Have our intelligence capabilities suffered under Obama?

On the September 20th edition of the Kelly File, former Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra made the following comments about our intelligence capabilities:

Do you agree or disagree with what Congressman Hoekstra says? If you disagree, why do you? If you agree, don't President Obama and Secretary Clinton bear most of the responsibility for this situation?

 

Absolutely. His agenda was to "fundamentally change America". So far so good.

 

As someone who worked in the intelligence service, I would have to say yes.

 

Have our intelligence capabilities suffered under Obama? <<<<< Does a polar bear (*)(*)(*)(*) on ice?

How many times did BO the peep throw the IC under the bus?

Did we have to pull our Clandestine people out of China and shut down operations that took years to get up and running?

Did the Office of the OPM get hacked, giving up all IC and military personnel going back to the time of Reagan?

Can BO the peep avoid going down on the record as being responsible for the Greatest Intel Disaster in US History?

 

If Obama is not a Muslim , he sure is a Muslim enabler .

 

The congressman should get his facts straight, the brotherhood was elected.
Perhaps congress should have worked with the white house on what a war should look like instead of washing their hands of it.

 

So what they got elected.....how does that change the reality of what the Muslim Brotherhood are? That would be radical jihadists that got put in the Right place.

Trust that they do prefer a 9 by 7 cell rather than getting their heads lopped off.

 

The muslim brotherhood was supported by the Obama administration. They ate dinner with Obama in the white house. They are also terrorism financiers. Then again, so is Obama. He's currently arming Al Qaeda.

 

Logically, I would assume that it is easier to have developed intelligence sources in a stable government with long-term officials than it would be in governments in transition in which all your intelligence sources have been tossed to the winds. Since 9/11/01, we have probably relied too much on electronic surveillance to boot and have not figured out a good way to process the stuff in real time such that it has high utility. We can do a find time retroactively pulling out the information after something has happened, but still lag in being able to use the mass amounts of data preemptively.

 

Let's start with the fact that the US didn't partner with "radical jihadists" to overthrow the dictatorships of Mubarak and Gaddafi. There was actually little support from the US in either case.

Perhaps we've lost some intelligence sources in North Africa by the overthrowing of two dictatorships but can anyone actually support dictatorships just to obtain intelligence? How can any American support the tyranny of a dictatorship just so the US can obtain more intelligence. Does Congressman Hoekstra really believe it was acceptable for the US to support these dictatorships just so we could obtain more intelligence information?

Because this is a comparison between the Obama administration and the Bush administration we also need to look at the Bush presidency. How good was our intelligence gathering capability when we invaded Iraq over claims of WMD's? That had to be one of the greatest intelligence failures of the last 100 years. Did our intelligence sources under Bush locate Osama bin Laden or did the Obama intelligence sources locate Osama bin Laden?

We obviously don't know all that our intelligence services are addressing or even the full capabilities of those services but based upon what we do know the Bush intelligence services pretty much sucked while we don't really see that under the Obama administration.

 

I lost a few IQ points bashing my head against the wall when he go elected..does that count

 

I'd offer a few comments.

(1) I'd hope we wouldn't go around tossing out every two-bit dictator, especially if in doing so, we end up hurting ourselves in the long run. But there is usually more going on with these situations.

(2) Everyone likes to point out the Iraqi WMD situation as an utter failure of the Bush Administration. However, if you look at the CIA report issued in 2004, you'll notice that there were a number of factors leading up to our failure to realize that Iraq had unilaterally gotten rid of its chemical weapons in 1991. Yes, it was a huge intelligence failure, and yes, it led to us prosecuting a very costly war, which in turn has left us with a much more unstable Mideast region. Still, when faced with a situation in which a president is presented with intelligence indicating that there may be WMDs in the hands of an unstable individual who may be inclined to use them, I'd prefer having a president who is at least willing to act, because the alternative is to have a president who draws a red line in the sand with regard to the use of such weapons and when that line is crossed, does absolutely nothing in response. No, neither situation is ideal, but I'd much prefer the Saddams and Assads of the world thinking we might come in after them if/when they step out of line.

(3) This idea that there are Bush intelligence sources and Obama intelligence sources is just plain silly. We have American intelligence resources that are made available to whoever is in office at the time. Those resources either find themselves supported by the policies of an administration or they don't. Congressman Hoekstra's comments indicate his belief that the Obama administration has not been supportive of those efforts, and it is to those comments that my question is directed.

(4) You're right, we don't know all that our intelligence services are addressing or the full capabilities of those services, which is why I place greater weight on the views expressed by a former Intelligence Committee Chairman.

 

I, for one, feel dumber every time the Obama speaks.
Does that count?

 

Surely you jest. Obama once called ISIS the JV team.

And this estimate is largely the fault of the Obama administration who made it clear they didn't want to hear any bad news about Islamic jihad.

 

He's just talking about one area. I do agree that our intelligence capabilities have suffered under Obama, but that's less to do with Obama and more to do with Snowden. He told the entire world how the US collects intelligence and what our capabilities are, giving adversaries a blueprint to avoid US intelligence efforts.

It will take decades to repair that intelligence failure.

 

Prior to 2008, these places were a rich source of Terrorists that we created!

What is Hoekstra smoking exactly? Maybe he smoked a little Hoeky before doing that interview. Prior to 2003, there was no such thing as ISIS, because MOSSAD was not allowed to run unimpeded in the shadows of Iraq, while Saddam was still in power. Prior to 2001, Neocons were not yet in full control of the Republican Party and they certainly did not have any control over the White House. Thus, they had no opportunity to run the 911 PSYOP in lock step with Zionists, both doing their level best to steal territory and natural resources as part of their global expansion program, which Paul Wolfowitz clearly spells out for you in his early 90s Defense Planning Guidance Manifesto, which later became the foundation of the watered down timid version of the Project for The New American Century, but no less bold in actually telling you what would happen next in the "New Pearl Harbor" declaration before it actually happened on September 11th, 2001.

Damaged intelligence capabilities? Heck, we are now running OPS all over the Middle East at will today. There is no damage to our intelligence capabilities, but there is a whole lot of politics being played in and around our Intelligence Community, that's for certain. That's 100% certain. That should be the bigger concern for the American People. The fact that our IC is involved in moving, shaping and directing our electoral process. That's the real news. Not the misdirection and misinformation that Mr. Hoeky put out there for fools to believe.

Nothing is what it seems in this country. Nothing. Nothing at all. Knowing how to read between the lines of disinformation is an absolute requirement.

What Mr. Hoeky needs to be more concerned with is the level of infiltration and penetration that MOSSAD has racked up within our intelligence community from just about every angle imaginable. They are deeply rooted in our intelligence infrastructure. Yet, Mr. Hoekymon is not telling you this truth.

 

I appreciate this response and would like to comment to the points made.

1. No, the US shouldn't be involved in removing two-bit dictators or supporting them either. At the same time I would remind people of the following words.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The people living under a two-bit dictator have both the right and the duty to overthrown that dictator if the conditions they're living under become intolerable.

2. In late 2002 and early 2003 the US had at it's disposal the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq that had unlimited access to any location in Iraq. All the US had to do was to ask them to search wherever the US wanted them to go and they would do that. Before the invasion they had already established that Iraq didn't have any WMD research or production facilities and that after extensive searching had been unable to find any operational WMD's and that they were just months away from being able to certify that Iraq didn't have any WMD's. All they needed was a few more months. At the time Iraq didn't represent any threat to the United States or any other country in the world and there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq at all.

This wasn't really an "intelligence failure" but instead indicated that the Bush Administration really didn't want the UN Weapons Inspectors to confirm that Iraq didn't have any WMD's which would have made the invasion of Iraq impossible. Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq and the last thing they wanted was for the UN Weapons Inspectors to debunk their claim of WMD's in Iraq.

That really takes us to item 3.

3. That's absolutely correct but realize that the US Intelligence Agencies only provide the information and have no say in how it's used by the administration. What to do with the information is not a role or responsibility of the agencies collecting the intelligence. What the leadership of an intelligence agency, like the CIA, might think doesn't mean a damn thing. Only what the President decides matters because that's his job.

We've seen what happens when the CIA controls what's done... it was called the Bay of Pigs because JFK backed up the CIA plans as opposed to the CIA backing up the President's plans. Intelligence gathering agencies should never be allowed to decide what to do based upon the intelligence they gather. That's not their role or responsibility.

4. Former Congressman Hoekstra was never the head of any US intelligence agency but did serve on House Intelligence Committee, serving from 2004 to 2007. In short he received briefings from the US intelligence agencies. As noted he hasn't served in that capacity since 2007 so he doesn't really have a clue about what intelligence the US intelligence agencies are gathering currently. He points to a possible loss of intelligence from N Africa as a concern but do any of the nations in N Africa represent any threat to the United States? As far as I know they represent about as much of a threat as Antarctica so I question if the intelligence is really all that important. Of course it might be to former Republican Congressman that wants to slam the Obama Administration but does it really matter to America or to the American people?

This takes us back to item #3 because I don't believe that it's the intelligence that former Congressman Hoekstra is really complaining about. What he's complaining about are the actions by the Obama Administration that receives the intelligence. Basically it's politics as usual and we know one thing about that. Never trust the politicians when they tell you something because, at best, it's a half-truth that leads to an erroneous conclusion.

 

Yeah, and now Snowden has the audacity to ask President Obama for a pardon. I'd like to see him locked up, but he'll probably get his pardon.

 

I dunno. Normally Snowden would be exactly the time of anti American that Obama could support, but in this case, it was Obama himself who was humiliated by that espionage. I doubt he will be in any pardoning mood for Snowden.

 

It's always interesting that Republicans seem very inclined to just make up fairy tails whenever the mood strikes them.

 

Actually, this "fairy tale" was made up by the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/w...s-of-skewed-intelligence-reports-on-isis.html

 

Towns Square, Ft. Hood, San Bernardo, and the list goes on and on. Our intelligence capabilities have clearly and utter decreased(Not that they were ever good to begin with. That's why the DHS was created post 9-11.) But on the question if we should have kept them intact just to gain intelligence.

The answer is yes, but not just for intelligence. Whether a dictatorship, a monarchy or an anarchy, they were the elected government of their countries. I find it ironic as a 'Liberal-Libertarian' you would support the overthrow of these people. In reality, just like in Iraq, we had no Plan B. The Atlantic basically said that our country doesn't have an interest in the civil infrastructure of countries, post-war and it's showing.

If a government is going to be overthrown, I believe Obama's right approach was with the Green Revolution in Iran: Do nothing. They are not our countries, and the appearance of supporting violent rebels is tremendously worse than working with civilized, elected governments.

Put another way: If the US supports violent overthrows abroad, what argument does it have for the 'peaceful transition of power' over here? Logically speaking, we don't.

 

The Military Command isn't an actual intelligence agency and it has long distorted it's reports on the effectiveness of operations. As a Vietnam War veteran we witnessed the same thing during that conflict. I don't see anything surprising or even new because the military always wants to paint the brightest picture when it comes to how successful it's operations are.

 

These are cases of domestic terrorism which is outside the scope of our foreign intelligence gathering capabilities. This relates to US law enforcement agencies like the FBI and there are Constitutional constraints upon our law enforcement agencies.

For some bazaar reason there are those that fail to understand that a tyrannical democracy can exist just like a tyrannical dictatorship. The type of government has no real significance when addressing tyranny that can exist under any form of government. Where I find two fundamental problems is: 1) that from a military standpoint a rather small minority can topple a government, and; 2) Just because a government is toppled because it's tyrannical doesn't imply that the government replacing it won't also be tyrannical and sometimes it's even more tyrannical.

It isn't like Iraq because the American Government and the American People didn't have either a "right or a duty" to overthrown Saddam's regime. Only the Iraqi people had a "right and duty" to overthrow Saddam if they found his regime to be intolerable. Of course the US didn't even have a Plan A when it invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam's regime. Remember that the US invasion was opposed by both the Shi'ite and Sunni Iraqi militias and, under the Geneva Conventions, the Iraqi people had the right to pick up arms and oppose the invasion of their country by a foreign nation. The Shi'ite and Sunni militias were actually in the "right" because they had the right of self-defense against the US invasion while the US was in the wrong because no nation has a right to invade another nation.

In principle I agree with only one exception. If a new government is formed, such as was the case in the American Revolution, and the United States supports the ideology of the new government then arguably we could provide support like the French did during the American Revolution. That rarely if ever happens in reality as the "rebels" are solely focused on overthrowing the government that exists and do so without establishing the political ideology and social contract for the new government. The stupidest thing we could do is support any group that hasn't established a new political ideology and social contract with the people because it typically just represents one form of tyranny being replaced by another form of tyranny and our political ideology opposes tyranny.

This is one of the primary problems I had with the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was a tyrannical government that invaded Kuwait but Kuwait was also a tyrannical government as was/is Saudi Arabia. It was a conflict between competing tyrannical regimes and the US should never support tyrannical regimes, ever. Off course former President George GW Bush was personal friends, and a former business associate, with the royal families in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and that was really the underlying reason for the US involvement (IMHO).

 

While you try to defend BO peep on this.....What excuse do you have for us having to close up shop in China and pull all our clandestine people out of China?

Tells us how that didn't affect our IC and capabilities.