• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Top Republicans denounce attack on Clinton aide - Yahoo! News

The top Republican in the Congress on Thursday criticized Representative Michele Bachmann and four other fellow House Republicans for making "pretty dangerous" accusations when they questioned the security clearance of a Muslim aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The comments of House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner came after Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, blasted the five lawmakers for seeking an investigation into whether Huma Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist political organization.
Boehner, speaking at a regular news briefing, said "accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous." He said he did not know Abedin, but "from everything I know of her, she has a sterling character."
McCain took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to accuse the lawmakers of making a "sinister" attack on Abedin. Following the custom in Congress, he did not name them but left no doubt he was talking about Bachmann, as well as Representatives Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Thomas Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland.

While I'm glad that mainstream Republicans are denouncing this ridiculous attack on American Muslims, I have to wonder why rabid right wing partisans have such an axe to grind with Muslims. They constantly point out that Obama's father is a Muslim. They try to stop Muslims from building mosques in New York. They even attack Muslims serving in our own congress. Xenophobic attitudes like this need to be exposed as being wrong.
 
Oh well, can't say I agree with them attacking this person without probable cause, but well, I will still vote for Louie Gohmert come november because there is absolutely no way I will vote for a socialist entitlement monger who will stay with party lines and not help fix America and get rid of Comrade Obama. He may not be perfect and it may be time for him to go, but not this cycle, no way. I might would go for the Libertarian that is also running, but can't find a whole lot about his stance or even who he really is, not to mention that as far as I can tell, his name is in but he is not really doing any campaigning, so he really stands no chance and I simply cannot risk sending an Obama loving Liberal to Congress at this time.
 
Oh well, can't say I agree with them attacking this person without probable cause, but well, I will still vote for Louie Gohmert come november because there is absolutely no way I will vote for a socialist entitlement monger who will stay with party lines and not help fix America and get rid of Comrade Obama. He may not be perfect and it may be time for him to go, but not this cycle, no way. I might would go for the Libertarian that is also running, but can't find a whole lot about his stance or even who he really is, not to mention that as far as I can tell, his name is in but he is not really doing any campaigning, so he really stands no chance and I simply cannot risk sending an Obama loving Liberal to Congress at this time.

This is why congress is full of terrible people.
 
Oh well, can't say I agree with them attacking this person without probable cause, but well, I will still vote for Louie Gohmert come november because there is absolutely no way I will vote for a socialist entitlement monger who will stay with party lines and not help fix America and get rid of Comrade Obama. He may not be perfect and it may be time for him to go, but not this cycle, no way. I might would go for the Libertarian that is also running, but can't find a whole lot about his stance or even who he really is, not to mention that as far as I can tell, his name is in but he is not really doing any campaigning, so he really stands no chance and I simply cannot risk sending an Obama loving Liberal to Congress at this time.

Ghomert is one of the biggest retards in Congress. This is the guy who attributed the Bat Man massacre to attacks on "our Judeo-Christian values". :roll:
 
This is why congress is full of terrible people.

I would normally agree. However, this election is not about that, it is about Obama and the Constitution. Due to Obama's unconstitutional actions and Congress not being able (Reps) or willing (Dems) to hold him accountable for those actions, other factors no longer matter. (lets face it, short of him committing murder in public or declaring himself a dictator, you will not get a Democrat in either house to vote for impeachment ( and 99 out of 100 wouldn't do it even then), no matter how unconstitutional he becomes) Because this election is a vote on whether the Constitution is Dead and gone or whether it should still remain in effect, I have to go with anyone, and I mean almost anyone who will work to impeach the unconstitutional bastard if he wins the general election. Saving the Constitution is the only issue I give a damn about this election, everything else can be worked on later if we actually manage to save it. And I have absolutely no faith that any liberals or others on the left are going to give a damn about constitutionality of his actions, all they care about is whether they get what the want, no matter the method.
 
Last edited:
I would normally agree. However, this election is not about that, it is about Obama. Due to Obama's unconstitutional actions and Congress not being able (Reps) or willing (Dems) to hold him accountable for those actions, other factors no longer matter. (lets face it, short of him committing murder in public or declaring himself a dictator, you will not get a Democrat in either house to vote for impeachment ( and 99 out of 100 wouldn't do it even then), no matter how unconstitutional he becomes) Because this election is a vote on whether the Constitution is Dead and gone or whether it should still remain in effect, I have to go with anyone, and I mean almost anyone who will work to impeach the unconstitutional bastard if he wins the general election. Saving the Constitution is the only issue I give a damn about this election, everything else can be worked on later if we actually manage to save it. And I have absolutely no faith that any liberals or others on the left are going to give a damn about constitutionality of his actions, all they care about is whether they get what the want, no matter the method.

What does this have to do with the OP?

Nothing, just rabid anti Obama far right rhetoric.
 
Top Republicans denounce attack on Clinton aide - Yahoo! News



While I'm glad that mainstream Republicans are denouncing this ridiculous attack on American Muslims, I have to wonder why rabid right wing partisans have such an axe to grind with Muslims. They constantly point out that Obama's father is a Muslim. They try to stop Muslims from building mosques in New York. They even attack Muslims serving in our own congress. Xenophobic attitudes like this need to be exposed as being wrong.

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.
 
I would normally agree. However, this election is not about that, it is about Obama and the Constitution. Due to Obama's unconstitutional actions and Congress not being able (Reps) or willing (Dems) to hold him accountable for those actions, other factors no longer matter. (lets face it, short of him committing murder in public or declaring himself a dictator, you will not get a Democrat in either house to vote for impeachment ( and 99 out of 100 wouldn't do it even then), no matter how unconstitutional he becomes) Because this election is a vote on whether the Constitution is Dead and gone or whether it should still remain in effect, I have to go with anyone, and I mean almost anyone who will work to impeach the unconstitutional bastard if he wins the general election. Saving the Constitution is the only issue I give a damn about this election, everything else can be worked on later if we actually manage to save it. And I have absolutely no faith that any liberals or others on the left are going to give a damn about constitutionality of his actions, all they care about is whether they get what the want, no matter the method.

Which unconstitutional actions do you perceive him as taking? Be sure to specify which article of the constitution has been violated.
 
Which unconstitutional actions do you perceive him as taking? Be sure to specify which article of the constitution has been violated.

For starters.

Article II, section one.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In June, he issued orders concerning the deportation of Illegal Immigrants which are contrary to existing law as passed by Congress. This is a failure of his oath of office. Nor is he anywhere granted the power to alter, change or ammend existing laws passed by Congress or issue orders equivelent to law.

After the BP Disaster, he put a moritorium on drilling in the gulf, but did not do the same in California or Alaska.

Article 1, Section 9

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

By placing limits on the issuing of permits to only the Gulf Cost and not all offshore drilling, he favored one state over another.

Others to follow, right now, I am off to the gun show.
 
Every time I hear this kind of vicious bigotry spewed from people who are supposed to represent the American people, my skin crawls and I cringe inside. This kind of crap should be censure material. Our congresscritters should not be free to slander at will in the first place, but to do so based upon religion in a land that was built upon the tenant of freedom of religion for all is absolutely outrageous.
 
Here's the issue as I've heard it. Has nothing to do with Huma's religion, it has everything to do with involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood's female wing, the Muslim Sisterhood, both wings of that movement have been condemned by multiple federal agencies. Now, if it were about anti-(insert religion) sentiment I'd be 100% on board for condemnation. I will say I haven't read much on the issue and going off of what I've initially seen due to the nature of larger problems facing our country at this time.
 
for the past few years I've been rather impressed with the republican party's ability to court stupid, but this clearly proves that they've been sand bagging us all that entire time and full retard will be so much more glorious than we ever expected
 
Here's the issue as I've heard it. Has nothing to do with Huma's religion, it has everything to do with involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood's female wing, the Muslim Sisterhood, both wings of that movement have been condemned by multiple federal agencies. Now, if it were about anti-(insert religion) sentiment I'd be 100% on board for condemnation. I will say I haven't read much on the issue and going off of what I've initially seen due to the nature of larger problems facing our country at this time.

Is their suspicion based on anything more than the fact that she's a muslim (is she even practicing in any meaningful way?)? If not, it's rather like assuming that all white Christians belong to the klan
 
Here's the issue as I've heard it. Has nothing to do with Huma's religion, it has everything to do with involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood's female wing, the Muslim Sisterhood, both wings of that movement have been condemned by multiple federal agencies. Now, if it were about anti-(insert religion) sentiment I'd be 100% on board for condemnation. I will say I haven't read much on the issue and going off of what I've initially seen due to the nature of larger problems facing our country at this time.

You keep on believing that the same Republicans who love to point out Obama's name as being "Hussein" are doing this because of concerns about whatever the hell the Muslim Sisterhood is. Maybe if you REALLY believe it, it'll come true. Actually, maybe if Republicans didn't already slander anything Muslim and everything Muslim on this forum, you'd have some sort of ground. However, as it stands, the record of anti-Muslim rhetoric without any substantiation vastly outweighs the supposed cons pointed out.
 
Every time I hear this kind of vicious bigotry spewed from people who are supposed to represent the American people, my skin crawls and I cringe inside. This kind of crap should be censure material. Our congresscritters should not be free to slander at will in the first place, but to do so based upon religion in a land that was built upon the tenant of freedom of religion for all is absolutely outrageous.

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.
 
Last edited:
Is their suspicion based on anything more than the fact that she's a muslim (is she even practicing in any meaningful way?)? If not, it's rather like assuming that all white Christians belong to the klan
From what I understand there is a paper trail, but I don't know how solid the case against her actually is.
 
Someone needs to publicly ask Huma Abedin whether or not she supports the new Brotherhood president of Egypt who wants us to release the blind Sheik....you know the guy who was the mastermind of the first trade center bombing in 93. I'd really be interested to hear her response.

Wouldnt you Liberals be interested in knowing as well?

Of course it wouldnt be surprising if Hussein Obama puts this guy on his pardon list after he gets his ass kicked out of office in November.
 
There's nothing wrong with questioning an aide's security clearance. Especially an aide to the SECSTATE. This is a sensitive post and there is no room for thin skin, nor political correct hyperventilating and no one should be above question.
 
what is the evidence that this guy is a radical or extremist Muslim?

or are the bigots just assuming that if he is Muslim, he MUST he a Jihadi bent on forcing Sharia law upon the white Christian USA?
 
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?

That's racial profiling.

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?

Ok...

With Huma's mother being an advocate of Sharia law its not out of the realm of possibility that she has the same beliefs.

Translation: "I don't like her beliefs, therefore they are wrong!"

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.

Godwinning already? On page 2? Wow. Anyway, how is SL worse than Naziism?

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.

Ok - there's blood on my hands. Now what?
 
That's racial profiling.



Ok...



Translation: "I don't like her beliefs, therefore they are wrong!"



Godwinning already? On page 2? Wow. Anyway, how is SL worse than Naziism?



Ok - there's blood on my hands. Now what?

It's no more racial profiling than zinging a white person for having connections to a white supremacist group
 
Back
Top Bottom