Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties

a reply to: Xcathdra

Let's not just bury Obama on this because the Bush administration is very guilty as well.

“The failed Obama Doctrine that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to usher in a glorious era of peace and democracy in the Middle East was adopted by the administration because that’s what the foreign policy establishment going back to the George W. Bush administration proclaimed as gospel,” M

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I suppose we can just go ahead and blame all of Washington, from administrations to the CIA.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree your source is questionable but within said source they source the Washington Times, which isn't loved by many either but is considered a MSN outlet.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Xcathdra

So Presidential Study Directive 11 was made August 2010

fas.org...

This NY Times article discusses this in 2011..

www.nytimes.com...

I'm guessing it's been leaked after nearly 5 years?

How different were the Muslim Brotherhood then compared to now?

Without seeing the actual report, it's hard to base an informed opinion on it, but a lot has changed between 2010 and now in the Middle East.

True, a lot has changed.
My guess is that the directive is still classified because it would show how little knowledge the administration had about what was going on in the Middle East at the time and they would look naive.

originally posted by: beezzer
In the Middle East. . . . .

An extremist is someone who is shooting at you.

A moderate is someone who is reloading.

Sounds like our military....

With the middle east the context of course.
Not saying all military are extremist.

originally posted by: damwel
World news daily? anti-Obama paper. This is horse crap. Only people I've seen consort with the terrorists was Rumsfeld and the conservatives.

And you really think that there is a difference between "Rumsfeld and the conservatives" and Obama and the liberals?

a reply to: Swills
Why is it that no one ever blames Harry Truman?

At best, WND could be described as a tabloid targeting members of the Christian Right. They're not a credible source and they don't even pretend to be legitimate journalists. Speaking of "legitimate," I'm reminded of something that illustrates exactly how lacking in integrity these clowns are:

WND Books, the publishing arm of WND, was the publisher of Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin's book, Firing Back: Taking on the Party Bosses and Media Elite to Protect Our Faith and Freedom.

Less than a month before the book hit store shelves, they published an article full of similarly disjointed and irrelevant ideas that taken together are supposed to prove the allegations put forth in the sensationalized title.

WND - SHOCKER! TODD AKIN WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT

The article starts with an overt plug for the book but contains no disclosure of their conflict of interest. Like all tabloids, they'll publish whatever sensationalized BS will draw the attention of their audience without any care for the truth. In the case of WND's audience, that's far right propaganda by way of poorly researched, poorly vetted and poorly articulated conspiracy theories with a pronounced anti-Islam bent they don't even attempt to hide.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Swills
Why is it that no one ever blames Harry Truman?

Or Roosevelt or Lincoln. Always Bush. Bush must still be President behind the scenes.

a reply to: Gothmog

Well Carter and Clinton get tossed out there plenty.

Bush Sr. and Jr. get their fair share as well.

Makes sense that you would compare current presidents to former ones.

This is just hear say... only biggots would care about this.

There is never any proof given only sources familiar to the documents. Which means the reporter who wrote the story has absolutly no clue as to what is actually said in the document and there is no garrentee that this document exists in the first place.

Lol biggots make me laugh.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Come on ats, why are people even thinking this must be true, the obama hatred is strong in that one.

Yea for more no facts and made up outrage, seriously why am i even amazed at this kind of stories.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Come on ats, why are people even thinking this must be true, the obama hatred is strong in that one.

Yea for more no facts and made up outrage, seriously why am i even amazed at this kind of stories.

The document exists, but is classified.
So who is to say what is true, when the document has not been allowed to be viewed by the public?
They could release it... that would put an end to any more rumors about it.

I wonder why they don't just release a fake one? You know, talking about how Obama and Morsi had tea and crumpets.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree your source is questionable but within said source they source the Washington Times, which isn't loved by many either but is considered a MSN outlet.

I would be one of those that does not love the Washington Times. Why?

It is owned by a front group of the Unification Church. That is the church that was founded by Sun Myung Moon, the Korean Messiah who when he came to the US in the early 70s began a project to establish himself as the Worlds Messiah. You know him as the guy who kept marrying people in huge mass ceremonies, choosing the couples to marry by himself. Over the last 4 decades that church has had thousands of dedicated converts roaming the country selling door to door for 'drug centers' and the funneling the money up to him and his family and they in turn have then used those funds to promote an extreme right wing agenda. Whatever conservative group needed money, they provided. Million and millions.

They have used their ownership of the Times to promote a large number of public scandals denouncing anyone left of center. Those memes, that pop up one day, get picked up by pundits, blasted into the social news fabric and then just disappear as they were nothing more than smoke and mirrors in the first place.

Nope, as far as I'm concerned, the Times is no source at all, but I can easily understand the WND using them.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Come on ats, why are people even thinking this must be true, the obama hatred is strong in that one.

Yea for more no facts and made up outrage, seriously why am i even amazed at this kind of stories.

The document exists, but is classified.
So who is to say what is true, when the document has not been allowed to be viewed by the public?
They could release it... that would put an end to any more rumors about it.

The fact that it is classified should tell you not to trust anything telling you what is in it then.

I wonder why they don't just release a fake one? You know, talking about how Obama and Morsi had tea and crumpets.

Because these rumors are idiotic and the Administration likely doesn't want to stoop to WND's level. Besides, imagine the backlash if the Obama Admin DID release a fake version of the report and it was found out to be fake. I'm sure THAT will go over well with the ever vigilant right-wing looking to take down Obama.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The fact that it is classified should tell you not to trust anything telling you what is in it then.

I never said I trusted it.

But, plenty of stuff that whistleblowers like Snowden have come out with was classified.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Lost me at mention of Michele Bachmann.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The fact that it is classified should tell you not to trust anything telling you what is in it then.

I never said I trusted it.

But, plenty of stuff that whistleblowers like Snowden have come out with was classified.

Right, and you are here talking about how the Obama Admin should release a fake version of the report to appease the rumor mill.

Speaking of whistleblowers, if this report is as nefarious as suggested, whey HASN'T it been exposed by a Snowden type? We already know that the Obama admin leaks secrets like a sieve thanks to Snowden and others. So it reasons that such a document, if the rumors were true, would be leaked in short order.

So until you or anyone else can produce anything more credible that "I think...", there is no reason to entertain these rumors seriously.

This would be the same Muslim Brother hood that when the Egyptian military launched a coup and removed them from power Obama refused to call it a coup to by pass US law that said he had to cut aid to the Egyptian military until democratic rule was restored? Then when confronted by Congress, cut as little as possible making up all kind reasons why aid could not be cut. And literally the day after the Egyptian Military had a mass hearing, executing or imprisoning anybody with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood the Obama administration gave a huge amount of new aid to the Egyptian Military with no complaints about the execution of democratically elected leaders.

I think what confuses people is this. The US will publicly be friends with whomever is ruling Egypt. Be it brutal dictators or the Muslim Brotherhood. Because the true power in Egypt is the military and it is through US aid that the US uses that military to keep a thumb on whomever is in "power" in Egypt. When they step out of line the are dealt with. It is just the way things are done there.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties

WASHINGTON – The White House isn’t commenting on the exposure of a secret presidential directive, but critics tell WND it confirms what they feared: The Obama administration has an official policy of backing so-called “moderate Islamists,” including the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times the “policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.”

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates officially consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but the presidential directive reportedly shows the White House considers the group a “moderate” alternative to ISIS and al-Qaida.

Critics blasted that notion.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the subject, told WND the Muslim Brotherhood “is not moderate” and “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.”

The identical response was given to WND by Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, from the day of its founding and remains so to this day,” she said.

Whether violent or not, she said, all jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, seek the same two things: “Islamic governance and enforcement of Islamic law, or Shariah.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who tried to launch an inquiry three years ago into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, told WND, “It confirms the questions I originally asked of the inspector generals of five agencies.”

Well this is an interesting turn of event.

What do we think ATS?

* - Valid diplomatic overture or confirmation of all the stories saying Obama was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? Don't forget Hillary Clinton - SecState, approved visas so members of those groups could visit the US.

* - Second question -
Would you consider this an impeachable offense?

* - Third question - How reliable do you think WND is when reporting?

Its an interesting but long read.

Oh come on. World Nut Daily is not a reliable source. It's a place where the lunatics go to laugh at the even bigger lunatics.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right, and you are here talking about how the Obama Admin should release a fake version of the report to appease the rumor mill.

Yes, I sure did say that, because I wouldn't put it past him to do it.
Just to keep things straight, I never said that WND is a good source. I am actually surprised that they haven't been outlawed as a source here at ATS.