NYT: Arms Shipments ‘Secretly’ Approved by Obama Ended Up in Hands of Islamic Militants
[TheBlaze.com]
- Posted on December 5, 2012 at 10:10pm by
Jason Howerton
Rebels in Ras Lanuf, Libya, March 11, (Credit: AP)
The Obama administration “secretly” approved arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, however, U.S. officials quickly became concerned as evidence suggested Qatar was handing the weapons over to Islamic militants, The New York Times reports, citing a number of United States officials and foreign diplomats.
There is no evidence available that suggests the U.S.-approved weapons were involved in the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, which left four Americans dead on Sept. 11. But the revelation is sure to ignite speculation.
More from The New York Times:
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government. The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from other countries.
Krugman rips Romney for ‘flat-out untruths,’ gives Obama pass on ‘minor fudges’
[FoxNews.com]
Published October 08, 2012
Aug. 10, 2009: Paul Krugman speaks during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (AP)
A fib is a fib is a fib. – Unless you’re President Obama.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, ripped into Mitt Romney for telling “flat-out untruths” at last week’s debate.
But when asked about Obama’s on-stage misstatements, The New York Times columnist called them just “minor fudges.”
The discrepancy drew a pronounced “Ugh” from Republican strategist Mary Matalin, a panel member who later told Krugman: “You are hardly credible on calling somebody else a liar.”
Obama permanently out to lunch
[RedState.com]
By: Dan Spencer (Diary) | September 22nd, 2012
When even the media is starting to point out that the incumbent president is too busy campaigning for re-election to govern, you know you have a problem.
Yet that’s precisely what the Associated Press noticed in a new report this morning. The first line: “It’s awfully quiet at the White House these days.”
Sure, when you have a president who spends most of his time on the trail spinning rhetoric and fundraising for his campaign coffers, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will tend to be “awfully quiet.” This might explain why while our Libyan ambassador is dead and our embassies are under repeated siege, the White House still appears to know next to nothing about what went down in Benghazi. Even top Senate Republicans are fuming today that they are learning more details from the New York Times than from closed-door State Department briefing. Unemployment is rising in half of the states, and US industrial production is falling at the sharpest rate in three years, and our President is focused on hard-hitting interviews with radio hosts like Pimp with the Limp. On David Letterman, he casually admitted that he doesn’t know what the national debt is, and that it’s not a pressing concern.
Obama said this week that he has learned you “can’t change Washington from the inside.” Apparently his solution is to go AWOL. It’s definitely not going to change from his campaign re-election HQ in Chicago.
‘Born Alive’ and ‘Partial Birth Abortion’ Barry [Barack] Beckons!
[FloppingAces.net]
February 24, 2012
Original Reader Post by: mlajorie2
[Editor: This story is from an archive by Conservative Viewpoint (GDMP.net), our original website name. It was posted directly from: http://www.floppingaces.net. Today, Rush Limbaugh brought up a Politico posting in which Newt Gingrich was misquoted as bringing up the issue of "partial birth abortion" when, in fact, Newt had brought up an issue for which Barack Obama supported when he was Illinois State senator. The issue that the Speaker brought up was 'infanticide' which has been deemed by some as post birth baby killing by a physician when a baby is born alive after a botched abortion.]
[INFANTICIDE] Caution: The graphic herein may be disturbing to some; Obama supports this!
Posted by: mlajoie2 @ 12:32 pm August 7, 2008
We are being told that the Obama campaign plans to make a play for the Catholic vote. His margins among them are plummeting. An article by John M. Broder in the New York Times grapples anxiously with the problem. What can Obama do now? Maybe, as a [token] act of atonement, they can allow the younger Robert Casey to address the convention? (For those who don’t remember, Robert Casey Sr., governor of Pennsylvania was NOT allowed to address the convention, because he was pro-life. A lot of Catholics have not forgotten.)
The article even dares to broach the reason for the precipitous drop. In my mind, that can hardly be a question. Barack Obama has the most radical pro-abortion position in Presidential election history and the word is getting out.
How radical is it? Well for one thing, He opposed a ban on the killing of fetuses born alive during abortion in Illinois. Yes, you read that right. (This was started by the experience of a traumatized abortion nurse who was not even allowed to hold a surviving child, but instructed to put ‘it’ in the trash.) From Broder’s article, this was his rationale:
Mr. Obama has said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.
The Other “Anti-Science” Party
HotAir.com
The phrase that makes up the title of this post has been getting a good bit of play in the mainstream press lately. The occasion for invoking it—more specifically, for branding the Republican Party as the party of “anti-science”—is the entry into the presidential race of Rick Perry, who is governor of a state that, by his own admission, teaches creationism in its public school classrooms.
The New Republic, in an uncharacteristic act of charity, defends Perry against the charges of despising science per se, adding, “He rejects scientific findings when they complicate his theological or ideological worldview.” [Emphasis in the original]
Radical Imam Rauf and Daisy the Con Propose Second Ground Zero ‘Islamic Center’
AtlasShrugs.com
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Like a junkie without a fix, the radical Ra-oof and his shifty wife, Daisy the Con despersate for attention, are threatening to build another Ground Zero mosque “islamic center” if the thug devleoper Gamal won’t put them back center stage. Craving the love of the dhimmedia, Rauf and the Con threaten to build a second mosque if Gamal doesn’t give them the limelight, again. that would mean both Gamal and Rauf/Daisy would be competing for jihad donations, taxpayer dollars, jiyza and public bonds.
Khan and Rauf wants to turn the “Ground Zero mosque” into a Ground Zero interfaith center, one focused on inter-religious dialogue and conflict resolution more than prayer.
That’s a bogus distinction without a difference.
US Cable: China Leaders Ordered Hacking on Google
TheBlaze.com
BEIJING (AP) — A leaked U.S. government cable shows sources told American diplomats that hacking attacks against Google were ordered by China’s top ruling body.
The cable said that according to a source, the Chinese government coordinated the attacks on Google late last year. The cable says the intrusions were directed by the Politburo Standing Committee.
The cable was released by WikiLeaks to The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers.
A separate cable released by WikiLeaks showed a Politburo member demanded action against Google after looking for his own name on the search engine and finding criticism of him.
The cable did not identify the leader. The New York Times reported it was propaganda chief Li Changchun, the fifth-ranked official in the country.
Voters Reject 2-Sided Assault on Climate Law
New York Times
Published: November 3, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — California voters yesterday upheld the state’s global warming law on two fronts, rejecting a Republican candidate for governor who wanted to delay it while turning aside a referendum funded by oil companies that would have dismantled the measure for years to come.
With roughly half of all precincts reporting at press time this morning, national and state news organizations had proclaimed victory for Democrat Jerry Brown over Republican Meg Whitman in the gubernatorial race and a sizable defeat for Proposition 23, which would have delayed California’s climate change law until unemployment in the state dropped to 5.5 percent for a full year.
Prop 23 lost behind a coalition of environmental groups, clean-tech companies, Silicon Valley venture capitalists and hedge fund managers who all had a stake in seeing the statewide climate law, A.B. 32, continue its march toward implementation in 2012. The same coalition helped to elect Brown over Whitman, a former CEO of eBay Inc. who promised on the campaign trail to delay A.B. 32 for one year if elected.
Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, said the Prop 23 defeat sends “a big signal” to the rest of the country and the world that Californians stand firmly behind the law, which would cut greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020. He called the level of cooperation between the fledgling clean-tech sector and environmental groups unprecedented, giving the “No on 23″ campaign the street muscle and the money it needed to prevail.
“This is the largest referendum anywhere on the planet where people have directly voted on clean energy and climate policy,” Krupp said in an interview. “It’s the largest state in the country sending a clear message that they want a clean energy economy and clean energy jobs.”
The crucial flaw for “Yes on 23″ appeared to have been its direct connection to two Texas-based refining companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., which spearheaded the effort and easily led in contributions with multimillion-dollar donations. The “No on 23″ campaign strategy from the outset sought to paint the measure as the product of “dirty energy companies” from Texas, and the message appeared to stick with voters.
Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that in her 30 years of work as an environmental advocate she had never seen a coalition come together so forcefully. The message appeared to be so resonant that bigger oil companies — including San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corp., one of the biggest polluters in the state — stayed out of the fight and never came to the financial defense of the Texas refiners.
Did the White House interfere with NYT research of Kagan?
Editor’s note: Barack Obama has shielded all of his records from Columbia, Occidental, Harvard, long form birth certificate, etc. Could this be a shielding of this nominee’s radical progressive liberal left background?
____________________________
HotAir.com
posted at 2:20 pm on June 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Judicial Watch announced this morning that it has a series of e-mails between the White House and Irving Kagan, the brother of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, that blocked a New York Times reporter from access to him. Sharon Otterman had already made arrangements to sit in on Kagan’s class at Hunter College High School as a way to get some background on Barack Obama’s nominee. As soon as Otterman informed the White House of the arrangement, however, White House media relations officer Joshua Earnest told Kagan to cancel it — and to stop granting media access without checking with the White House:
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from Hunter College High School regarding a White House effort to deny New York Times education reporter Sharon Otterman access to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s brother Irving, who currently teaches at the New York school. Otterman requested and received permission from both the school and Irving Kagan to attend one of Mr. Kagan’s constitutional law classes before White House Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest intervened. “I’m definitely not comfortable with that at this point,” Earnest wrote to Ms. Otterman on May 11, 2010.
The New Russian Intelligence Agency Plays Some Old Tricks Once Again: Old Goals Live On
PajamasMedia.com
It seems that some things never change. A few moments ago, this breaking story came in from the website of the New York Times. It seems, as this early report informs us, that ten Americans have been arrested for spying on behalf of Putin’s new Russia. The story has eerie reminiscences of the arrest, trial, and eventual execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, over half a century ago on June 19th, 1953 — only a week apart from the current date of these newly arrested accused spies.
Just as with the Venona papers, the U.S. government intercepted messages from Russian intelligence headquarters in Moscow addressed to two defendants — Richard and Cynthia Murphy of Montclair, New Jersey. This time, the government has let it be known how they came to find out about their involvement. With Venona, the codes that were being broken — and which led the FBI to have full knowledge of the existence of Rosenberg’s spy ring — could not be revealed out of concern it would alert the KGB to the fact that their top secret codes had been broken. Therefore, some spies they knew were guilty — like the top atomic spy Theodore Hall — got away with espionage. Hall refused to admit his guilt to the Bureau, and left for Great Britain, where he was able to have a distinguished lifelong career in science. Before he passed away a few years ago, he not only admitted his guilt, but bragged about how he had done his part to preserve peace, by helping the Soviets break America’s atomic monopoly. (more…)
Is the Obama WH evading disclosure laws?
HotAir.com
posted at 2:20 pm on June 25, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
The New York Times buries the lede in its story about how the White House has avoided getting publicly linked to lobbyists after making them an issue during the presidential campaign of 2008. Eric Lichtblau takes a break from exposing national-security secrets to expose the practice of making the local Caribou Coffee an extension of the White House in order to meet with lobbyists in an environment without those pesky Secret Service logs, which is bad enough for an administration that keeps dislocating its shoulder from constantly patting itself on the back on transparency. However, the real story may be that the White House is breaking laws intended on keeping records of all official business in the executive branch:
White House officials said there was nothing improper about the off-site meetings.
“The Obama administration has taken unprecedented steps to increase the openness and transparency of the White House,” said Dan Pfeiffer, director of communications. “We expect that all White House employees adhere to their obligations under our very stringent ethics rules regardless of who they are meeting with or where they meet.”
Then: Zero Population Growth, Now, Zero Population (!)
PajamasMedia.com
The Singer Not the Song
Peter Singer, writing in the New York Times, asks whether a world without people wouldn’t be a better place. His argument is simple. If nobody is alive then nobody’s human rights can be violated. “Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? … But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself.”
The ultimate act of altruism, he argues, may be a conscious choice to be the last generation on earth. In that way there would be no one left to suffer the depredations of capitalism such as climate change. “Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. … But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.” As a society we are terminally guilty, irrevocably condemned. And since we cannot help living, then the solution is to do away with ourselves. By far the best way to prevent anyone from feeling guilty is for no one to feel guilt. “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!” The only way you’re going to eat that can of beans is you agree to off yourself after dinner.
CWNews Posted Comments