Benghazi Threads-Merged
- Thread starter NewHampshire Black Bears
- Start date
700UW said:Ironic, I have posted that before, yet the right wingers are silent.
Remember 241 US Marines lost their lives in this attack:
Yeah and what happened after that?
Under Ron Reagan, Dick Marcinko formed Red Cell after heading up Seal Team Six and took the covert war to the terrorists front door.
What Obama do...............Blame it on You Tube.......
700UW said:
"They believe it because folks like you are telling them," Obama responded, adding it took intelligence officials a while to confirm what had happened.
Inhofe said Monday he “applauds
“I will say this till my dying day, I know people don’t realize it now, that’s going to go down in history as the greatest cover-up. And I’m talking about the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate and the rest of them,” Inhofe said.
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Congress Recalls IRS Official Who Took the Fifth: ‘If We Have to Hold Her in Contempt, So Be It’
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) this week ordered Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS’ tax-exempt division, to return before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee he chairs to testify on the alleged targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
Ranking Democratic committee member Elijah Cummings (Md.) believes Issa is trying to force the Lerner case to federal court.
“I have not had a discussion with Issa about what exactly he’s trying to accomplish, but I assume it’s to set it up so he can go to court,” Cummings said.
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told Politico the speaker supports Issa’s efforts.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/27/congress-recalls-irs-official-who-took-the-fifth-if-we-have-to-hold-her-in-contempt-so-be-it/
Obama made a bet:
“Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?”
The United States withdrew support from its allies. It apologized, surrendered and waited for the takeovers to begin. When the dictators wouldn’t step aside voluntarily, the bombers were sent in.
The grand bargain with the Muslim Brotherhood was supposed to end the War on Terror by trading the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islamism for Al Qaeda’s campaign of terror. It was as if FDR had struck a deal with the Bolsheviks to get rid of the Trotskyites (and indeed such a bargain did operate briefly during WW2).
Obama’s grand bargain came to a squalid end on September 11. In Benghazi, the Muslim Brotherhood militia that was supposed to protect the mission instead sold it out and abandoned it.
The Brotherhood would accept American support, but it wouldn’t stop terrorist attacks against America. Its front groups in America would not cooperate with the FBI, its governments and militias in the Middle East would not protect American diplomatic facilities.
On September 11, the American embassy in Cairo was besieged by protesters with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Tunis, the new Islamist government turned its back on the embassy, forcing Hillary Clinton to plead with President Marzouki to send out his own presidential guard to defend it.
In Benghazi and Cairo, Al Qaeda attacked while the Brotherhood played dumb. In Syria, Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias worked together, while Brotherhood spokesmen insisted that they were the only secular alternative. In the United States, Al Qaeda terrorists carried out their “lone wolf” attacks while the Brotherhood front groups which ran most of the Islamic organizations in America claimed not to know what was going on.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s victories did not make Al Qaeda go away. Instead the two found common ground while playing a game of Good Terrorist and Bad Terrorist. Or as the mainstream media calls it, Moderates and Extremists.
“Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?”
The United States withdrew support from its allies. It apologized, surrendered and waited for the takeovers to begin. When the dictators wouldn’t step aside voluntarily, the bombers were sent in.
The grand bargain with the Muslim Brotherhood was supposed to end the War on Terror by trading the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islamism for Al Qaeda’s campaign of terror. It was as if FDR had struck a deal with the Bolsheviks to get rid of the Trotskyites (and indeed such a bargain did operate briefly during WW2).
Obama’s grand bargain came to a squalid end on September 11. In Benghazi, the Muslim Brotherhood militia that was supposed to protect the mission instead sold it out and abandoned it.
The Brotherhood would accept American support, but it wouldn’t stop terrorist attacks against America. Its front groups in America would not cooperate with the FBI, its governments and militias in the Middle East would not protect American diplomatic facilities.
On September 11, the American embassy in Cairo was besieged by protesters with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Tunis, the new Islamist government turned its back on the embassy, forcing Hillary Clinton to plead with President Marzouki to send out his own presidential guard to defend it.
In Benghazi and Cairo, Al Qaeda attacked while the Brotherhood played dumb. In Syria, Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias worked together, while Brotherhood spokesmen insisted that they were the only secular alternative. In the United States, Al Qaeda terrorists carried out their “lone wolf” attacks while the Brotherhood front groups which ran most of the Islamic organizations in America claimed not to know what was going on.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s victories did not make Al Qaeda go away. Instead the two found common ground while playing a game of Good Terrorist and Bad Terrorist. Or as the mainstream media calls it, Moderates and Extremists.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
You should really give credit to who wrote that piece.delldude said:
In Greenfield's article, he writes a quoted statement that makes it appear that Obama said...
"Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?"
...in his Cairo speech.
The full text of that speech is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It is not in that speech. I am sure you can show us all who said that and properly attribute the statement? Or maybe Greenfield can? Here is the original article in Frontpage:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-lost-his-big-muslim-brotherhood-gamble/
Obama did say this in his Cairo speech:
"But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
..."People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq."
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
Tough to know when you don't even cite who wrote it in your post.delldude said:
These are the actual sentences from his original article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-lost-his-big-muslim-brotherhood-gamble/
Who is he quoting?
That statement was not made in Obama's Cairo speech, yet he implies it with his use of a quote in the article.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
When you write an essay with a quotation in it, that means someone else said it. Who is he saying made the statement?
"Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?"
It was not made in the speech by Obama, yet he implies it. If Greenfield is the one who said it, he would not have put quotation marks around it. He is a journalist. When you write an article, you do not quote yourself. So, who said it?
"Islamic terrorists are carrying out attacks because they want their countries to be ruled by Islam. Why not help them to do it?"
It was not made in the speech by Obama, yet he implies it. If Greenfield is the one who said it, he would not have put quotation marks around it. He is a journalist. When you write an article, you do not quote yourself. So, who said it?
Similar threads
