Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 226

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

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post


    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.

  2. #82
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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. "


  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    "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

  4. #84
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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
    Last edited by Gina; 05-12-14 at 12:51 AM. Reason: Fair Use


  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    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.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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.

    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?

  8. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,316

    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.

  9. #89
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,357

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    A Whiter Shade Of Pale ... a classic.
    Hard to imagine they're capable of such a thing.





Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •