If this were Bush......God almighty......

[JustRalph]

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/27/nbcs-engel-us-allies-fear-obama-admin-leaking-information-to-iran/

If this were Bush, or any Republican the Mmedia would be calling for heads and frog marches

[Hank]

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/27/nbcs-engel-us-allies-fear-obama-admin-leaking-information-to-iran/

If this were Bush, or any Republican the Mmedia would be calling for heads and frog marches

This is laughably inane and deceitful even for OT.Why of course the media would be calling for heads to roll based on unconfirmed speculation about why a Sunni Muslim NationMay or May not have briefed the US about a forthcoming military action.And the further silly inference that these unfounded suspicions constitute the betrayal of an ally.And the beloved ally and source of this speculation is none other than the mother-ship of the 9-11 hijackers,Al-Qaeda and ISIS Saudi Arabia.Yeah no question about it heads must roll. And all this from a Muslim sympathizer go figure. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Rationalize away Mr. H

Excuse after excuse...benefit of the doubt after benefit of the doubt...

Even you must admit the righties were never such shills for the Bush Admin around here...

You and mosty are top notch though...

[Hank]

Rationalize away Mr. H

Excuse after excuse...benefit of the doubt after benefit of the doubt...

Even you must admit the righties were never such shills for the Bush Admin around here...

You and mosty are top notch though...

Rationalize?No. What action could I be rationalizing about?The entire piece was speculation about speculation.Saudi made a move that took a reporter's "sources"by surprise,this proves nothing.The need to know status of military officials changes constantly.The rest of the piece is pure speculation as to what Saudi's motives were for not briefing us,No facts are presented proving we were actually not briefed. The fact that Engel's sources sources claimed not to know is in no way proof that no one in the administration knew.And even if the Saudis chose not to brief us, it does not necessarily follow that their reason was the one speculated about in the ragged little article. There is a lot of legitimate criticism that could be presented about the current administration,this does not fall into that category.The name of the little rag it came from says it all.HOT-AIR

[fast4522]

If it looks like a fish, smells like one and then swims. . . . . . .

There is NO saving this administration,

[mostpost]

If it looks like a fish, smells like one and then swims. . . . . . .

There is NO saving this administration,
You have just posted a picture of Secretary Kerry arriving in India and captioned it, "If Allah wills it." Hint: India is a Hindu country. Hindus do not worship Allah. And holding one's hands in a prayerful position is not an exclusive practice of Muslims. I am pretty sure that every religion does that.

Even if everything you falsely alleged was true, so what? Respecting another religion is only a crime in the minds of religious American conservatives and ISIS.

[mostpost]

Rationalize?No. What action could I be rationalizing about?The entire piece was speculation about speculation.Saudi made a move that took a reporter's "sources"by surprise,this proves nothing.The need to know status of military officials changes constantly.The rest of the piece is pure speculation as to what Saudi's motives were for not briefing us,No facts are presented proving we were actually not briefed. The fact that Engel's sources sources claimed not to know is in no way proof that no one in the administration knew.And even if the Saudis chose not to brief us, it does not necessarily follow that their reason was the one speculated about in the ragged little article. There is a lot of legitimate criticism that could be presented about the current administration,this does not fall into that category.The name of the little rag it came from says it all.HOT-AIR
This is common practice for Hot Air and others like it. Unsourced comments and unsubstantiated speculation are common place. If you don't know who the sources are you can't question them and you don't know their motives.

I see the same thing in the healthcare thread. "Sources" tell us how bad Obamacare is. But they ignore the sources that tell us how good it is. And if you can track down those first sources you find they are either lying about their experiences or they are idiots who ignored or were ignorant of other solutions.

[NJ Stinks]

Why wouldn't the Saudi's trust the Bushes? (For crying out loud. :rolleyes: )

[fast4522]

Why wouldn't the Saudi's trust the Bushes? (For crying out loud. :rolleyes: )

When the King said "I do not believe you" to 41 about Saddam Hussein, they sold the Saudi's the technology to look down into Saddam Hussein's country. Believe what you want, and we will believe what we want of your posts.

[Clocker]

This is common practice for Hot Air and others like it. Unsourced comments and unsubstantiated speculation are common place. If you don't know who the sources are you can't question them and you don't know their motives.


Did you read the article? Hot Air was passing on a story by Richard Engels, aired by NBC. They posted their source (duh, it was NBC). Are you accusing NBC of lying or unsubstantiated speculation? If so, you should blame NBC, not Hot Air.

[Clocker]

So you actually think I was being original Mosty. :lol:
You should try to get your shit straight, your all wet.
Without Dubya, you have NO material.
Reach for your KY, posted again with link.

Don't you know, only libs can post cartoons here. While that might not be a picture of Kerry when he said it, he did say "Inshallah" when asked if there would be a deal with Iran.

[Tom]

Did you read the article? Hot Air was passing on a story by Richard Engels, aired by NBC. They posted their source (duh, it was NBC). Are you accusing NBC of lying or unsubstantiated speculation? If so, you should blame NBC, not Hot Air.
Caught him again.
I have to ask, doesn't it get boring after a while? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[tucker6]

You have just posted a picture of Secretary Kerry arriving in India and captioned it, "If Allah wills it." Hint: India is a Hindu country. Hindus do not worship Allah. And holding one's hands in a prayerful position is not an exclusive practice of Muslims. I am pretty sure that every religion does that.

Even if everything you falsely alleged was true, so what? Respecting another religion is only a crime in the minds of religious American conservatives and ISIS.
so can I add your name to the list of those who respect Christians for not agreeing with gay marriage and abortion on religious grounds?

[mostpost]

Did you read the article? Hot Air was passing on a story by Richard Engels, aired by NBC. They posted their source (duh, it was NBC). Are you accusing NBC of lying or unsubstantiated speculation? If so, you should blame NBC, not Hot Air.
My response stands. It doesn't matter if it was NBC or Hot Air, unless we know who these US officials are, we can't evaluate this story. Just because Richard Engel thinks someone should know something, does not mean they will know it. Nor does it mean they should.

[Hank]

Don't you know, only libs can post cartoons here. While that might not be a picture of Kerry when he said it, he did say "Inshallah" when asked if there would be a deal with Iran.

That traitorous bastard actually uttered an Arabic word!How dare he!He's finished!But wait, he's not a Republican.In that case there is no problem.Only the Republican "base" expressly forbids any display of intelligence culture or tolerance from it's leaders. Oh OK.

[mostpost]

Don't you know, only libs can post cartoons here. While that might not be a picture of Kerry when he said it, he did say "Inshallah" when asked if there would be a deal with Iran.
This is what Gateway Pundit said:
John Kerry told reporter Laura Rozen this weekend that a nuclear deal with Iran is possible, “Inshallah.”

But guess what? That is not what happened.
Here is a copy of Laura Rozen's tweet.
Friend of colleague ran into @JohnKerry at chocolate shop tdy. She said friends in #Iran are looking forward to deal. He said 'inshallah'
John Kerry never talked to Laura Rozen about the subject. Laura Rozen never says he did. She says he talked to a friend of a colleague. Second hand is hearsay;I don't know what third hand is.

The person Kerry spoke to talked about friends in Iran. Very likely she is a Muslim. So Kerry simply answered her in her own milieu. Inshallah; just another way of saying "Lord willin' and the creek don't rise."

[PaceAdvantage]

Even if everything you falsely alleged was true, so what? Respecting another religion is only a crime in the minds of religious American conservatives and ISIS.Which doesn't quite explain why Obama supporters go apeshit every time someone "mistakenly" identifies Obama as a Muslim... :lol: :lol: :lol:

After all, so what? Right mostpost. Why should it matter if he is or isn't...respect the religion, damnit...

[PaceAdvantage]

My response stands. It doesn't matter if it was NBC or Hot Air, unless we know who these US officials are, we can't evaluate this story. Just because Richard Engel thinks someone should know something, does not mean they will know it. Nor does it mean they should.Basically, the only entity you trust is Obama and his administration. We get it...

[mostpost]

so can I add your name to the list of those who respect Christians for not agreeing with gay marriage and abortion on religious grounds?
Yes, you can. It is possible to respect a person's beliefs, while not agreeing with some of those beliefs. I understand that is a concept that is foreign to you.

That respect does not extend to folks like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church nor to the folks who bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors.

[Clocker]

That traitorous bastard actually uttered an Arabic word!How dare he!He's finished!But wait, he's not a Republican.In that case there is no problem.Only the Republican "base" expressly forbids any display of intelligence culture or tolerance from it's leaders. Oh OK.

Did I say there was anything wrong with it? I was simply pointing out that he actually said it. In fact, it might even have demonstrated a little humor and wit, something I always thought Kerry was absolutely bereft of.

[mostpost]

Basically, the only entity you trust is Obama and his administration. We get it...
Here is another entity I trust.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-official-Saudis-consulted-US-at-high-levels-ahead-of-Yemen-strikes-395144

Excerpt.
Saudi Arabia consulted with the United States at "high levels" before launching air strikes against Houthi fighters in Yemen, and President Barack Obama was aware of the plan, a US official said on Wednesday.

Just because some Lieutenant Colonel who is buddies with Richard Engel did not know about the raids does not mean the US Government was not told. And just because that LT. Col. thinks the Saudis don't trust us does not mean that is the case.

[Clocker]

This is what Gateway Pundit said:
John Kerry told reporter Laura Rozen this weekend that a nuclear deal with Iran is possible, “Inshallah.”

But guess what? That is not what happened.
Here is a copy of Laura Rozen's tweet.
Friend of colleague ran into @JohnKerry at chocolate shop tdy. She said friends in #Iran are looking forward to deal. He said 'inshallah'
John Kerry never talked to Laura Rozen about the subject. Laura Rozen never says he did. She says he talked to a friend of a colleague. Second hand is hearsay;I don't know what third hand is.

The person Kerry spoke to talked about friends in Iran. Very likely she is a Muslim. So Kerry simply answered her in her own milieu. Inshallah; just another way of saying "Lord willin' and the creek don't rise."

Good grief!!! Was that a point anywhere in all of that? :eek:

[JustRalph]

Did you read the article? Hot Air was passing on a story by Richard Engels, aired by NBC. They posted their source (duh, it was NBC). Are you accusing NBC of lying or unsubstantiated speculation? If so, you should blame NBC, not Hot Air.

He completely ignores facts and plays this game often.

[Clocker]

Respecting another religion is only a crime in the minds of religious American conservatives and ISIS.

Which is why absolutely no one on the left is at all unhappy about the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Good grief!!! Was that a point anywhere in all of that? :eek:
There was. One which I do not expect you will ever get.

[mostpost]

Which is why absolutely no one on the left is at all unhappy about the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. :rolleyes:
The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not about religious freedom. It is about trampling the rights of others.

[Clocker]

He completely ignores facts and plays this game often.

Well, you certainly can't expect him to blame NBC for anything, can you? :eek:

Especially if it is critical of Obama.

By the way, NBC talking heads like Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd have been talking about Arab leaders not trusting Obama and not cooperating with him for months now. Here is one such exchange from Sept, 2014.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/andrea-mitchell-and-chuck-todd-agree-arab-leaders-dont-trust-president

[Clocker]

Here is another entity I trust.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-official-Saudis-consulted-US-at-high-levels-ahead-of-Yemen-strikes-395144

Excerpt.
Saudi Arabia consulted with the United States at "high levels" before launching air strikes against Houthi fighters in Yemen, and President Barack Obama was aware of the plan, a US official said on Wednesday.



A very short excerpt. You forgot the next sentence:

The Obama administration gave its support to the military campaign, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

OMG, it's deja vu all over again. :eek:

[ReplayRandall]

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not about religious freedom. It is about trampling the rights of others.
What's with the "Mostpost against the world" attitude? My Christian beliefs are being trampled every day. What about our rights, or is it always all about you?

[Clocker]

What's with the "Mostpost against the world" attitude? My Christian beliefs are being trampled every day. What about our rights, or is it always all about you?


With the left, it is never about rights, it is always about outcomes. If the outcome is not what they think is "fair", then there is something wrong with the law or the process.

The Indiana RFRA was just passed, so there are no outcomes yet. But most on the left have already concluded that it could possibly have outcomes that they don't like, so they are marching in the streets, wildly indignant about stuff that hasn't happened, but might.

[Hank]

Like I was saying. :cool:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-saudi-led-action-in-yemen-relied-heavily-on-us-intelligence/2015/03/26/6d15302c-d3da-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html?wprss=rss_national

[NJ Stinks]

In case anybody forgot. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


Rationalize?No. What action could I be rationalizing about?The entire piece was speculation about speculation.Saudi made a move that took a reporter's "sources"by surprise,this proves nothing.The need to know status of military officials changes constantly.The rest of the piece is pure speculation as to what Saudi's motives were for not briefing us,No facts are presented proving we were actually not briefed. The fact that Engel's sources sources claimed not to know is in no way proof that no one in the administration knew.And even if the Saudis chose not to brief us, it does not necessarily follow that their reason was the one speculated about in the ragged little article. There is a lot of legitimate criticism that could be presented about the current administration,this does not fall into that category.The name of the little rag it came from says it all.HOT-AIR

[Clocker]

In case anybody forgot. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
Rationalize?No. What action could I be rationalizing about?The entire piece was speculation about speculation.Saudi made a move that took a reporter's "sources"by surprise,this proves nothing.The need to know status of military officials changes constantly.The rest of the piece is pure speculation as to what Saudi's motives were for not briefing us,No facts are presented proving we were actually not briefed. The fact that Engel's sources sources claimed not to know is in no way proof that no one in the administration knew.And even if the Saudis chose not to brief us, it does not necessarily follow that their reason was the one speculated about in the ragged little article. There is a lot of legitimate criticism that could be presented about the current administration,this does not fall into that category.The name of the little rag it came from says it all.HOT-AIR


In case anyone forgot, the story did not come from Hot Air, it came from NBC.

[mostpost]

In case anyone forgot, the story did not come from Hot Air, it came from NBC.
Let's try this again. It doesn't matter if the story came from Hot Air or NBC or Hans Christian Andersen. It was wrong. Not only did the US government know about the air strikes ahead of time; it provided the surveillance images and the targeting information necessary to carry them out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-saudi-led-action-in-yemen-relied-heavily-on-us-intelligence/2015/03/26/6d15302c-d3da-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html?wprss=rss_natio

Aside from your insatiable need to think the worst about anything Obama, why would you think that Richard Engel would know anything about this subject? Engel is a field reporter stationed in the Middle East. He is very good at what he does, which is getting into the middle of the story. That does not mean he has any contacts at the level at which this was coordinated. He should keep his mouth shut.

[Clocker]

Let's try this again. It doesn't matter if the story came from Hot Air or NBC or Hans Christian Andersen. It was wrong.

And you know this because your government told you this, in a CYA operation after the fact. :D

Aside from your insatiable need to think the worst about anything Obama, why would you think that Richard Engel would know anything about this subject? Engel is a field reporter stationed in the Middle East. He is very good at what he does, which is getting into the middle of the story. That does not mean he has any contacts at the level at which this was coordinated. He should keep his mouth shut.

And you know more about what is going on the the Middle East than Richard Engel, so you appoint yourself as qualified to tell him to keep his mouth shut. :D

And you rejected the credibility of the original story because it came from anonymous sources. But you accept the credibility of the denial of the original story, even though it comes from anonymous sources. Did you really expect anything else from the government but an anonymous denial of a critical story? I could have written it myself. :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Like I was saying. :cool:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-saudi-led-action-in-yemen-relied-heavily-on-us-intelligence/2015/03/26/6d15302c-d3da-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html?wprss=rss_nationalCorrect me if I'm wrong, but all the "officials" referenced in the above article went unnamed, yes? I believe mostpost has criticized such stories before because of such anonymity...hope he does the same here.

This smells like a manufactured face-save to me...

[Tom]

Hi-de-ho, neighbor! :lol::lol::lol:

[Hank]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the "officials" referenced in the above article went unnamed, yes? I believe mostpost has criticized such stories before because of such anonymity...hope he does the same here.

This smells like a manufactured face-save to me...

I don't know why you quoted my post and then attacked Mostpost's criticisms with respect to unnamed sources.My critique of the original article stands validated.Nice try. :ThmbDown:

[fast4522]

Here is another entity I trust.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-official-Saudis-consulted-US-at-high-levels-ahead-of-Yemen-strikes-395144

Excerpt.
Saudi Arabia consulted with the United States at "high levels" before launching air strikes against Houthi fighters in Yemen, and President Barack Obama was aware of the plan, a US official said on Wednesday.

Just because some Lieutenant Colonel who is buddies with Richard Engel did not know about the raids does not mean the US Government was not told. And just because that LT. Col. thinks the Saudis don't trust us does not mean that is the case.

Well then, from the same source.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Obama-strong-arming-Netanyahu-into-unity-deal-with-the-left-395078

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't know why you quoted my post and then attacked Mostpost's criticisms with respect to unnamed sources.My critique of the original article stands validated.Nice try. :ThmbDown:Can you post this again...in English this time?

[mostpost]

And you know this because your government told you this, in a CYA operation after the fact. :D
I know this because I have the information from a number of sources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/report-yemens-embattled-president-flees-stronghold-as-rebels-advance/2015/03/25/e0913ae2-d2d5-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html
Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes early Thursday (Mar. 26) in neighboring Yemen, heading a coalition of Arab nations in an effort to dislodge Houthi rebels sweeping through that country.
From the same Article:
Jubeir said the airstrikes began at 7 p.m. Washington time (That would be Mar 25 in Washington DC) and were conducted by Saudi Arabia along with “partner nations in the Persian Gulf” and others, although he declined to specify any other participants. He said that some countries had already transferred military assets to Saudi Arabia and that others were on their way.


The United States was not involved in the operation, he said. But the White House announced late Wednesday that President Obama had authorized U.S. forces* to provide logistical and intelligence support to the operation. American forces were establishing a “Joint Planning Cell” with Saudi Arabia to coordinate military and intelligence assistance, the statement said.
In other words there was an announcement that the US was providing " logistical and intelligence support to the operation." before the operation began and that announcement came from the White House, not from an anonymous source.
Oh yeah, Breitbart also has a story on the US providing intelligence etc. for the raids.


And you know more about what is going on the the Middle East than Richard Engel, so you appoint yourself as qualified to tell him to keep his mouth shut. :D
No, but there are many people who do, and those people are telling me that Richard is wrong on this one.

And you rejected the credibility of the original story because it came from anonymous sources. But you accept the credibility of the denial of the original story, even though it comes from anonymous sources. Did you really expect anything else from the government but an anonymous denial of a critical story? I could have written it myself. :rolleyes:
As pointed out above, my sources are no longer anonymous. I may not know their names right now, but someone does. They include the White House spokesperson; the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, and various Saudi diplomats and military leaders.

The United States knew about the operation before it occurred and was involved in the planning. Even Richard Simmons would be able to figure that out.

[Clocker]

As pointed out above, my sources are no longer anonymous. I may not know their names right now, but someone does.


http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif

[fast4522]

Mostpost,

Myself I never rejected the credibility of the original story, the truth is I reject the credibility of your political party in general. Everything including that operation has cost measured in US dollars by the amount of operational support in resources spent. I assure you the cost of support that could have been spent on Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and 3 others would have been only a fraction of what was spent providing logistics and accurate information here. Your merely getting but a small taste of what it to come.

[mostpost]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif
I guess I need to explain this further, especially to you. Richard Engel said that he talked to people who "Should have known" about the raids and they did not. How do we know they "Should have known?" we don't know who they are or what positions they held. Maybe they are not as important as they think.
The announcement that the US was providing intelligence and logistical support was made before or simultaneous with the raids. It was an official announcement made from the White House.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Richard Engel is some great liberal who never criticizes Obama. He is not. In fact I am having a difficult time finding where is has ever said anything complimentary about our current president.

[mostpost]

Mostpost,

Myself I never rejected the credibility of the original story, the truth is I reject the credibility of your political party in general. Everything including that operation has cost measured in US dollars by the amount of operational support in resources spent. I assure you the cost of support that could have been spent on Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and 3 others would have been only a fraction of what was spent providing logistics and accurate information here. Your merely getting but a small taste of what it to come.
Of courses you never rejected the credibility of the original story. Therein lies the problem. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you never reject the credibility of any story critical of Obama or the Democrats.

And what does this have to do with Benghazi? Nothing.

[Clocker]

How do we know they "Should have known?" we don't know who they are or what positions they held.

You would have known if you should have known, but apparently you aren't on the need to know list. :p

[fast4522]

Of courses you never rejected the credibility of the original story. Therein lies the problem. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you never reject the credibility of any story critical of Obama or the Democrats.

And what does this have to do with Benghazi? Nothing.

That is you and your kinds problem, it has everything to do with the credibility of Obama and the Democrats.

[Rookies]

Uhhh... It was a Bush... The other guy!


"Mr. (Jeb) Bush may have become a bit carried away: He listed himself as Hispanic on a 2009 voter-registration application in Miami-Dade County." :lol: