Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists[W:130]

MMC · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
"But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants"

But the following month The General Carter of AFRICOM spoke on the matter.

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.....snip~

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists - The Daily Beast

US Conservative · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
"But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants"

That possibility exists elsewhere as well. Nothing she did stopped either the growth of Boko, nor a decrease in hostilities. Whos in charge here, Hillary or a gruop of "academic experts"?

MMC · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

US Conservative said:
That possibility exists elsewhere as well. Nothing she did stopped either the growth of Boko, nor a decrease in hostilities. Whos in charge here, Hillary or a gruop of "academic experts"?

Heya USC. :2wave: Perhaps this buddy of hers was doing all that influencing around her.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.....snip~

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists - The Daily Beast

US Conservative · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

MMC said:
Heya USC. :2wave: Perhaps this buddy of hers was doing all that influencing around her.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.....snip~

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists - The Daily Beast

Ah, so it looks like Hillary was playing politics over terrorism yet again.

pbrauer · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

MMC said:
But the following month The General Carter of AFRICOM spoke on the matter.

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.....snip~

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists - The Daily Beast

That hit piecet relies on anonymous sources I am told.
How A Daily Beast Article Became A Clinton Smear | Blog | Media Matters for America

MMC · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
That hit piecet relies on anonymous sources I am told.
How A Daily Beast Article Became A Clinton Smear | Blog | Media Matters for America

For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters......snip~

Sure don't look like they are anonymous to me.....Now I wonder why Media Matters would says these people being interviewed in an Exclusive were anonymous? Even the most vocal of in Clintons State Dept stands by what he said about not designating them.

Which a month Later General Ham would speak up as Several different agencies wanted them designated.

pbrauer · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

MMC said:
For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters......snip~

Sure don't look like they are anonymous to me.....Now I wonder why Media Matters would says these people being interviewed in an Exclusive were anonymous? Even the most vocal of in Clintons State Dept stands by what he said about not designating them.

Which a month Later General Ham would speak up as Several different agencies wanted them designated.

"said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. "

MMC · May 10, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
"said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. "

Yeah and.....how did that stop all the others from being interviewed.

Here lets go thru this again.

An exclusive interview is the goal of every reporter on every story. Being the only one who gets an important person to talk is the gold standard of journalism. Exclusive interviews are not a matter of luck. They involve approaching the right people in the right way. Read more to learn how to build strong relationships and establish a reputation as a hard knocks journalist.

How to Get an Exclusive Interview | eHow

pbrauer · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

polgara said:
What is happening to our government? We are rotting from within! High level people soliciting prostitutes is one thing - and we probably don't know the half of it - but it doesn't sound as if it stopped there. Eight sex abuse cases within the State Department that they are aware of? Aren't the people at the State Department getting any security checks before they are hired?

As far as Boko Haram, "one of the most brutal terrorist groups in the world" kidnapping 300 young girls, and raping them while in captivity... this is so tragic that I feel like throwing up! Sending counselors will do what exactly? Make them feel better about what happened to them? And their religious leaders allow this?

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

MMC said:
Worse Lady P

.....what do you think about reports filed by an AG. Then they just come up missing. Who has the power to do that.

Okay, the main problem Media Matters had was not specifically the report, but conservative outlets picking and choosing passages from the report:

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

[snip]

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists - The Daily Beast

CalGun · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

She uttered the words. Playing behind the ole "bias partisans" flame is like a left wing partisan hack suggesting they are a moderate on a forum.

Slyfox696 said:
I always find it amusing when people dishonestly apply that quote out of context. It always shows them for the biased partisans they are and reminds me to never take their opinion seriously, as they cannot be bothered with the truth.

Thank you for reminding me of my personal stance on this issue.

US Conservative · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
Okay, the main problem Media Matters had was not specifically the report, but conservative outlets picking and choosing passages from the report:

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”
[snip]

I dont think anyone is suggesting that designation as a terrorist group is the only thing that can be done-however it does paint Clinton as inept once again when she was Sec of state.

The fact that it took her departure to get that designation (Kerry did it), reflects many on the left felt otherwise. Its part of the pattern, and frankly its not going to be helpful.

MMC · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
Okay, the main problem Media Matters had was not specifically the report, but conservative outlets picking and choosing passages from the report:

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”
[snip]

So then you are saying that Media matters doesn't know what an Exclusive is......and that Media matters thinks what the Interviewees say is the Conservatives outlets just picking and choosing. :roll:

Yeah Carson didn't agree and was the the Most outspoken for those African groups.....that's why they contacted him. But just because the Former State Employee stands by what he said didn't make him Right.

Moreover.....Media Matters Just can't get Past the Part about General Ham trying to get BH designated.....the Following month after Carson and His Buddies and all else had put in their Reports.

Ham was In Command of Africa Command Known as Africom......and it falls under his Jurisdiction too.

Still even with Ham showing things went to another month of Hill-Dog not doing anything.

Just how does Media Matters.....get Past the Writer of the OP. Or were you and Media Matters going to say Josh Rogin from the Seattle Times and NY Times and NY who is now writing for the Dailey Beast plus His NY show......was a Conservative and leans to the Right?

bubbabgone · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

A Whiter Shade Of Pale ... a classic.
Hard to imagine they're capable of such a thing.

polgara · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
Okay, the main problem Media Matters had was not specifically the report, but conservative outlets picking and choosing passages from the report:

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”
[snip]

What to do? I understand the rational behind the decision not to legitimize them, but it appears that ignoring them is causing them to do worse and worse things to get attention - like a child throwing a tantrum! Targeting innocent children is not the way to air their grievances if they expect to have a voice in their future. What they have done goes beyond all reasonable thinking processes. It's wrong and it's barbaric! Those children have had their lives brutalized and changed through no fault of their own, and for what point? I can only hope that they are safely rescued, and the Nigerian government does the right thing to end this horror.

Good morning, pbrauer. :2wave:

MMC · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

bubbabgone said:
A Whiter Shade Of Pale ... a classic.
Hard to imagine they're capable of such a thing.

:2razz:

:lol:

vesper · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
That hit piecet relies on anonymous sources I am told.
How A Daily Beast Article Became A Clinton Smear | Blog | Media Matters for America

It's amazing that you would turn to Media Matters (a George Soros funded organization) for answers when it was another George Soros funded organization, MoveOn.org, that petitioned with great resources for Hillary not to list Boko Haram as a terrorist group.

FLASHBACK: MoveOn.org Petitions Hillary Clinton Not To Declare Boko Haram A “Terrorist” Organization… | Weasel Zippers

hmmmmmm

pbrauer · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

vesper said:
It's amazing that you would turn to Media Matters (a George Soros funded organization) for answers when it was another George Soros funded organization, MoveOn.org, that petitioned with great resources for Hillary not to list Boko Haram as a terrorist group.

FLASHBACK: MoveOn.org Petitions Hillary Clinton Not To Declare Boko Haram A “Terrorist” Organization… | Weasel Zippers

hmmmmmm

Well vesper, I must tell you MoveOn doesn't create petitions, they simply offer a vehicle for anyone to submit a petition. Even you can submit one. Check this out: http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063257281/ :lamo

vesper · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
Well vesper, I must tell you MoveOn doesn't create petitions, they simply offer a vehicle for anyone to submit a petition. Even you can submit one. Check this out: http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063257281/ :lamo

First off the petition had been placed on this political far left site in 2012 to gather support for the idea that Boko Haram should not be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. MoveOn has full control of what is kept up on its site. It is a political hack association with an agenda. MoveOn is one of the biggest bank-rollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012. 100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats. The organization is funded by Soros. The petition wasn't removed until after others raised hell over it being up on the site AFTER the kidnapping of hundreds of girls by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Sorry I'm not in the market for a load of buffalo chips.

pbrauer · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

vesper said:
First off the petition had been placed on this political far left site in 2012 to gather support for the idea that Boko Haram should not be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. MoveOn has full control of what is kept up on its site. It is a political hack association with an agenda. MoveOn is one of the biggest bank-rollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012. 100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats. The organization is funded by Soros. The petition wasn't removed until after others raised hell over it being up on the site AFTER the kidnapping of hundreds of girls by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Sorry I'm not in the market for a load of buffalo chips.

As I said in my previous post, anyone can create a petition on MoveOn, even you vesper. The reason the petition was taken down was because Republican asshole Rep. Stockman said they support terrorists, which of course they don't. I created a new thread about it:
http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063263582/

Gill · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
As I said in my previous post, anyone can create a petition on MoveOn, even you vesper. The reason the petition was taken down was because Republican asshole Rep. Stockman said they support terrorists, which of course they don't. I created a new thread about it:
http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063263582/

If they took it down because of Stockman's criticism, then they could have taken it down before. If they allow anyone to file a petition about anything on their web site, then they are idiots, but we already knew that. Some moderation of the petitions would keep them from looking like fools, at least for a few minutes.

MMC · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Gill said:
If they took it down because of Stockman's criticism, then they could have taken it down before. If they allow anyone to file a petition about anything on their web site, then they are idiots, but we already knew that. Some moderation of the petitions would keep them from looking like fools, at least for a few minutes.

Heya Gill. :2wave: Which still doesn't help Media Matters with the Daily Beast and Rogin.....getting the Exclusive.

pbrauer · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

US Conservative said:
I dont think anyone is suggesting that designation as a terrorist group is the only thing that can be done-however it does paint Clinton as inept once again when she was Sec of state.

The fact that it took her departure to get that designation (Kerry did it), reflects many on the left felt otherwise. Its part of the pattern, and frankly its not going to be helpful.

polgara said:
What to do? I understand the rational behind the decision not to legitimize them, but it appears that ignoring them is causing them to do worse and worse things to get attention - like a child throwing a tantrum! Targeting innocent children is not the way to air their grievances if they expect to have a voice in their future. What they have done goes beyond all reasonable thinking processes. It's wrong and it's barbaric! Those children have had their lives brutalized and changed through no fault of their own, and for what point? I can only hope that they are safely rescued, and the Nigerian government does the right thing to end this horror.

Good morning, pbrauer. :2wave:

vesper said:
First off the petition had been placed on this political far left site in 2012 to gather support for the idea that Boko Haram should not be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. MoveOn has full control of what is kept up on its site. It is a political hack association with an agenda. MoveOn is one of the biggest bank-rollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012. 100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats. The organization is funded by Soros. The petition wasn't removed until after others raised hell over it being up on the site AFTER the kidnapping of hundreds of girls by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Sorry I'm not in the market for a load of buffalo chips.

Gill said:
If they took it down because of Stockman's criticism, then they could have taken it down before. If they allow anyone to file a petition about anything on their web site, then they are idiots, but we already knew that. Some moderation of the petitions would keep them from looking like fools, at least for a few minutes.

MMC said:
Heya Gill. :2wave: Which still doesn't help Media Matters with the Daily Beast and Rogin.....getting the Exclusive.

Maybe this link will help you people. Click on the link below, then click on the link and watch the clip from Fox News Sunday http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063264944/

MMC · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
Maybe this link will help you people. Click on the link below, then click on the link and watch the clip from Fox News Sunday http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063264944/

Here this one will help you and Media Matters learn that you can't just play around with Journalists and think because you can get someone to speak up for Clinton. That this just disputes any facts.

Is Boko Haram the Story Hillary Doesn’t Want the Press to Cover?
by Noah Rothman

Clinton defenders say that not designating this organization as a terrorist group was a strategic decision. “There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson said Wednesday in a press call.

But Carson was not as vocal an opponent of calling Boko Haram a terrorist group when testifying before lawmakers. In 2012, with more than 1,000 deaths attributable to their actions, State designated three of Boko Haram’s leaders “specially designated global terrorists” (SDGTs), but stopped short of calling the organization they head a terrorist group. In spite of State’s hesitation, when pressed, Carson admitted Boko Haram was, indeed, a terrorist organization.

“Before we prescribe actions, it is important that we understand what Boko Haram is and what it is not,” he said, noting that the United States’ information on the group was “limited at best.” When pressed by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) as to whether he considered the group an Islamist terrorist organization, Carson said he did.

“Boko Haram’s emergence as a terrorist organization in Nigeria predates the current government,” Carson asserted.

State’s refusal to designate this group a terrorist organization has been a subject of consternation for several years. The implication that State refused to act when it could have made a difference will necessarily have political implications for Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2016

Of course, the usual suspects will emerge to declare this yet another illegitimate line of questioning about Clinton’s past. The history of how State handled Boko Haram may soon become, as CNN host S.E. Cupp aptly put it, just one more entry in the “whole list of things” that are scoffed at by journalists or deemed conspiratorial by our self-appointed arbiters of political discourse. But that is projection motivated by politics. .....snip~

Is Boko Haram the Story Hillary Doesn’t Want the Press to Cover? | Mediaite

To bad Media Matters can't go back and cover up what Carson testified to.....huh? :lol:

pbrauer · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

MMC said:
Here this one will help you and Media Matters learn that you can't just play around with Journalists and think because you can get someone to speak up for Clinton. That this just disputes any facts.

Is Boko Haram the Story Hillary Doesn’t Want the Press to Cover?
by Noah Rothman

Clinton defenders say that not designating this organization as a terrorist group was a strategic decision. “There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson said Wednesday in a press call.

But Carson was not as vocal an opponent of calling Boko Haram a terrorist group when testifying before lawmakers. In 2012, with more than 1,000 deaths attributable to their actions, State designated three of Boko Haram’s leaders “specially designated global terrorists” (SDGTs), but stopped short of calling the organization they head a terrorist group. In spite of State’s hesitation, when pressed, Carson admitted Boko Haram was, indeed, a terrorist organization.

“Before we prescribe actions, it is important that we understand what Boko Haram is and what it is not,” he said, noting that the United States’ information on the group was “limited at best.” When pressed by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) as to whether he considered the group an Islamist terrorist organization, Carson said he did.

“Boko Haram’s emergence as a terrorist organization in Nigeria predates the current government,” Carson asserted.

State’s refusal to designate this group a terrorist organization has been a subject of consternation for several years. The implication that State refused to act when it could have made a difference will necessarily have political implications for Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2016

Of course, the usual suspects will emerge to declare this yet another illegitimate line of questioning about Clinton’s past. The history of how State handled Boko Haram may soon become, as CNN host S.E. Cupp aptly put it, just one more entry in the “whole list of things” that are scoffed at by journalists or deemed conspiratorial by our self-appointed arbiters of political discourse. But that is projection motivated by politics. .....snip~

Is Boko Haram the Story Hillary Doesn’t Want the Press to Cover? | Mediaite

To bad Media Matters can't go back and cover up what Carson testified to.....huh? :lol:

Explain this bright guy: Why didn't the the Bush administration list them?

US Conservative · May 11, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

pbrauer said:
Maybe this link will help you people. Click on the link below, then click on the link and watch the clip from Fox News Sunday http://debatepolitics.com/forum/index.php?posts/1063264944/

You tell me, is Fox an acceptable news source, or is that only when you think it makes your point?

You tell me, are Bush appointees credible or is that only when you think it makes your point?

You tell me, if this was the case, why did the Obama administration change their status to a terrorist group after Kerry came into office?