Three Reasons Why Rep. Bachmann Might be Right about Huma Abedin (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/20/What-if-Sen-McCain-is-Wrong-and-Rep-Bachmann-is-Right)


Senator John McCain took umbrage at Bachmann's mention of Abedin, saying: "These attacks on Huma [Abedin] have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now."

in order to dismiss Bachmann's concerns that easily, we have to ignore three huge problems:

1. Abedin's mother is not only a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, but also sits on the Guidance Board of that organization. Making her not only a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's female auxiliary, but also a prestigious member.

2. Another member of the Muslim Sisterhood's Guidance Bureau is Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's wife, which means Abedin's mother and the wife of an renowned Muslim Brotherhood member are in regular and frequent contact.

3. Lastly, Abedin's brother, Hassan Abedin, has allegedly collaborated with Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

In light of these things, maybe Bachmann's concerns have logic, basis, and merit?

The enemy should have kept McCain. I have a lot of trouble trusting most any muslim today since the Ft Hood Hasaan incident. Now that McCain is against any investigation of Abedin, I KNOW she's not trustworthy. It's like: whatever Jimmy Carter is for, I'm against and vv. Ok, wait for Giantone, Baz, JPC, daileyck, that guy, et al to chime in on her innocence...

Folks, America needs to face the truth! Islam will NOT stop until they conquer the world with their evil (Rev 13). The worst thing that anyone can do is make their plight easier (Rev 13). When people like Hillary, McCain and other bleeding heart liberals try to hinder investigations into our national security they should be charged with obstruction.

The other night I actually heard Gingrich say, on Leno, that Hillary is the smartest and best Secretary of State we've had. :jameo: We're in trouble folks!! Islam cannot beat us outright and they never will. They WILL conquer the new America in the future mostly because of liberals who are too ignorant to know what's really going on... :jameo:

Get a better source.

Get a better source.

:lol: that's one of the best

Islam cannot beat us outright and they never will. They WILL conquer the new America in the future mostly because of liberals who are too ignorant to know what's really going on... :jameo:
\/ \/ \/ Speaking of ignorant liberals \/ \/ \/
Get a better source.
You are not capable of knowing "a better source"

Get a better source.

No matter the source if you think he's wrong, prove it... Or are you too scared to research and find out he's right?

In light of these things, maybe Bachmann's concerns have logic, basis, and merit?

And what would that logic, basis and merit be? That the US Sec State is being controlled by a Muslim? That America is at risk? What are we, what is, has, Hillary Clinton been doing that harms US national interests?

Well?


Look at our Sec States under Bush. Look at what they were involved in and did. The core argument of why we won neither of those wars is that the president listened to Powell and Rice too much and Sec Def not enough. Agreed?

Agreed???

Well, lets use some logic and basis and reason and examine the results, shall we? Who has done greater harm to the US; Powell and Rice or Clinton?

Isn't this how we should be looking at this or do they get a pass, their results don't count, because they don't have family members in the Muslim whatever-hood?

Logic, basis and merit dictate Huma, to Bachman, is evil, bad, a negative to US national interests. Well, how so? After nearly 4 years, should be pretty easy to point out, right?

I would argue that FAR more demonstrable harm was done to US national interests well before Huma 'took control' over Hillary Clinton.

Folks, America needs to face the truth! Islam will NOT stop until they conquer the world with their evil (Rev 13). :

I happen to agree with that. It IS their way. And this, as much as anything, is the source of my frustration with the Bush years; we're losing. And it's not because of people like Huma.

While it is intellectually easy to paint everyone with the same brush, that is not very intelligent and it gives a free pass to those ostensibly on 'our side' that have done real harm while also pushing away allies and potential allies. Fact is, there are plenty of Muslims, non fundamentalists, who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they want, in a general sense, basically what any 'real' American would be expected to want.

Again, what has Clinton done that indicates that Huma is a threat to US national interests? She's married to a Jew for crying out loud. This woman is not our enemy.

:shrug:

Wirelessly posted



Folks, America needs to face the truth! Islam will NOT stop until they conquer the world with their evil (Rev 13). :

I happen to agree with that. It IS their way. And this, as much as anything, is the source of my frustration with the Bush years; we're losing. And it's not because of people like Huma.

While it is intellectually easy to paint everyone with the same brush, that is not very intelligent and it gives a free pass to those ostensibly on 'our side' that have done real harm while also pushing away allies and potential allies. Fact is, there are plenty of Muslims, non fundamentalists, who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they want, in a general sense, basically what any 'real' American would be expected to want.

Again, what has Clinton done that indicates that Huma is a threat to US national interests? She's married to a Jew for crying out loud. This woman is not our enemy.

:shrug:

Larry, it doesn't matter how outrages or far from the truth the accusations are, some people on the right hate obama so much that they will believe and spread any rumor.

Bachmann is insane away, so you can kind of give her a pass, but it does tell you someithjng about the posters who actually believe this crap.

Wirelessly posted



Larry, it doesn't matter how outrages or far from the truth the accusations are, some people on the right hate obama so much that they will believe and spread any rumor.

Bachmann is insane away, so you can kind of give her a pass, but it does tell you someithjng about the posters who actually believe this crap.

Look, it is a legitimate question presuming the accusations are true; that this person so close to the US Sec State has personal ties to a group the US considers hostile to our national interests. However, we do need to ask QUESTIONS.

The Brotherhood is an enormous association and it is very likely that pretty much anyone like Huma is going to have personal ties to it.

So, is that good or bad? They're not Al queda.

Can they be worked with? The US is re-opening channels with them. Is that what Huma accomplished? Is that good or bad?

What I object to is the thoughtless, reflexive black/white view of things when even the slightest bit of mental effort illustrates the futility of reactionary thinking. This is the core of my beef with Bush Denial Folks. As far as they are concerned, he is one of us and results don't count. Obama isn't and, suddenly, results matter. That is willful ignorance and I don't like it.

I always say I'd rather be punched in the face by an opponent than stabbed in the back by a friend. So, even if Huma is some sort of puppet master with our Sec State, where's the evidence of her bad works? Hillary has been no epic success at the job but, I'd argue, and I think rightly, Rice and Powell did us more harm than she has. I think those two very much got Bush off the war winning track that gave us these quagmires. Of course, the man that makes the calls is always ultimately responsible but, lets look at results.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Larry, it doesn't matter how outrages or far from the truth the accusations are, some people on the right hate obama so much that they will believe and spread any rumor.

Bachmann is insane away, so you can kind of give her a pass, but it does tell you someithjng about the posters who actually believe this crap.

Look, it is a legitimate question presuming the accusations are true; that this person so close to the US Sec State has personal ties to a group the US considers hostile to our national interests. However, we do need to ask QUESTIONS.

The Brotherhood is an enormous association and it is very likely that pretty much anyone like Huma is going to have personal ties to it.

So, is that good or bad? They're not Al queda.

Can they be worked with? The US is re-opening channels with them. Is that what Huma accomplished? Is that good or bad?

What I object to is the thoughtless, reflexive black/white view of things when even the slightest bit of mental effort illustrates the futility of reactionary thinking. This is the core of my beef with Bush Denial Folks. As far as they are concerned, he is one of us and results don't count. Obama isn't and, suddenly, results matter. That is willful ignorance and I don't like it.

I always say I'd rather be punched in the face by an opponent than stabbed in the back by a friend. So, even if Huma is some sort of puppet master with our Sec State, where's the evidence of her bad works? Hillary has been no epic success at the job but, I'd argue, and I think rightly, Rice and Powell did us more harm than she has. I think those two very much got Bush off the war winning track that gave us these quagmires. Of course, the man that makes the calls is always ultimately responsible but, lets look at results.

We need to ask the questions, and I am sure that they were asked during the security clearance process. Besides, as you point to, her record and history is not that of some Muslim operative.

If there was any evidence that she was actually connected and operating as a spy then string her up. Instead we have the right doing what they have become so adept at doing, asking inflammatory questions that have no basis in reality and then trying to play "gotcha". It's just a bunch of fodder for the fringe. "oh my god, they have a Muslim in he secratary of states office" "Obama isn't a citizen" etc.

It's just a bunch of fodder for the fringe. "oh my god, they have a Muslim in he secratary of states office" "Obama isn't a citizen" etc.

Sadly, that seems to be the case.

Wirelessly posted



We need to ask the questions, and I am sure that they were asked during the security clearance process. Besides, as you point to, her record and history is not that of some Muslim operative.
.

There is no security clearence process for the secetary of state or her aid

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



We need to ask the questions, and I am sure that they were asked during the security clearance process. Besides, as you point to, her record and history is not that of some Muslim operative.
.

There is no security clearence process for the secetary of state or her aid

I can believe for the sec. But you will have to show your work before I believe that the aide does not have a security clearance.

I can believe for the sec. But you will have to show your work before I believe that the aide does not have a security clearance.

Most of congress wouldn't pass a security check but they're elected and then are granted access.

Obama wouldn't pass a background check :lol:

I happen to agree with that. It IS their way. And this, as much as anything, is the source of my frustration with the Bush years; we're losing. And it's not because of people like Huma.
:yay: I know you don't like Bush and I wasn't one of his biggest fans either. Especially with him tying the hands of the troops with his Rules of Engagement and some of the things he did in the last year of his presidency.

While it is intellectually easy to paint everyone with the same brush, that is not very intelligent and it gives a free pass to those ostensibly on 'our side' that have done real harm while also pushing away allies and potential allies. Fact is, there are plenty of Muslims, non fundamentalists, who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they want, in a general sense, basically what any 'real' American would be expected to want. Again, what has Clinton done that indicates that Huma is a threat to US national interests? She's married to a Jew for crying out loud. This woman is not our enemy.
Then let me ask you Larry; How do we tell the good ones from the bad ones?

Should we just sit back and wait for the next Ft Hood fiasco or should we do these investigations JUST IN CASE? :shrug:

If there was any evidence that she was actually connected and operating as a spy then string her up. Instead we have the right doing what they have become so adept at doing, asking inflammatory questions that have no basis in reality and then trying to play "gotcha". It's just a bunch of fodder for the fringe. "oh my god, they have a Muslim in he secratary of states office" "Obama isn't a citizen" etc.
If there was any evidence? Hey genius; investigations lead to that evidence!

This why 911 happened. People like you & Clinton sooo worried about what someone might think. Obama is not a citizen and NO (Hear me?) NO muslim should be in our government. Yes some of them are good people but they have proven time and time again that they can turn on us without notice...:cds:

Wirelessly posted


I can believe for the sec. But you will have to show your work before I believe that the aide does not have a security clearance.

Most of congress wouldn't pass a security check but they're elected and then are granted access.

Obama wouldn't pass a background check :lol:

There is a big difference between an elected official and an aide. Show me where it says that aides do not have security clearances.

\/ \/ \/ Speaking of ignorant liberals \/ \/ \/

You are not capable of knowing "a better source"

Beitfart is just such a fine example of journalism.

Wirelessly posted



There is a big difference between an elected official and an aide. Show me where it says that aides do not have security clearances.

Show me where it says the SoS can't have anybody she wants working for her

Then let me ask you Larry; How do we tell the good ones from the bad ones?

Should we just sit back and wait for the next Ft Hood fiasco or should we do these investigations JUST IN CASE? :shrug:



This is an excellent question.

We can go the Bush route; DHS, TSA, more and more government power and presume everyone is guilty. Not very keeping in the American way but, good for business. Government business.

Or

We can got the route of winning our wars. Nazi's weren't much of a problem after April of 1945. Nor were imperialist Japanese. We are still dealing with North Korean headaches to this day. We don't have a Vietnam problem; they won. We will most likely have a problem with fundamentalist Islam for decades to come, assuming we don't just lose all the way.

These things have a way of sorting themselves out when you win. or lose. They have a tendency to fester when you take half measures, punt on first down, play to not lose, so on and so forth. When you win, you win. Problems solved. End of story. When you lose you can at least start from scratch and try again. When you tie, man, you're just adrift with no real idea which way is up.

As I say, Dubbya's mistake was not in going. He made a sound case. He showed strong, decisive leadership. His mistake was is not winning. He didn't play to win. He didn't expend US resources, blood and treasure, to win. He conducted the wars, regardless of who won him over in terms of policy, HE made the calls, in ways that would make any bureaucrat proud. His strong, decisive leadership was in the wrong direction.

Good question, though.

:buddies:

We can got the route of winning our wars. Nazi's weren't much of a problem after April of 1945. Nor were imperialist Japanese. We are still dealing with North Korean headaches to this day. We don't have a Vietnam problem; they won. We will most likely have a problem with fundamentalist Islam for decades to come, assuming we don't just lose all the way.

These things have a way of sorting themselves out when you win. or lose. They have a tendency to fester when you take half measures, punt on first down, play to not lose, so on and so forth. When you win, you win. Problems solved. End of story. When you lose you can at least start from scratch and try again. When you tie, man, you're just adrift with no real idea which way is up.

As I say, Dubbya's mistake was not in going. He made a sound case. He showed strong, decisive leadership. His mistake was is not winning. He didn't play to win.

Good question, though.

:buddies:



If you Kill Enough of Them, They Will Surrender .....

If you Kill Enough of Them, They Will Surrender .....

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the
sooner it will be over."

William Tecumseh Sherman

Beitfart is just such a fine example of journalism.

How's the research coming?

Have you found the proof that the accusations AREN'T True??

Have you found proof that the accusations are true?

Beitfart is just such a fine example of journalism.
Being an Obama supporter PROVES that you are incapable of knowing good sources of information so you might want to sit out the next 5 elections...:howdy:
Have you found proof that the accusations are true?
Good answer there skippy!! When you have nothing, you say nothing. A credit to the name: liberal! :otter:

This is an excellent question.
We can got the route of winning our wars... We will most likely have a problem with fundamentalist Islam for decades to come, assuming we don't just lose all the way.
:yay: But I'm seriously looking for an answer for myself and the country. I had a solution but I know it would never happen as long as liberals are in charge. It worked in WW2, why not try it again? Btw, I consider Bush's "military restraint" as a liberal act. He started out strong but ended up weak by listening to the wrong voices.

The USA should use satellite technology to find out when they have the largest number of "terrorists" gathered together over there, then anihilate the assembled crowd. This would set them back 50 years and we'd have a lot more peace here. We also need a plan for the ones in this country right now...

Being an Obama supporter PROVES that you are incapable of knowing good sources of information so you might want to sit out the next 5 elections...:howdy:

Good answer there skippy!! When you have nothing, you say nothing. A credit to the name: liberal! :otter:

Did your mom forget to tell you not to eat paint chips? Or were you dropped on your head once too often? The "allegations" come from Bachman, you know the one who said getting the hpv vaccine causes retardation. (did you
get the vaccine?) Breitfart is known for selective editing, I think you remember that one. Having a dicussion with you is like talking to a table leg.
Go get a mental health evaluation and dont bother replying I wont see it.

Have you found proof that the accusations are true?

Yes.


Your turn...


Prove the accusations false...

whats your "proof"?

whats your "proof"?

If you can't prove the accusations false just admit it, then you can continue your argument as "even if the accusations are true, this doesn't warrant her being investigated."

See, I'm of the thought that if it is or isn't true it SHOULD be investigated to find out the truth. Once the truth is learned then we can determine what should be done (if anything)..

And looking around the internet NOBODY is claiming ANY of the above accusations are false.. not one.

al·le·ga·tion   [al-i-gey-shuhn]

noun
1. the act of alleging; affirmation.

2. an assertion made with little or no proof.

3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.

4.
a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.

al·le·ga·tion   [al-i-gey-shuhn]

noun
1. the act of alleging; affirmation.

2. an assertion made with little or no proof.

3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.

4.
a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.

I bow to your ultimate factual statement. Now, where just where is the repudiation?

Definition of REPUDIATION

: the act of repudiating (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repudiating) : the state of being repudiated (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repudiated); especially : the refusal of public authorities to acknowledge or pay a debt

— re·pu·di·a·tion·ist noun

Examples of REPUDIATION



<voters seemed satisfied by the candidate's public repudiation of the beliefs of an organization to which he had briefly belonged as a youth>

Of course, Obammies youthful lies are just that, lies. And just how did he get into Columbia and Harvard????

:yay: But I'm seriously looking for an answer for myself and the country. I had a solution but I know it would never happen as long as liberals are in charge. It worked in WW2, why not try it again? Btw, I consider Bush's "military restraint" as a liberal act. He started out strong but ended up weak by listening to the wrong voices.

The USA should use satellite technology to find out when they have the largest number of "terrorists" gathered together over there, then anihilate the assembled crowd. This would set them back 50 years and we'd have a lot more peace here. We also need a plan for the ones in this country right now...

We can call Bush's military 'restraint' whatever we like. The important thing is to keep in mind that his military decisions were perfectly in keeping with all his other major policy decisions. Entitlements, immigration, the economy, government size, scope and power. Not to mention cost.

There is no getting around the fact that Islam is in direct competition with the left for global dominance and that we are, very much, losing. Look at us. Our culture, our economy, our social structure. How does that compare to September 10, 2001?

There is also no getting around that we failed, terribly, this last decade to defeat Islam and get it over with. It was probably our last and best chance to win but, in hindsight, that was clearly never Bush's goal and it sure as hell isn't Obama's. Look at the riches amassed by nations like Iran and, for sure, Saudi. Look at the decline of our influence. Look at the ascendancy of Islam and global growth. Here we are, laughably, yet so sad, fussing over Hillary Clinton's friend. Fiddling, as it were, while our Rome just decays.

Could we be any less serious? No one wants to face the abject failures of the Bush era. It's called a derangement if we call it what it is. No one wants to face up to what Romney and the GOP establishment seem to actually be for; globalism. How do we, people who claim to be 'real' American's move forward as a nation when we support, or excuse, policies and positions that are, at least to me, leading further and further away from what we think America is? Or should be?

We are becoming a police state out of fear of losing something we are giving away.

So, answer? As I say, the opportunity was, in my view, lost. Now, we just keep muddling along, I guess. We've killed 1,000's of 'terrorists' without once addressing what motivates them. A few 1,000 more is so much cannon fodder to the larger interests of the faith so, some sort of 'hit' serves our interests no better than it has this last decade.

I guess the 'answer' would be to come to grips with the reality that we are in an existential competition with Islam. And we're losing. Getting all worked up over people like Huma isn't going to help and probably hurts, cutting out the ground that West loving Muslims try to stand on. It is imperative that we allow freedom to work it's magic and defeat Islam where it is most vulnerable; at the individual level.

We can't do that if our armies are over there and we are wasting time killing foot soldiers. Doing so, we feed every argument Islam has about the West being evil and wanting to harm their faith.

If we come to grips with those facts, that we are losing, that what we have been doing is making it worse and guaranteeing the supply of willing jihadi's for generations, then that is a start. Bring our people home and win by doing what Reagan did to defeat the Soviets;

Focus on America FIRST.

:buddies:

We've killed 1,000's of 'terrorists' without once addressing what motivates them. A few 1,000 more is so much cannon fodder to the larger interests of the faith so, some sort of 'hit' serves our interests no better than it has this last decade.

Getting all worked up over people like Huma isn't going to help and probably hurts, cutting out the ground that West loving Muslims try to stand on.

:buddies:


their religion Motivates them ....... and as far as cutting out the ground under them, IMHO - most are 'fine' with the west as is, until they reach a certain MASS in the host country, then 'they' start making changes to convert their new home into a model of the #### hole they left



look at Europe for that example ...... enclaves where the local police dare not go, riots in Paris etc

al·le·ga·tion   [al-i-gey-shuhn]

noun
1. the act of alleging; affirmation.

2. an assertion made with little or no proof.

3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.

4.
a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.

Good little liberal, you've been taught well.

NEVER answer a question, or provide proof of your own allegations, just re-direct and accuse..

Where's the... "Yeah, but Bachman uses hairpspray made in CHINA!!"

Here we are, laughably, yet so sad, fussing over Hillary Clinton's friend.
Getting all worked up over people like Huma isn't going to help and probably hurts, cutting out the ground that West loving Muslims try to stand on. It is imperative that we allow freedom to work it's magic and defeat Islam where it is most vulnerable; at the individual level.
I think it's important to let the American people know that someone is keeping tabs on people like her. It shows that we are, at least, making an attempt to keep them in check in America.

We can't do that if our armies are over there and we are wasting time killing foot soldiers. Doing so, we feed every argument Islam has about the West being evil and wanting to harm their faith.
Of course we'll inform our troops of the pending action first but I see NO way to negotiate with these animals. Death is all they know so give it to them...

If we come to grips with those facts, that we are losing, that what we have been doing is making it worse and guaranteeing the supply of willing jihadi's for generations, then that is a start. Bring our people home and win by doing what Reagan did to defeat the Soviets; Focus on America FIRST.:buddies:
:yay: