CIA Director Brennan: ISIS Decimated Under Bush – Grew 4,400% Under Obama

This revelation pretty much tells the story about president Obama and his failed policy of protecting America from islamic terrorism. So what is his real plan, perhaps it's working for all we know. Some of Obama's actions have indeed spoken louder than his words. 49 innocent Americans murdered by a muslim terrorist and Obama showed more anger towards Donal Trump! Hmmm


In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies yesterday, CIA director John Brennan made a startling admission: The Islamic State was “decimated” under George W. Bush and had just “700-or-so adherents left” following the surge in Iraq. Said Brennan:

[ISIS] was, you know, pretty much decimated when US forces were there in Iraq. It had maybe 700-or-so adherents left. And then it grew quite a bit in the last several years, when it split then from al-Qaida in Syria, and set up its own organization.
​

But in September 2014, a CIA analysis found that:

[ISIS] can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria … This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.
​

This means that, by the CIA’s own estimate, ISIS has grown on President Obama’s watch from just 700 fighters to between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.
That is an increase of between 2,700 and 4,400 %. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/cia-director-brennan-isis-decimated-bush-grew-4400-obama/

 

Destabilizing Syria was simply foolish. But then, Obama's entire presidency has been little more than a comedy of errors.

 

That Arab Spring Hillary and Obama bragged about didn't work out so good did it.

[video=youtube;mlz3-OzcExI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI[/video]

I'm sure the terrorists said the same about Chris Stevens and the other 3 in Benghazi.

 

Umm ISIS didn't really exist until 2011 after the US left Iraq. How can you compare Bush's bumbling to Obama's mishandling Iraq of ISIS when ISIS did not exist until after Bush was out of office?

 

[video=youtube;HyyeMl9pfs0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyyeMl9pfs0[/video] Lol Bush praised Arab Spring as an out growth of his administration policies.


You're wrong so you can take off now


It was Bush Jr. who outlined the withdrawal of U.S troops from Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from _Iraq

"The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory"

It took Bush 8 long years to remove Alquaida from Iraq simply because he refused to heed the words of General Shinshecki the experienced head of the chief of staff. who told him that the number of troops in the Iraqi occupation was way to low. This prolonged the war murdering and maiming thousands more U.S. troops and prevented us from accomplishing our goals

Prime minister Maliki who rose to power under the Bush administration decimated the troops that the U.S left in Iraq. He used the troops to occupy Sunni areas in Iraq thereby creating civil and political disunion. He hired his relatives to high official positions in the Army even though they had no military experience or background. The dispirited and disorganized Iraqi troops had no will to fight invading ISIS forces.

Bush's Maliki government refused to wave immunity from prosecution any U.S troops in Iraq. The Iraqis hated us. Why should we fight under a corrupt government who's people hate us and wanted to prosecute us.

Brennan will tell you that Alquaida and ISIS are in no way alike So the OP of this thread is wrong.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/24/467711098/transcript-nprs-interview-with-cia-director-john-brennan

"KELLY: For you personally, you were here at CIA in the days after the 9/11 attacks, and dealt with al-Qaida, do you feel that this concern that ISIS poses, perhaps a greater threat is justified?

BRENNAN: It's a much different type of threat. ISIS is more of a phenomenon. Al-Qaida was a rather structured, hierarchical organization that was very disciplinary in many respects as far as focusing on large attacks, again, against the West, carrying out attacks against our embassies and other areas.

ISIS is more of a movement. It has sort of taken the hearts and souls, minds of individuals. It's set up as false caliphate, and it has attracted thousands, upon thousands of individuals who have been misled by this narrative. And so I am very concerned about what ISIS is doing undercutting and undermining the fabric of societies, undercutting governments, again, taking advantage of some of these ungoverned spaces that have evolved and developed, truly since some of the Arab Spring manifestations throughout the Middle East. So it is something that I think is going to take a number of years to be able to address."

 

Wow you've just painted Obama into a corner!
If you are correct, then Obama is basically responsible for creating ISIS by pulling out of Iraq too early.
If Brennen is right, well, Obama still looks inept!

 

The video won't play, but I've seen it before. She laughs at the cruel death the Qaddafi suffered. She's cold, real cold.

 

I wonder how many Al-Qaeda/ISI/ISIL/ISIS were in Iraq before Bush the country back into the stone age...

What's that? No significant presence? So weird.

 

Eh, but Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/IS didn't even exist during Bush's reign, did it? Sounds a tad revisionist.

Still, it's true that it has only grown stronger under 0bama's leadership. Seems to be in no small part a consequence of misguided efforts to support "moderate rebels" in Syria..

 

So in other words....ISIS expansion is 100% all on Obama. That makes sense.

 

Look at the Troop Surge that Bush implemented and look at the level of violence that died down. Bush and co. began to incorporate and repair relations with the Sunni fighters and began to pay them (Sons of Iraq) to combat against AQI, which if you pay attention, AQI is ISIS.

The Sunnis began to be targeted thanks to the Bush appointed PM of Iraq, Maliki. Maliki was a moron that Obama did not keep his eye on, which allowed Iraq to deteriorate. As I've said 100 TIMES, ISIS is the result of both Bush and Obama. Blaming one or the other fully for it is idiotic.

 

Well seeing the Obama admin supplies and funds Isis through the CIA....its a no brainier really. This info has been out for ages. Everyone knows who is making sure Isis is a success....the US Government and saudi's.

 

Lol Maliki came to power under George Bush. How was Obama supposed to keep an eye on him??. The Bush administration bragged how the election in Iraq showed that democracy was flourishing in Iraq. . What were we supposed to do strong arm Maliki by sending troops in to control his regime. There's a lot of ignorance here. By the time we removed troops out of Iraq it's citizens hated us. Bush's Miliki government refused to offer immunity for our troops against Iraqi laws and courts. We would have been fighting in a country filled with people who hated us and could prosecute our soldiers. By what stretch of the imagination should we have continued on in Iraq. Remember Bush's Maliki government decimated the trained Iraqi army. Maliki had troops occupying Sunni areas and threatening and controlling some Kurdish areas. Maliki caused disunity and political disarray in Iraq. He chose his relatives to become commanding officers in the army even though they were inept and had no military training. . The Iraqi army was suffering poor moral and disorganization by the time ISIS attacked.
The Sunni's elements would not even raise their weapons. Billions of dollars meant for building and re-building infrastructure in Iraq was lost or stolen under Bush's regime. The Bush administration never outlined an exit strategy. I know the Trumpuppets want to confuse the issue by making it seem as though Obama was responsible. Remember this was a poorly planned invasion and occupation strategy from the start. This was a major Bush foreign policy failure.

 

I never heard of ISIS under Bush. They exploded after Obama, with full approval and the enthusiastic approval of Hillary, withdrew US troops so that everyone would love us.

And of course Hillary is still in the unfolding email scandal - mishandling secrets and obstruction of justice plus a cronyism scandal involving national-security risks like when an unqualified donor, Rajiv Fernando, was put on a sensitive government intelligence panel involving nuclear weapons.

What a bunch of corrupt boneheads.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._got_a_job_as_a_nuclear_expert_he_wasn_t.html

 

Since IISIS did not exist yet during Bush w administration how could it have been decimated if it was not in existence!,,,,Looks like another Obama hater thread based upon a lie, containing lies, and supported by lies. Other than that this is one great thread.

 

ISIS grew out of AQI, which came to Iraq when we conquered that nation.

We made good progress against AQI during the "awakening" when we worked together with the Sunnis. Until that cooperation, along with the promise of government representation, etc., even surge levels of US troops had not been very successful against AQI.

Unfortunately, we then abandoned the Sunnis, handing Iraq over to Maliki who used his military and his Shiite militias in lethal attacks on Sunnis, drove Sunnis from government and eliminated Sunnis from civil service employment - a majorly important segment of the Iraqi job market.

Sunnis could not effectively oppose both the lethal assaults of their own government and the insurgency of ISIS - which actually offered them MORE than Maliki did, as under ISIS Sunnis were able to hold civil service jobs, take positions in their military, participate in the proto-government of ISIS, etc.

Then guys come along on boards such as this and suggest ISIS grew because of Obama!!!

What a sick partisan bit if idiocy.

 

So you are saying ISIS was created under obama? Thanks for admitting that.

 

Not a surprise as Obama ran on a get out of Iraq platform.

 

The head of the CIA hates Obama?

 

There you go assuming like a moron. I am not a Trumpuppet, I look at the whole picture. It was both their fault as I explained and Obama's fault was keeping maliki in power to begin with. Bush kept Maliki in check and kept a close eye on him, Obama did not. Maliki did not win the 2010 election, and he got to stay in power. Bush and Obama are both to blame, especially when Obama refused to recognize the results of the election. That was Obama's big mistake there. I think Bush is more to blame, but to say Obama has no fault in the entire situation is dumb.

 

I'm not sure myself, I've heard multiple theories but I'll take the head of the CIA's word for it.

 

I'd certainly rather have ISIS fighting for its life against 125,000 of America's best troops in Iraq than inciting terrorist attacks in nightclubs in Orlando and State office buildings in San Bernadino.

“In war there is hardly a more horrifying example of the head-long plunge into reckless militarism than what Hillary Clinton led the way on in Libya,”

~ Jill Stein, Green Party

http://observer.com/2016/05/the-new-york-times-clinton-puppet-gets-it-wrong-again/

 

Obama hates it when the truth gets out.

 

This is a pretty good documentary on ISIS: http://www.pbs.org/video/2365356572/

Maliki deserves most of the blame for what went down. The US let the Sunnis down and both Bush and Obama could have reigned Maliki in.

 

You need to keep your stories in line. Are you talking about Iraq? Syria? Libya? USA?

The reason we don't carry out combat operations in Iraq is that Iraq is a sovereign nation that does not want us to do so.

You're mischaracterizing the motivations in the Orlando event.

Libya was a military success followed (once again) by a "nation building" failure. It was a NATO operation, led by the US only at the very beginning. The major mistake was that there was no plan for a replacement government. The US worked with the rebel groups during and after the conflict in Libya, but the groups had no interest in coming together to form a government. Once again, the "nation building" aspect of the operation was a failure even as the military portion was a significant success.

Another aspect in this war was that there were huge numbers of lives being lost due to the conduce of the repression by the Libyan government and the mercenaries they hired from sub Saharan Africa. It's hard to stand by and watch such slaughter of civilians when we DO have the ability to stop that.

Hillary seems more ready to depend on intervention and military than I would like. But, I'd say she is probably in the middle for the USA as a whole on this topic.