GOP lawmaker accuses Obama officials seeing 'what they wanted' in Libya details [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Call it the Year of Politic-Ale Correctness. Between the White House press corps dogging officials about President Obama's homebrew and Mitt Romney's Mormon faith keeping him from touching the stuff, this alcoholic beverage has become a campaign tool ... Does Your Beer Say Something About Your Politics?
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, in an interview with Fox News, suggested the Obama administration politicized the intelligence in the immediate aftermath of the deadly consulate attack in Libya to fit a convenient story line, that it was spontaneous violence and not pre-meditated terrorism.
Rep. Rogers, R-Mich., specifically faulted the administration for suggesting the attack was an escalation of Muslim protests against an anti-Islam video produced in the U.S. and then doubling down on that theory.
“I argue the administration made some serious mistakes when they highlighted the video, escalated its credibility to the presidential level and then took it on TV in Pakistan with U.S. taxpayers dollars,â€Â Rogers said, referring to an American government ad that aired in Pakistan condemning the video and the violence.
“I think those are all serious mistakes that we're paying the price for," Rogers told Fox News. He suggested the problem stemmed from the Obama administration seeing the intelligence as "what they wanted it to be -- not what it was."
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in the attack, which authorities now suspect was carried out by extremists with ties to Al Qaeda.
Rogers and other Republican lawmakers have expressed specific criticism of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her statements on several Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the Libya attack, when she said portrayed the violence as a spontaneous demonstration that spun out of control.
For three weeks, the administration has gradually walked that position back, and officials now say what happened in Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack. On Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a rare statement explaining that administration officials were given the best assessment based on the available intelligence. Even so, at least one Republican lawmaker has called on Rice to resign.
Rogers, who told Fox News a day after the attack that he suspected terrorism, said the intelligence director's statement appeared to be an effort to obscure the facts.
“Part of problem is this circling of the wagons," Rogers said, calling it "concerning."Â
"Again Americans need to understand the truth," he said. "And the facts are what the facts are -- and the intelligence is what the intelligence is -- and we've got to avoid this notion of any political convenience, of any political interpretation, or we will make serious mistakes.â€
Fox News asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to identify the exact date when the intelligence showed the strike was terrorism and not a protest spun out of control. Knowing that date could indicate whether Rice’s comments were in line with the intelligence community’s overall assessment of the attack or contradicting it. A spokesman would not comment on the record about that matter.
Fox News also asked an administration official why the administration chose Ambassador Rice to go before TV cameras to discuss the sensitive intelligence details, instead of officials like Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
“We lost an ambassador in the attacks," the administration official told Fox News, asking to remain anonymous. "It made (sense) to put out a senior diplomat to speak to that tragedy.â€
On Monday, the State Department defended Rice and rejected calls by House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King for her to resign.
Rogers said his worries go beyond the politics.
“It's clear to me that (Obama administration officials) try to find the most convenient parts to what their narrative was, and that's always a dangerous thing," he said. Citing the aftermath of the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, and the “lack of response†to the USS Cole attack in 2000, Rogers suggested that failing to respond honestly and forcefully in this attack will embolden America’s enemies.
“This was a successful attack (in) Al Qaeda's view," he said. "We need to treat it exactly the same, and we need to make sure that they don't have the ability to do this again."
Recommend GOP lawmaker accuses Obama officials seeing 'what they wanted' in Libya details Issues Question by Alberich: Refresh my memory: Did China send or offer us aid, after 9/11 or Katrina? I don't recall such. Considering its "booming prosperity", the enormous trade surplus they enjoy, etc., why should this country's government(not to mention our "garantian national debt"?), now send them economic assisstance because of a national disaster? Another example of our national "politic" having gone completely beserk? Alberich Best answer for Refresh my memory: Did China send or offer us aid, after 9/11 or Katrina?:
Answer by Anna P
Because it fits with OUR social conscience, not China's. And I believe that China did send some token aid. Most of us in the US believe in helping ALL people in emergencies, no matter their religious or political status.
Answer by exnav138
well it seems that many countries send aid for Katrina victims. countries such as Bangladesh, Germany, Mexico, Italy,the United Arab Emirates Greece, China, the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Cuba, and Japan all sent varying amounts of aid. Much of it was rejected by the american government and some was wasted (such as the shipments from Italy and the UK-which were left to rot instead of being distributed.) Kuwait gave at least 25 million and possibly as much as 50 million to the red cross. not bad for a islamist country. china sent 100 tons of stuff and may have sent more if it had been asked. In their defense they had just suffered typhoon talim (a category 4 storm) days before. A million citize ns had to be evacuated while hundreds died. No word if any aid arrived from the U.S., token or otherwise. Don't believe me? check the links.
Answer by i. jones
After the hurricane, the US asked for aid from various world organizations like the European Union. The response was that about 85 countries and 10 organizations sent aid. totaling about $ 850Million (US). Unknown how many or which nations offered aid before the request was made. The PRC was a contributing nation. Some (other) unlikely, because of diplomatic tension, sources of contribution were Cuba, Venezuela, and Iraq. These may just have been called out by name by the state department as member nations of the UN or other organizations. Included in the response were US supported sources as well: The UN -- United Nations; WHO -- World Health Organization; OAS -- the Organization of American States (not US states states but countries on the American continents, including the US) ... so it is unclear how much was given by foreign counties. So, to answer your question, yes, China did contribute to the relief, cleanup, and rebuilding effort. "Booming Prosperity" in China is still limited to the upper echelon. And although many (most) goods are produced in China, they are not necessarily produced by Chinese held companies. No matter what you think of the country, I think we're bound by moral obligation to offer relief to the people ... (and that's the conservative side of me speaking.) Humanitarian efforts are quite different from governmental and industrial wrangling. On the other hand, we should have no expectation of an offer of help in our times of need, but graciously accept such an offer when it is made. ... what should be expected when aid is accepted is exactly what never seems to be forthcoming is gratitude for the kindness.
0 comments:
Post a Comment