It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra
I would point out that the White House was asked about PSD-11 and refused to comment on it
And for a good reason.
It would be politically unwise to admit that the US government conducted a study and assessment program on all of the Islamic political groups in a region and used that to form it's plans going forward in the area.
originally posted by: moresco
- Not valid because of the source and the article's lack of any links to outside sources on the actual text of the PSD.
- No I would not. If Reagan could trade arms for hostages and arm the Mujahadeen (Taliban, Al Qaeda) and, Bush W could lie bold face to the American people and get us in to a war on false pretenses promote torture, etc...and not face any type of impeachment then hell no. What would make this any different or worse?
- Not at all reliable. Just another uber partisan Obama bashing, liberal hating, regressive website that is only there to make money from the hyper paranoid, hard right, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic public.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and there is none here. I saw someone post that it is classified. Soooo if it's classified then how do we know what's in it?
C'mon we gotta get out of this practice of posting BS like this. If there are facts to back this up POST them. Not just some article from a clearly partisan source.
a reply to: Xcathdra
...but critics tell WND...
...A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times...
...the presidential directive reportedly shows ...
What do we think ATS? * - Valid diplomatic overture or confirmation of all the stories saying Obama was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood?
Second question - Would you consider this an impeachable offense?
Third question - How reliable do you think WND is when reporting?