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

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

mac said:

Harry Reid wrote the article?

Click to expand...

I dont understand what you're getting at. I'm just saying if you claim to have emails that prove what you're saying, you should provide those emails.

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

mac said:

The poster's partisanship has no impact on Hillary's incompetence.

Click to expand...

Heya Mac :2wave: .....that's Right, it doesn't. Looks like she is going to have some more trouble for running and making the dash to the Presidency. Seems Last week an IG report came out about 8 sex abuse cases with the State Dept. Then for some reason the Reports were taken. So now two women have come out talking about it. All this while BO went after the Military and Secret Service.



Hillary Clinton's State Department Record Continues to Let Down Our Girls.....


Hillary Clinton claims to be a staunch supporter of women and girls everywhere, but her record as Secretary of State tells a different story.

Lets start with the most recent revelations about Boko Haram, one of the most brutal terror groups in the world. Recent reports show Boko Haram extremists have kidnapped 300 schools girls in Nigeria, ranging in age from nine to thirteen, and has been threatening to sell them into slavery. Further, the terror group has been raping the girls while in captivity. Activists in the United States have been calling on the U.S. government to work with the Nigerian government to find them and get them back, Clinton included.

Hillary Clinton
Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls
11:05 AM - 4 May 2014

The problem? During her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group despite multiple pleas from Congress to do so. So much for "standing up to terrorism." An official terrorist designation from the State Department would have made it easier not only to possibly prevent the kidnappings, but to send help immediately when the incident occurred. Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast has the exclusive details:

But Clinton's failure on behalf of our girls doesn't start or end with Boko Haram. Before leaving her position as Secretary in February of 2013, Clinton failed to hold people inside the State Department accountable for the abuse of young girls overseas, which means it will happen again. I detail her record in my forthcoming book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About The Left and Their War on Women.

Take for example the case of a State Department security official stationed in Beirut who was accused of engaging in multiple sexual assaults, or the U.S. ambassador who was accused of regularly ditching his "protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children." Or how about the fact that many of Clinton's security detail were accused of regularly hiring young female prostitutes in foreign countries during official State Department trips.

Further, women who dared to expose the alleged abuse of male diplomats were run out of town and intimidated. Those who repeatedly engaged in improper sexual activity were never held accountable.

In the latest black eye for the scandal-ridden State Department, a whistleblower claims she was run out of the foreign service after complaining about a consul general’s alleged office trysts with subordinates and hookers.

Kerry Howard says she was bullied, harassed and forced to resign after she exposed US Consul General Donald Moore’s alleged security-threatening shenanigans in the Naples, Italy, office.

Howard is just the latest whistleblower to allege that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department allowed sexual misbehavior to continue unchecked.

Last week, The Post reported that Aurelia Fedenisn, an investigator at the department’s inspector-general office, wrote a memo outlining eight cases of supposed sexual misconduct, but that they were removed from an IG report.....snip~

Hillary Clinton's State Department Record Continues to Let Down Our Girls - Katie Pavlich

Btw like how they point out the Daily Beast's Exclusive. :lol:

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

MMC said:

Heya Mac :2wave: .....that's Right, it doesn't. Looks like she is going to have some more trouble for running and making the dash to the Presidency. Seems Last week an IG report came out about 8 sex abuse cases with the State Dept. Then for some reason the Reports were taken. So now two women have come out talking about it. All this while BO went after the Military and Secret Service.



Hillary Clinton's State Department Record Continues to Let Down Our Girls.....


Hillary Clinton claims to be a staunch supporter of women and girls everywhere, but her record as Secretary of State tells a different story.

Lets start with the most recent revelations about Boko Haram, one of the most brutal terror groups in the world. Recent reports show Boko Haram extremists have kidnapped 300 schools girls in Nigeria, ranging in age from nine to thirteen, and has been threatening to sell them into slavery. Further, the terror group has been raping the girls while in captivity. Activists in the United States have been calling on the U.S. government to work with the Nigerian government to find them and get them back, Clinton included.

Hillary Clinton
Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls
11:05 AM - 4 May 2014

The problem? During her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group despite multiple pleas from Congress to do so. So much for "standing up to terrorism." An official terrorist designation from the State Department would have made it easier not only to possibly prevent the kidnappings, but to send help immediately when the incident occurred. Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast has the exclusive details:

But Clinton's failure on behalf of our girls doesn't start or end with Boko Haram. Before leaving her position as Secretary in February of 2013, Clinton failed to hold people inside the State Department accountable for the abuse of young girls overseas, which means it will happen again. I detail her record in my forthcoming book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About The Left and Their War on Women.

Take for example the case of a State Department security official stationed in Beirut who was accused of engaging in multiple sexual assaults, or the U.S. ambassador who was accused of regularly ditching his "protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children." Or how about the fact that many of Clinton's security detail were accused of regularly hiring young female prostitutes in foreign countries during official State Department trips.

Further, women who dared to expose the alleged abuse of male diplomats were run out of town and intimidated. Those who repeatedly engaged in improper sexual activity were never held accountable.

In the latest black eye for the scandal-ridden State Department, a whistleblower claims she was run out of the foreign service after complaining about a consul general’s alleged office trysts with subordinates and hookers.

Kerry Howard says she was bullied, harassed and forced to resign after she exposed US Consul General Donald Moore’s alleged security-threatening shenanigans in the Naples, Italy, office.

Howard is just the latest whistleblower to allege that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department allowed sexual misbehavior to continue unchecked.

Last week, The Post reported that Aurelia Fedenisn, an investigator at the department’s inspector-general office, wrote a memo outlining eight cases of supposed sexual misconduct, but that they were removed from an IG report.....snip~

Hillary Clinton's State Department Record Continues to Let Down Our Girls - Katie Pavlich

Click to expand...

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:

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:

Click to expand...

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.

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

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. :shock:

Click to expand...

The choices are limited to three people, in my opinion. But somebody knows, and no reports are ever typed without copies being made, so here comes another scandal. Like we need another airing of dirty laundry being covered up! It's becoming almost routine these days, isn't it? :thumbdown:

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

jmotivator said:

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

"The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls."

More Hilary dithering that resulted in tragedy.

Click to expand...

Over the last 10 years, Boko Haram has killed over 10,000 people, mostly Christians, though people who dont convert to islam with a gun at their head are also killed. Last year they killed 50 school age boys for daring to go to school. They seek to make Sharia law the law of the land, forcing it on non muslims. They are calling on arabs to come and aid in their jihad. Hundreds of students have been killed this year alone, and they have massacred a villiage. And hillary never saw a problem, even after all the church bombings.

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

humbolt said:

Yeah, we wouldn't want to do anything to derail a real war on women.

Click to expand...

Direct hit.

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

Summerwind said:

I quoted the article as to when they started pressuring the state dept, which clearly says, "early 2013." Additionally as many have pointed out, the source for the article seems quite questionable.

Click to expand...

Here is Jackie Speier's report from 2011 (not 2013):

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Boko%2520Haram-%2520Emerging%2520Threat%2520to%2520the%2520US%252 0Homeland.pdf&sa=U&ei=V8NsU5SKNsGRyATVvYLQAg&ved=0CDAQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHcyf7IHbElyV54c8FigbxFgQSZXw

You can watch her opening statements in the hearing from 2011 here:



Here's a Daily Beast article about Hillary's failure here:

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

I saw the video of that testimony and she said that out of anger because she was being grilled over Benghazi. His use of that quote isn't far off, and I find it amusing how the Hillary asskissers and apologists constantly find reasons to minimize her ****ed up attitude over the entire Benghazi scandal. That woman has been as worthless as a pimple on a duck's ass since the day she was born. If she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she's probably still be at some law firm or in jail for some crooked dealings of that firm. She sure as **** wouldn't have been a senator nor Sec State.

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

Erod said:

Translation: Benghazi, Nigeria, etc.....excuse me while I bury my head in the sand.

Click to expand...

You're terrible at translating if you think your translation is anywhere close to what I said. As in, it may be the worst translation I've ever seen. Seriously, that was terrible. You need to go back to translation school if you think your translation has anything to do with what I said.

The amusing part is you don't have to translate anything at all, I say it clearly. People who dishonestly take that quote out of context and pretend it is something it's not are biased partisans who kill all credibility in anything else they may say on that particular matter.

mac said:

The poster's partisanship has no impact on Hillary's incompetence.

Click to expand...

It does when deciding whether we should take the partisan poster's opinion of Hillary's competence seriously.

In this case, when people dishonestly quote her out of context, it makes it clear no credibility should be given. I really don't understand why it's so hard for people to simply do things in an honest fashion.

American said:

I saw the video of that testimony and she said that out of anger because she was being grilled over Benghazi.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was watching it as it happened. I saw the full context. And she said that, not out of anger of being grilled over Benghazi, but in anger of how the Republicans were using the deaths of 4 Americans as a political talking point, instead of grilling her on the measures being taken to make sure it didn't happen again.

If you actually read her full quote (or watch the video), it's pretty clear why she's upset. She had already answered the question being asked multiple times, but the person grilling her wouldn't accept her answer. He kept wanting to make it political, when that's not what that setting should have been. That setting should have been about what went wrong with security and how to make sure it never happens again.

His use of that quote isn't far off

Click to expand...

It's completely off.

and I find it amusing how the Hillary asskissers and apologists

Click to expand...

I'm neither an asskisser nor an apologists, I'm simply someone interested in facts. People who dishonestly quote her out of context are not interested in facts, they are interested in cheap partisan points.

constantly find reasons to minimize her ****ed up attitude over the entire Benghazi scandal.

Click to expand...

Yes, how awful of her to want to talk about ways to prevent more American casualties! Republicans need to win elections, dammit! What's the matter with Clinton, doesn't she know Republicans need to politicize their deaths to win elections?

The only ****ed up attitude over Benghazi are what Republicans are doing. They are using the deaths of Americans for political purposes. Everyone now knows what happened and we all know why it happened. We know why the aftermath was shaped as it was. Republicans keep bleating about Benghazi because it probably scores well in political polls.

That woman has been as worthless as a pimple on a duck's ass since the day she was born.

Click to expand...

And yet, this one incident aside, Hillary has been highly regarded across the country and in many parts of the world as a terrific Secretary of State. But I'm guessing facts don't really matter to people only interested in team politics.

If she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she's probably still be at some law firm

Click to expand...

Probably. But I fail to see what that has to do with anything. For example, if you were objective and not obviously biased, you'd probably agree with me about being frustrated by people who dishonestly take her quote out of context. If Ted Cruz were black, he probably wouldn't be a Republican Senator from Texas.

We can play the "if" game all day long. I'm far more interested in reality.

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

All anyone has to do is go to the State Department's website and see that Boko Haram was classified as a terrorist organization way back in 2012...Of course doing so would negate the BS narrative.

Enlightenment...likelyhood? Slim to none.

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

1750Texan said:

All anyone has to do is go to the State Department's website and see that Boko Haram was classified as a terrorist organization way back in 2012...Of course doing so would negate the BS narrative.

Enlightenment...likelyhood? Slim to none.

Click to expand...

Really?.....can you explain why the Daily beast had an Exclusive over this issue showing such was not the case? Is there some sort of Link that shows Boko Haram was added to such a list Way Back in 2012 as you say?

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

"Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

‪Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures."








Sure was an effective move....I'll just bet Kerry wishes he did it earlier too. You know...Hillary's ass is getting big as well.

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

MMC said:

Really?.....can you explain why the Daily beast had an Exclusive over this issue showing such was not the case? Is there some sort of Link that shows Boko Haram was added to such a list Way Back in 2012 as you say?

Click to expand...

Daily beast versus the US State Department website with chronographical official communiques on Boko Haram...gee, let me see?

Please dont tell me you are incapable to access the State Department's website.

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

1750Texan said:

Daily beast versus the US State Department website with chronographical official communiques on Boko Haram...gee, let me see?

Please dont tell me you are incapable to access the State Department's website.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I thought you would say.....so here lets make it simple for you.


Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in Nov. 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group's escalating abilities to wreak havoc.....snip~


https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-dropped-ball-boko-haram-020300046--politics.html?.tsrc=warhol


Did you want to now say that the Entire media World got it wrong when Kerry Designated them as a Terrorist Group in 2013?


What happened to way back in 2012? "Whats up", with that State Dept Website you were talking about. Got that PDF when you can point out whats different than the rest of world knows.....and actual reality.

Gee.....the Entire World of Media and Overseas Media to vs You and the State Dept. Imagine that! :lamo

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

polgara said:

Aren't the people at the State Department getting any security checks before they are hired?

Click to expand...

Yes, they are, extensively, I know first hand, I was hired by State. They spent about 3 months going through every thing in my record, interviewed neighbors, former bosses, went through my bank accounts, records, any travel internationally I had done (and there was a lot of it), and, because I am a dual citizen, they had the other country do the same. I was surveilled for a time, and if I had even picked my nose at a stoplight, they would have known... And this was for an administrative management job. Ultimately I didn't accept it, I had just purchased my house and my dog and couldn't drop everything to move to DC and then to a mystery embassy at the drop of a hat. If I knew that I was going to move to an embassy in a stable, nice country, that would have swayed my decision, but they could have sent me to any number of armpits of the world, including ones that don't even have decent beer.

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

Wiseone said:

There's no source to back up what its saying, whats worse it claims to have the source but it won't show us



If I could see the source, I may believe them. But uploading a pdf is too much for them I guess.

Click to expand...

Oh, so NOW sources are relevant? Why is that? Hell, for the past 6 years the only thing the media needed to impugn republicans is "a source says".....Now we need iron clad confirmation....LOL....

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

MMC said:

Yeah that's what I thought you would say.....so here lets make it simple for you.


Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in Nov. 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group's escalating abilities to wreak havoc.....snip~


https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-dropped-ball-boko-haram-020300046--politics.html?.tsrc=warhol


Did you want to now say that the Entire media World got it wrong when Kerry Designated them as a Terrorist Group in 2013?


What happened to way back in 2012? "Whats up", with that State Dept Website you were talking about. Got that PDF when you can point out whats different than the rest of world knows.....and actual reality.

Gee.....the Entire World of Media and Overseas Media to vs You and the State Dept. Imagine that! :lamo

Click to expand...

I bet the Entire World of Media and Overseas Media can find and access the US State Department's website.

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

j-mac said:

Oh, so NOW sources are relevant? Why is that? Hell, for the past 6 years the only thing the media needed to impugn republicans is "a source says".....Now we need iron clad confirmation....LOL....

Click to expand...

Heya J-Mac.....it was due to the fact that the Daily Beast got the Exclusive over anyone else. Not that would like mean they were first or anything. :lol:

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

1750Texan said:

I bet the Entire World of Media and Overseas Media can find and access the US State Department's website.

Click to expand...

Well I know I can.....but now what do you got to say about Kerry designating them a terrorist group in 2013 wherein all the media reported what Kerry did and said? Which btw Tecoyah had already shown in the Post Right above yours.


Whats your excuse now......and oh do show us this startling information that shows Kerry didn't do what the World said he did.

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

MMC said:

Heya J-Mac.....it was due to the fact that the Daily Beast got the Exclusive over anyone else. Not that would like mean they were first or anything. :lol:

Click to expand...

I see....LOL....I find it almost predictable that now that it is Obama, or Hillary under the microscope that we are going to start hearing how 'un named sources', and 'he said, she said' type of reporting is not going to be good enough.

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

j-mac said:

I see....LOL....I find it almost predictable that now that it is Obama, or Hillary under the microscope that we are going to start hearing how 'un named sources', and 'he said, she said' type of reporting is not going to be good enough.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know.....I just had him try and tell me there was no difference between a Select Committee and a Joint Investigating Committee in my Benghazi thread. :lol:

You should see all the deflection.....even when sources are up and even when BO's own words shows it for what it is. :mrgreen:

I even have the Guardian with the US Version and What was the Ground version and by whom. They still talk about nothing is there. :doh

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...nt-want-truth-revealed-26.html#post1063254947

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

j-mac said:

Oh, so NOW sources are relevant? Why is that? Hell, for the past 6 years the only thing the media needed to impugn republicans is "a source says".....Now we need iron clad confirmation....LOL....

Click to expand...

Sources are always relevent to me, I can't speak for the standards of the media I'm not responsible for those.

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

Wiseone said:

Sources are always relevent to me, I can't speak for the standards of the media I'm not responsible for those.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, maybe not....I can't say for sure, but I don't recall you piping up in the past when stories against repubs that were based on "un named sources", or "people close to the person, place, or thing say..." Why is that? Why is it that NOW you choose to be skeptical of these mystery people, and what they say?

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

tres borrachos said:

You apparently didn't read what you quoted.

In the House, leading intelligence minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

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.



Of course this is Hillary bashing. Kerry wasn't the one on the receiving end of those reports, letters, legislation, etc. He was still a US Senator then. The buck stopped with her until February 2013.

Click to expand...

While this is all true, let's take a moment to bask in the warm glow of a Pro-Hillary poster whipping out a "B-B-BUT KERRY".