• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Republicans denounce attack on Clinton aide

This entire issue over the family ties of Sec. Clinton's Girl Friday is a false-flag waved by Michelle Bachmann w/her loose connections between members of Huma Abedin's family and the Obama Administration. After getting some heat not only from members of her own party but also from members of the House Intelligence Committee, Bachmann is now trying to walk back her comments on the matter.

Where she was once adament about the potential "Jihadist/radical Islam in our midst at the highest levels of government," she's now trying to walk back her comments and doing a terrible job of it. From theHill.com:

Bachmann defended her letter during an interview with Glenn Beck on his radio show Thursday, saying that while she "did not infer that [Abedin] is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood or that she’s working on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood," that she was still concerned Abedin may not have been properly vetted to receive a security clearance.

"Did she have to go through the same sort of process that anyone else has to go to? Did they check the boxes?" Bachmann said. "Because if the State Department breaks American law to bring a terrorist into the White House, a member of a terrorist organization, it certainly is conceivable that maybe they looked the other way on issuing the security clearance. That’s all we’re doing is asking a question."
Click to expand...

Really? If all Rep. Bachmann was doing was "asking a question" concerning how far did the background check go prior to issuing Huma Adedin a high-level security clearance, all she had to do was request a copy of Adedin's background check from State and be done with it. Why go through the partisan publicity stunt if all you were doing was "asking a question"?

The answer is obvious: drum that beat of fear of Islamic fundamentalist into the public consciousness. Nevermind that it was the previous Administration that also pushed the idea of spreading democracy upon the Muslim world. Well, the NeoCons got their wise. Only, now they can't handle the virtues of the very democratic process they helped usher in. You can't have it both ways here, folks. You can't insist on imposing democracy upon a people in a foreign land but then get pissed when the people held open elections but the type of government THEY elected isn't exactly the kind of government WE wanted.
 
Last edited:
Iron Yank said:
How much Liberal ignorance can you possibly have in one thread, apparently alot.

So then if someone questions someones background which includes family members that belong to the Muslim Brotherhood & Sisterhood they are a biggot? Do you realize that Hamas is an offshoot of the brotherhood? Do you realize Ayman Zawahari (the current head of Al Qaida and 9-11 mastermind) was a member of the brotherhood in Egypt and was part of the Anwar Sadat assasination?
With Huma's mother being an advocate of Sharia law its not out of the realm of possibility that she has the same beliefs.

In alot of ways Sharia law is worse than Naziism but it appears that many Liberals are just fine with this type of person being influencial in our goverment. Maybe they are fine with Sharia as well.

Personally I'm glad we have people with the guts to speak out against the current regime and applaud them for doing so.

God knows how many more Americans will die because of Liberal policies like the one where the FBI was afraid to investigate Major Hassan because of political correctness & the fear of being labeled a biggot even though there was plenty of evidence that he was a radical. Alot of good Americans died because of these damn fools in the Obama administration and to be fair useful repewbican idiots like John Mcain as well.
There blood is on your hands IMO.
Click to expand...

Since you responded to me personally, are you actually accusing me personally of having blood on my hands because I abhorr bigotry??? :shock:
 
apdst said:
I never compared white supremacists to this woman. But, I consider the source.
Click to expand...

Sure you didn't. Which is why you brought them in a comparison.

Welcome to the real world.
Click to expand...

Your claim is that Bin Laden and Bush weren't connected. That is demonstrably false as their families had tangible economic ties. When will you ever learn to stop making **** up?
 
This woman is married to a Jewish man, who is a proud Zionist, and folks still suspect she has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood???

unbelievable.
 
I would hope that the background check and security clearance of the aid to the
Secretary of State would be through, and not politically correct.
When you apply for that type of job, you need to expect some direct questions and checks.
 
longview said:
I would hope that the background check and security clearance of the aid to the
Secretary of State would be through, and not politically correct.
When you apply for that type of job, you need to expect some direct questions and checks.
Click to expand...

there is no logical nor rational reason to speculate that she has any ideological or real ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. she is a modern, secular, Muslim woman who is married to a Jew.

and the fact is that even the State of Israel has two official Muslim Brotherhood-offshoots functioning in their society. If THEY can tolerate them, so can we.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
This woman is married to a Jewish man, who is a proud Zionist, and folks still suspect she has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood???

unbelievable.
Click to expand...

LOL. Using a personal realtionship to deny the alleged affects of a personal reltionship. Clever, yet very strange. So, in your opinion, marriage trumps blood relations so all is well in having personal ties to parties involved in gov't business. Hmm...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL. Using a personal realtionship to deny the alleged affects of a personal reltionship. Clever, yet very strange. So, in your opinion, marriage trumps blood relations so all is well in having personal ties to parties involved in gov't business. Hmm...
Click to expand...

she CHOSE her husband. She didn't choose her mom & brother.

the fact that she chose to marry a proud Zionist and a Jew, says this woman is not a Muslim extremist or fan of the MB.
 
MaggieD said:
If he really means it, he should move to censure. And that's exactly what he should do. There's a fringe of the Republican Party that's just plain nutz.
Click to expand...

If it was still the party of Reagan, I might be a Republican. It's not anymore, it's the party of nutbags.
 
Thunder said:
she CHOSE her husband. She didn't choose her mom & brother.

the fact that she chose to marry a proud Zionist and a Jew, says this woman is not a Muslim extremist or fan of the MB.
Click to expand...

I watched him lie and lie and lie and deny and deny and deny, he's dishonest and untrustworthy. :liar2
 
apdst said:
Do you know what a security clearance is?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, yes. I also know what bigotry is and pretty much can recognize it on the spot, but neither are germane to my response to DVSentinel's specific post.
 
Thunder said:
there is no logical nor rational reason to speculate that she has any ideological or real ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. she is a modern, secular, Muslim woman who is married to a Jew.

and the fact is that even the State of Israel has two official Muslim Brotherhood-offshoots functioning in their society. If THEY can tolerate them, so can we.
Click to expand...
That's not the point, any security clearance should start from the position that you have something to hide.
You say she married a Jewish man, a good investigator might say she betrayed her family and her culture,
what other types of betrayal is she capable of ?
This may sound harsh, but if someone will have access to our national security data,
I don't want them treated with kid gloves
 
longview said:
...You say she married a Jewish man, a good investigator might say she betrayed her family and her culture,
what other types of betrayal is she capable of?....
Click to expand...

are you serious???

a Muslim marrying a Jew, means she is a traitor and is capable of more betrayal?

first she is attacked for having connections to Muslim extremists, now she is attacked for marrying a Jew.

what's next, accusing her of eating Christian babies?
 
Thunder said:
are you serious???

a Muslim marrying a Jew, means she is a traitor and is capable of more betrayal?

first she is attacked for having connections to Muslim extremists, now she is attacked for marrying a Jew.

what's next, accusing her of eating Christian babies?
Click to expand...
I am speaking about the frame of reference that a good investigator should look at.
Who are you willing to trust with state secrets?
 
longview said:
I am speaking about the frame of reference that a good investigator should look at.
Who are you willing to trust with state secrets?
Click to expand...

someone who is a secular Muslim woman, who marries a Jew, has my trust.

there is no logical nor rational reason to think she has Muslim-extremist leanings.

There is only bigotry & anti-Muslim prejudice.
 
longview said:
I am speaking about the frame of reference that a paranoid conspiracy theorist should look at.
Who are you willing to trust with state secrets?
Click to expand...

Fixed for accuracy.
 
Hatuey said:
Fixed for accuracy.
Click to expand...
Actually an investigator who did not think of most of the possibilities, would not be doing
their due diligence.
When that investigator is signing off, that the person being considered for a job with
high security clearance, is safe with state secrets.
It is a very Machiavellian approach, but I hope they do it with everyone who receives clearance.
 
Thunder said:
are you serious???

a Muslim marrying a Jew, means she is a traitor and is capable of more betrayal?

first she is attacked for having connections to Muslim extremists, now she is attacked for marrying a Jew.
Click to expand...

Of course! She could be a double agent ... a long term sleeper mole inserted to undermine U.S. anti-Islamic policy. Because we all know how subtle those Islamic extremists are....
 
longview said:
You say she married a Jewish man, a good investigator might say she betrayed her family and her culture,
what other types of betrayal is she capable of ?
Click to expand...

lol.

<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
 
It will be a sad day if political correctness is placed ahead of national security!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom