Not A Muslim

Why it's as though Valerie Jarrett doesn't know which side her toast is buttered on...

Hi marc in calgary.

Agree except, I'm not sure we can say "anymore".

I'm with you though. He's anti-American, anti-Western to the max.

I have always believed that all these things are all a part of his overall plan to bring the USA to its knees.

He's right on schedule.

Why ? Because he was elected.
How could that happen ? McCain, Romney - that's how.

No, he didn't say always. But maybe it would be good idea in this particular instance. Seriously, you debate like n eight year old.

"whatever foreign government asks the US for military intelligence, the US should always say yes?"

If they (the USSofA) is serious about fighting Islamic terrorists...YES. Your IQ appears lower than your shoe size. Back to your Mommie's basement.

Just asking. What would you hope to ever gain from withholding the positions of international terrorists from people that want to kill them?

You got way to much bad schooling. Go and slap your parents, and teachers ... they deserve it.

Not only does he debate like an eight year old, he THINKS like an eight year old.

That is exactly right. Obama is pushing the Middle East into allying with Russia. Jordan and Egypt were somewhat American client states, now they are going to be Russian client states.

Stanley Ann Dunham met Barack Hussein Obama sr. at the University of Hawaii while studying the Russian language at the height of the Cold War. Both of them were communists.
Coincidence?

"Are you saying that whenever Egypt or Jordan or whatever foreign government asks the US for military intelligence, the US should always say yes?"

That is not what lance said.
Please tell us all why you think that at this time, these specific foreign governments, should not get this particular intelligence, on these specific targets.

Sean >

"They are at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

That's RUBBISH!

They are at Martha's Vinyard Golf & Country, or bathing on the invigorating shores of Maui.

"No, he didn't say always. But maybe it would be good idea in this particular instance."

Maybe, maybe not.

But hey, you watched a video clip of Oliver North telling Greta van Susteren that he heard from unnamed sources that Abdullah II and Abdel asked Barack for classified US military intelligence, but Barack was like, Uh uh, and Abdullah II and Abdel were like, C'mon, please?, and Barack was still all like, Uh uh. So obviously, Barack is such a jerk, because, you know, the entirely objective and nonpartisan Gatewaypundit's story is obviously true and complete, with no possibility whatsoever that there might be additional facts pertaining to sharing or not sharing American military intelligence with foreign governments, in this case or any others, that the US government inexplicably chose to not disclose to Oliver North and/or you.

"What would you hope to ever gain from withholding the positions of international terrorists from people that want to kill them?"

Oh, I dunno, maybe because one has valuable intelligence assets embedded in said group. Or maybe revealing the intelligence would risk revealing the manner in which that intelligence was obtained, and one would prefer to keep that secret. Or maybe the US has a tactical reason for not obliterating a given target just yet, say, because they have credible intelligence suggesting that said target is expected to meet higher-value targets at some time in the near future, and they don't want the Egyptians or Jordanians, who are understandably out for blood, to inadvertently wipe out their bait in a fit of righteous rage.

Who knows? The point is, Oliver North doesn't know. Neither does Greta can Susteren, or GatewayPundit, or you. But it seems the absence of fact isn't much of an impediment to your forming of opinions.

There has never been evidence that the US is good at HUMINT.

That's why I used the word maybe. I don't know all the details. All I know is that The Egyptians and Jordanians want to bomb the same people we are bombing. Logic says if they want to bomb the same targets as us, why not. Logic does not say, that because we do it this time we will always and forever give military intelligence info to anyone who comes and asks for it. Do you see the difference?

That thought crossed my mind also. One pass by an A-10 Warthog, and that massive parade of "technicals" would be reduced to strip of flaming wrecks and bodies oozing blood into the desert sands.

The facts that I do know:

1) It is, in the end, a political decision whether it going to be action or inaction.
2) Information always has a best before date.

As far as your assumptions go:

1) What would stop the Egyptians or Jordanians from hitting targets with embedded assets or a site that might have visitors in the future? Even without the information.

2) Oh yes, secrets. Not every target has to be given, and because of that, you can make the target list source patternless. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the first thing taught at spy school.

BTW: History already has examples of actions not taken for political reasons.