Did The US Intel Agencies Misread Russia's Intent?

[Bailey Guns]

Read the story on FoxNews. Congressional committees in the house and senate are investigating whether or not US intel agencies are to blame for the US being caught with it's pants down when Russia so aggressively moved into Syria.

The intel agencies are to blame? We seriously need "investigations" to know what really happened? Let's recap: in 2012 Mitt Romney said the greatest threat to the US was Russia, that Russia was our greatest "geopolitical foe". Obama laughed like the idiot he is and told Romney the 80s called and wanted it's foreign policy back and the left and the leftist media laughed at him and said he didn't know what he was talking about. In 2012 Obama told Medvedev he'd have more "flexibility" in terms of negotiating missile defense after the election and now Obama's playing schoolboy to Putin.

This is a no-brainer. Obama...not US intel agencies misread and underestimated Russian intent. Plain and simple. So, now, the press and the rest of the administration need to find a scapegoat to pin Obama's failures on...again.

Congress reportedly investigating possible intel lapses over Russian presence in Syria

Reuters, citing congressional officials and other official sources, reported that the House and Senate intelligence committees were looking at whether the intelligence community misjudged or overlooked signs of Moscow's action, which began in earnest Sept. 30 with airstrikes supporting Syrian government forces.

[Great-Kazoo]

This is a no-brainer. Obama...not US intel agencies misread and underestimated Russian intent.

Makes sense to me. Perhaps the Russians didn't see that LINE IN THE SAND while rolling in to Syria. Or took a different route.

[roberth]

Obama is on the wrong side in Syria, he should join Russia and Assad, George Bush made the same error with Saddam.

Obama and Kerry have made a mockery of the US State Department.

[vim]

Agreed. And Putin thinks he has Obama's number, and is choosing this moment to push, hard. He expects Obama to cave, and so do I. Obama's rejiggering of military leadership means that we do not have our best tacticians and experienced warriors making decisions, but rather people whose main characteristic is that they are politically compatible with the currenet administration.

My $0.02

[sampson]

They've been misreading russia for awhile now. An interesting perspective->

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/danca...E/cswdcc70.mp3

Link is dead.. boo

[wctriumph]

Well, at least we get to watch Russia use their latest an greatest military equipment in action and study their battle tactics while they practice on the muslims. They got to watch us and I am sure they learned quite a bit from us. Now we get to watch and prepare.

If only we are smart enough to pay attention.

[sroz]

^^^^^ Don't much care for Putin, but I cannot find a point that I would disagree with you on.

[Irving]

Foxtrot, this whole thread is already about the US being wrong, so I doubt your pissing in any fires.

[Tactical Joke]

Spot on, foxtrot.

[TFOGGER]

Unfortunately, since just after World War II, the US leadership(?) has lacked the resolve to fully commit to a military operation(with a few notable exceptions). Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Asscrackistan, etcetera all illustrate this. The US Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are among the best trained and best equipped in the world, but they continually have had their shoelaces tied together by the policy makers that their officers report to. In an effort not to be seen as a bully by the rest of the world, the US has exercised excessive restraint in these types of conflicts. My opinion is that when you go to war, you go all out. Either let our forces do the job they were trained to do, or stay the hell out.