- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-21-2014, 08:05 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-21-2014, 08:35 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-21-2014, 09:05 PM
Jihad Watch... http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/mo...administration
Morsi’s wife threatens to publish letters from Hillary Clinton, exposing “special relationship” between Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration
Raymond Ibrahim Aug 14, 2014 at 5:51am Barack Obama, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood 53 Comments
Hillary Clinton, Mohammed MorsiThe wife of former Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi is the latest Muslim Brotherhood “insider” to threaten to expose the special relationship between Morsi and the Obama administration—a relationship the latter insists never existed.
Nagla Mahmoud, Morsi’s wife, is reportedly angry at some statements recently made by Hillary Clinton, including that Morsi was “naďve” and “unfit for Egypt’s presidency,” as reported by Arabic media.
In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”
The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”
Earlier, the son of Khairat al-Shatter—another top ranking Brotherhood member who was arrested during the June 2013 revolution that ousted Morsi—made similar assertions, threatening to expose documents that would “undermine his [U.S. president Obama’s] political future and land him in prison.”
Despite all these similar threats from Brotherhood insiders, and despite all the other evidence, the Obama administration insists that its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood was no more special than its relationships to other Egyptian parties.
Morsi’s wife threatens to publish letters from Hillary Clinton, exposing “special relationship” between Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration
Raymond Ibrahim Aug 14, 2014 at 5:51am Barack Obama, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood 53 Comments
Hillary Clinton, Mohammed MorsiThe wife of former Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi is the latest Muslim Brotherhood “insider” to threaten to expose the special relationship between Morsi and the Obama administration—a relationship the latter insists never existed.
Nagla Mahmoud, Morsi’s wife, is reportedly angry at some statements recently made by Hillary Clinton, including that Morsi was “naďve” and “unfit for Egypt’s presidency,” as reported by Arabic media.
In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”
The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”
Earlier, the son of Khairat al-Shatter—another top ranking Brotherhood member who was arrested during the June 2013 revolution that ousted Morsi—made similar assertions, threatening to expose documents that would “undermine his [U.S. president Obama’s] political future and land him in prison.”
Despite all these similar threats from Brotherhood insiders, and despite all the other evidence, the Obama administration insists that its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood was no more special than its relationships to other Egyptian parties.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-21-2014, 10:21 PM
- Yssup Rider
- 08-21-2014, 11:42 PM
Talking to yourself again Slobbrin?
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-22-2014, 07:47 AM
http://shoebat.com/2014/08/22/cia-tr...organizations/
CIA-Trained Lt. Col. Says ISIS The ‘Antichrist Of Terrorist Organizations’
by Ben Barrack on August 22, 2014 in General
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer appeared on WMAL to talk about the growing threat of ISIS and Barack Obama’s refusal to confront it. At one point, Shaffer referred to ISIS as “the antichrist of terrorist organizations”. This is indeed interesting when one considers the mounting evidence that Turkey has been aiding, abetting, and funding ISIS.
Toward the end of the clip below, Shaffer relayed that his sources inside the Pentagon told him the reason the raid to rescue James Foley failed was because Obama dithered and did not give the order until “the intel got stale”.
An interesting point made by Shaffer is that the perception Obama is disengaged or doesn’t understand the threat is belied by the fact that the President has access to far more and detailed information than anyone else. This is absolutely correct. Whenever media – both conservative and liberal – focuses on the President playing so much golf or refers to him as being “detached”, it plays right into Obama’s hands.
There are only a few explanations for Obama’s refusal to confront America’s enemies (to include leaving the southern border wide open): 1.) he is detached / naive / incompetent and doesn’t understand the threat; 2.) it’s all by design because he hates this country or is in league with America’s enemies or 3.) he’s too afraid.
He cannot have the perception that it’s by design take hold because that would carry with it severe consequences for him personally; ditto the issue of being fearful. Therefore, he must go the extra mile to create the perception that he just doesn’t understand the threat.
The degree to which politicians would rather be seen as complete buffoons who know nothing rather than as complicit actors who know more than the rest of us knows no bounds.
It’s a sad statement when someone would rather be seen as stupid than gutless.
Besides, ignorance shouldn’t be an excuse anyway. Isn’t that why the President has access to all that information?
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-22-2014, 11:28 PM
Olawless strikes again...
Obama rejects finding that he broke the law in Bergdahl swap
August 22, 2014, 03:48 pm
By Justin Sink
The White House on Friday rejected findings by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) that President Obama broke the law when he swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders from Guantánamo Bay.
"We strongly disagree with GAO's conclusion, and we reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. "The president has the constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of Americans abroad, and specifically to protect U.S. servicemembers."
The GAO report, released Thursday, said the Pentagon violated a law that requires the administration to inform Congress at least 30 days before any prisoner exchange from Guantánamo Bay. It also said the Defense Department wrongly used $988,400 from a wartime appropriations to facilitate the transfer.
"The Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30-days notice to certain congressional committees," the GAO wrote in its report.
Lawmakers have criticized the White House for failing to inform them about the prisoner swap and for freeing the Guantánamo detainees. Some have suggested Bergdahl, who is suspected of deserting ahead of his capture, was not worth the risk of freeing captured Taliban leaders.
The Pentagon maintained to the congressional investigators that providing notice of the exchange "would have interfered with the executive's performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the president: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. service members."
The GAO said it would not weigh in on the constitutionality of the law requiring congressional notification, but noted the legislation passed through the legislature and was signed by the president. But the White House seized on that point to argue that the administration's actions should not be considered a violation of the law.
"It's important for everyone here to understand that the GAO report expressly does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law," Schultz said.
On Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said that, under the "exceptional circumstances" involved in the controversial prisoner swap, "the administration determined that it was necessary and appropriate to forego 30 days' notice."
"The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers," Kirby said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz3BBawOGtT
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Obama rejects finding that he broke the law in Bergdahl swap
August 22, 2014, 03:48 pm
By Justin Sink
The White House on Friday rejected findings by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) that President Obama broke the law when he swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders from Guantánamo Bay.
"We strongly disagree with GAO's conclusion, and we reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. "The president has the constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of Americans abroad, and specifically to protect U.S. servicemembers."
The GAO report, released Thursday, said the Pentagon violated a law that requires the administration to inform Congress at least 30 days before any prisoner exchange from Guantánamo Bay. It also said the Defense Department wrongly used $988,400 from a wartime appropriations to facilitate the transfer.
"The Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30-days notice to certain congressional committees," the GAO wrote in its report.
Lawmakers have criticized the White House for failing to inform them about the prisoner swap and for freeing the Guantánamo detainees. Some have suggested Bergdahl, who is suspected of deserting ahead of his capture, was not worth the risk of freeing captured Taliban leaders.
The Pentagon maintained to the congressional investigators that providing notice of the exchange "would have interfered with the executive's performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the president: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. service members."
The GAO said it would not weigh in on the constitutionality of the law requiring congressional notification, but noted the legislation passed through the legislature and was signed by the president. But the White House seized on that point to argue that the administration's actions should not be considered a violation of the law.
"It's important for everyone here to understand that the GAO report expressly does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law," Schultz said.
On Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said that, under the "exceptional circumstances" involved in the controversial prisoner swap, "the administration determined that it was necessary and appropriate to forego 30 days' notice."
"The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers," Kirby said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz3BBawOGtT
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
- Yssup Rider
- 08-23-2014, 12:08 AM
Oslobbrin...
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-23-2014, 01:55 PM
- i'va biggen
- 08-23-2014, 03:46 PM
Way to go spam master.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-23-2014, 05:33 PM
- WTF
- 08-23-2014, 05:41 PM
[
There are only a few explanations for Obama’s refusal to confront America’s enemies (to include leaving the southern border wide open): 1.) he is detached / naive / incompetent and doesn’t understand the threat; 2.) it’s all by design because he hates this country or is in league with America’s enemies or 3.) he’s too afraid.
? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
I'll ask you what I asked LL....
How much money and how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe IIFFOFRDB?
That is the question....not matter how you or boardman or that dumbass gnadfly pose your questions about Muslims terrorist coming over here. What are you willing to give up to the government to protect you? Your safety does not come without a price.
Personally I want less so called safety and way more personal freedom. I will take the odds that it is more likely I get killed by lightning than a terrorist and keep my money and personal freedom. You , boardman and gnadfly seem to want to have it all. Spend no money, give up no personal freedoms and take no personal responsibility for your own safety. In other words you are looking to the government to protect you.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
- IIFFOFRDB
- 08-23-2014, 05:47 PM
I'll ask you what I asked LL....
How much money and how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe IIFFOFRDB?
That is the question....not matter how you or boardman or that dumbass gnadfly pose your questions about Muslims terrorist coming over here. What are you willing to give up to the government to protect you? Your safety does not come without a price.
Personally I want less so called safety and way more personal freedom. I will take the odds that it is more likely I get killed by lightning than a terrorist and keep my money and personal freedom. You , boardman and gnadfly seem to want to have it all. Spend no money, give up no personal freedoms and take no personal responsibility for your own safety. In other words you are looking to the government to protect you.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 Originally Posted by WTF
- WTF
- 08-23-2014, 05:55 PM
Sounds like you are scared of ISIS
I'll ask you what I asked LL....
How much money and how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe IIFFOFRDB?
That is the question....not matter how you or boardman or that dumbass gnadfly pose your questions about Muslims terrorist coming over here. What are you willing to give up to the government to protect you? Your safety does not come without a price.
Personally I want less so called safety and way more personal freedom. I will take the odds that it is more likely I get killed by lightning than a terrorist and keep my money and personal freedom. You , boardman and gnadfly seem to want to have it all. Spend no money, give up no personal freedoms and take no personal responsibility for your own safety. In other words you are looking to the government to protect you.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
- i'va biggen
- 08-23-2014, 06:51 PM
Your fucked.