. . . doesn't mean, of course, that they just sat on the info.

. . . but the political and sectarian conflict there has been escalating all year. Only difference now in the reports seems to be the reluctance of a sizable number of Iraqi troops who refuse to fight, despite the fact that their forces vastly outnumber the rebels.

If there is a political problem, as the President outlined, I'm not sure what a public debate in the U.S. would have done to help. That's the stuff of diplomacy, not politics here in the US.

Haven't you been paying attention?

There have been stories - with increased frequency and increased violence in any MSM feed you want to look at. I suspect that many tune it out -- we are not there -- not our problem.

I don't think many who actually followed what was happening in Syria and Iraq are very surprised - use google and you will see there have been daily stories. What IS different is that they have become increasingly successful. Note that the names of towns are familiar - they are the same Sunni hot spots that we heard of for years. In 2006/2007, many of the Sunnis in those towns actually drove AQ out. They were sick of the violence. Now, there are some comments that local Sunnis are defecting to ISIS - frustrated with the government that has increasiningly marginalized them.

He asked for it last fall, and we've been shipping it. What we weren't prepared for is to watch entire battalions of Iraqi soldiers suddenly strip off their uniforms and run away, leaving an entire city to a relative handful of insurgents.

the "new" Iraqi forces were able to stand up on their own, particularly when pitted against co-religionists and tribal 'relatives'. It's always been a fantasy underpinning the whole concept of our "success" in Iraq. The better question is why we have kept propping up Al Maliki in the face of evidence that he has been carrying out an open purge against Iraqi Sunnis in government and trying at every point to ally himself closer with Shiite Iran.

The NSA isn't the only agency that collects intelligence, you know. Please get a life.

For at least 18 months. This is hardly out of the blue.

The NSA doesn't report to the media. They report to the President and other authorities. They never release such information to the public. It would defeat the purpose of the organization.

But, they're not going to release the information to the public, either.

The NSA releases nothing of any intelligence value to the public. If they did, they'd be breaking their own regulations and violating their charter.

Unless you have a demonstrable need to know something, you'll not get anything from the NSA. Once the President has the information, he could decide to make it public, but the NSA never will. It's not their job.

would you expect Congress to do anything wise? I sure wouldn't.

do that would be of any use? Sorry, but you're not thinking this through.

think it through.
thats our taxpayer treasury being blown up.
we have a right to know, not a right to be fooled.
everything is proceeding as expected, if not exactly as planned.
"the people" should be insulted by the degree of stupidity their representatives
insist their constituents possess, no matter what fraction of it is true.

did not have briefings? The fact is the news that anyone could read had accounts of the problems with ISIS - in both Syria and Iraq.

Not to mention, it is the executive branch that leads on foreign policy and on national defense.