCOM or any other pertinent intelligence organizations."

A former Central Command official said more than 50 intelligence analysts had complained that their conclusions were undercut. One or more senior analysts from the command made a written complaint to the Defense Department inspector general in July, prompting an investigation that officials have publicly acknowledged.

Last month, President Barack Obama said he has repeatedly made clear to intelligence officials that they should never shade their assessments to produce a "feel good story."

Obama was questioned during a news conference in Malaysia about a New York Times report that said military analysts felt their supervisors were eager to paint a more optimistic picture than warranted about training Iraqi troops and fighting the Islamic State.

Obama said he's made clear that "I never want them to hold back." He said he has left it up to the inspector general to determine what has happened.

Even so, Obama said, he believes that "we've had a pretty clear-eyed, sober assessment" of what has happened in Iraq and the fight against IS.

So...once again, hyperbole mixed with spin and outright lies.

1. Obama himself is not being investigated, rather "U.S. Central Command officials "
2. NONE of this implies ANYONE is trying to "HELP" ISIS - that is disingenuous at BEST and an outright LIE at worst.

But I know it FEELS better, and more "true" to say "Obama under investigation for helping ISIS!!!!!!!!!!!!"

a reply to: AboveBoard

LOL

Orders from the CiC

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AboveBoard

LOL

Orders from the CiC

so.....blame everything on Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats and get multitudes of stars on ATS.....weren't you loved as a child?

a reply to: xuenchen



For which you have no evidence or proof, only leaps and gaps that you fill in with supposition and whatever feels good.

How come no one is look at John Mccain?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: butcherguy
Just where did ISIS get all of those nice white Toyota pickup trucks?

That has been answered. Toyota answered that is impossible to track where all it's distributers sell trucks to. Also, that some may have been stolen. Toyota was cooperating with an investigation by the US Treasury department.

How do robbers get all of that UNICEF food? Same question.

I've yet to eat any food with a VIN # on it

a reply to: xuenchen

its a simple mess.

Weapons need be sold. Borders need be destroyed. Nations need be reset.

Wasnt clinton also asking to arm ISIS and everyone else we are at war with just to make Syria the latest place where all those things happen?

yes, I do beleive she was. Obama was in the lead and she was in the loop. I saw her plenty of times calling for an invasion of Syria and for weapons to be "given" to the rebels there.../ISIS

thefreethoughtproject.com...

All of Europe and the world was left with jaws on the floor, since it was well known that Al-queda which was the origin of ISIS until Al-queda went rouge was in line to get that support. Then ISIS was when it took the lead.

So basically lets kill our people with our own weapons so we can help and fight our enemies at the same time.

That is the idea of Obama and then sec of state Hillary.

And we should make her president so we can keep government money in our pockets while it costs our own people their lives....and the lives of millions elsewhere as well as any sense of peace world wide.

Human progress....pfft. Money!

Glad this thread was bumped... it turned out to be true. Obama has been funding terrorists and therefore helping them kill innocent people all across the world. Incredible that he is not in hand cuffs.

a reply to: UKTruth

He has to be impeached first and there is nothing preventing him from issuing a pardon for the crimes he committed before hes impeached. Should he give himself a pardon all thats left is the impeachment (he cant pardon himself for impeachment) and subsequent removal from office and that would be it. The Doctrine of sovereign immunity protects him from civil actions (Article III, Section 2 and the 11th amendment).

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth

He has to be impeached first and there is nothing preventing him from issuing a pardon for the crimes he committed before hes impeached. Should he give himself a pardon all thats left is the impeachment (he cant pardon himself for impeachment) and subsequent removal from office and that would be it. The Doctrine of sovereign immunity protects him from civil actions (Article III, Section 2 and the 11th amendment).

Is he allowed to pardon himself?