“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Do you believe the latest version on the controversy over the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault?



Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions
By Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung, Published: May 21
The controversy over the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault.
It was at this informal session with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the ranking Democrat asked David H. Petraeus, who was CIA director at the time, to ensure that committee members did not inadvertently disclose classified information when talking to the news media about the attack.
“We had some new members on the committee, and we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn’t want any of them to make mistakes,” Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) said last week of his request in an account supported by Republican participants. “We didn’t want to jeopardize sources and methods, and we didn’t want to tip off the bad guys. That’s all.”
What Petraeus decided to do with that request is the pivotal moment in the controversy over the administration’s Benghazi talking points. It was from his initial input that all else flowed, resulting in 48 hours of intensive editing that congressional Republicans cite as evidence of a White House coverup.
A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency.
The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.
The only government entity that did not object to the detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted.
“What [committee members] were looking for was the lowest common denominator,” said a senior administration official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the editing process. “That’s not what the agency originally produced.”
Petraeus did not respond to e-mailed requests to clarify questions surrounding his role in drafting and reviewing the talking points. He resigned as CIA director in November after details of an extramarital affair became public.
The attack
At 9:42 p.m. Sept. 11, 2012, as violent anti-American demonstrations unfolded across the Middle East and North Africa over an anti-Islam video made in the United States, a group of armed men attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Recriminations in Washington began within hours. But it was not until a month later that it became clear that the CIA, rather than the State Department, maintained the most significant presence in Benghazi.
Near the diplomatic outpost was a CIA installation where about two dozen intelligence and security personnel were based. Their mission was to track weapons shipments out of the country and to identify the numerous militias operating in Benghazi.
Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified.
The State Department and the White House became the primary focus of the public criticism.
The debate within the CIA
After Petraeus’s morning coffee on Sept. 14, the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis sent an internal agency e-mail with the subject line: “FLASH coordination — white paper for HPSCI,” referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The committee “has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media,” the e-mail said.
Then, shifting into the first person, the office’s director, who had accompanied Petraeus to the coffee, wrote, “I have been asked to provide a bit on responsibility,” including “warnings we gave to Cairo prior to the demonstration, as well as material on warnings we issued prior to 9/11 anniversary.”
Included was a six-point draft that began, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired” by anti-American demonstrations elsewhere “and evolved” into assaults against “the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”
It followed with a reference to previous attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi and a mention of Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda. That information, put in at Petraeus’s request, would become the chief source of tension between the agency, the State Department and the FBI.
Fifteen minutes after that
e-mail, the CIA’s Office of Congressional Affairs sent its own internal message, with the subject line: “Due-Outs from HPSCI coffee.”
The first item for the committee was a “white paper” on media guidance — the talking points that would emerge a few hours later.
In addition, the e-mail listed two items “For DCIA,” a reference to Petraeus. That request included “Cable(s) to [redacted] warning of protests linked to the film and response” and “cable(s) to stations on 9/11 security.”
Republicans would later contend that the CIA had wanted to tell the truth about what unfolded that day but that the State Department, with White House support, removed the information for political reasons amid a heated presidential campaign.
But the e-mails reveal that the initial talking points also generated tension and confusion within the CIA, as officials sought to understand how Petraeus’s requests squared with what the committee had asked for.
Stephen W. Preston, the CIA’s general counsel, was among those most concerned with the first draft.
In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m. that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
Although Ansar al-Sharia had quickly backed off an initial assertion of responsibility for the Benghazi attack, the group did not deny that some of its members were involved.
But its likely involvement was a classified matter, senior administration officials said, and the FBI had objected to including the information in the talking points on the grounds that doing so would undermine its investigation of the attack.
“I am copying the CIA front office,” Preston wrote, referring to Petraeus’s department, “who may be more familiar with those instructions and the tasking arising from the HPSCI coffee.”
Less than an hour later, the agency sent the talking points, which had been strengthened to include repeated CIA security warnings, to the White House and other agencies for review. The reference to Ansar remained in the draft, as did a line particularly beneficial to the CIA.
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” the fifth talking point began.
At 6:21 p.m., then-National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor e-mailed the CIA Office of Public Affairs saying that Principal Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, who has since become the White House chief of staff, had asked that “highlighted portions” of the draft be “coordinated with the State Department in the event that they get inquiries.”
The highlights indicated that McDonough’s main concern was the information about the prior CIA warnings to U.S. diplomatic missions in North Africa — information that was included at Petraeus’s request.
State Department balks
At 7:39 p.m. Friday, Victoria Nuland, then the State Department’s chief spokesperson,
e-mailed deputy national security adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes; Jake Sullivan, director of policy planning at State; Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and others. She expressed “serious concerns” about including Ansar and mentioning “warnings” in the talking points.
Nuland said the mention of the warnings “could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
Rhodes responded, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation,” and suggested that the issue be resolved the next morning during a previously scheduled meeting of the national security deputies.
“We’ve tried to work the draft talking points for HPSCI through the coordination process but have run into major problems,” the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs wrote to Petraeus at 9:52 p.m. Sept. 14. “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”
Early the next morning, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, informed of the State Department’s concerns, took his own editing pencil to the talking points.
He agreed with Nuland that the warnings about other protests in the region were irrelevant to the committee request, senior administration officials said, and that any mention of Ansar could expose classified information.
At 9:45 a.m. Saturday, Morell sent out his edited version of the talking points, pared down to three bullet points. A few minutes later, the terrorism analysis director, who had written the original version after attending the coffee with Petraeus, responded.
“They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won’t like them,” the official wrote, signing off with a smiley-face emoticon.
A little more than two hours later, an e-mail to Morell from Petraeus’s front office staff expressed concern about what was happening to the talking points.
“Before going to the committee, may I please ask you to send these to the Director?” the front office wrote. “He needs to know in advance what is going to the Hill in his name, even if it is going with the force of the full interagency coordination.”
Morell responded with concern about whether Petraeus would approve the document, even after other agencies had signed off.
“Please run the points by the Director, then get them to
HPSCI,” he wrote soon after. “I spoke to the Director earlier about State’s deep concerns about mentioning the warnings and the other work done on this, but you will want to reemphasize in your note to DCIA.”
Morell was right to be worried.
In an e-mail sent two hours later to Morell and others inside the agency, Petraeus wrote, “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then. . . [National Security Council] call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use.”
Asked about Petraeus’s warning, Ruppersberger said, “I’m not sure what he meant. I had no expectations.”


Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

39 comments:

  1. Where, oh where, have I read this, before ...

    t it was not until a month later that it became clear that the CIA, rather than the State Department, maintained the most significant presence in Benghazi.

    Near the diplomatic outpost was a CIA installation where about two dozen intelligence and security personnel were based. Their mission was to track weapons shipments out of the country and to identify the numerous militias operating in Benghazi.

    Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified.


    The whole of the Benghazi operation was CIA and the 'Consulate' a sham of a 'cover story' that is still at the core of the 'cover up'.

    The question of who was in charge, in Benghazi, is being answered, in drips and drabs, it was not Hillary Clinton and the State Department, it was General P and the CIA.

    It is, has been and will continue to be a question of ...

    What did General P know ...
    When did he know it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Early the next morning, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, informed of the State Department’s concerns, took his own editing pencil to the talking points.
    He agreed with Nuland that the warnings about other protests in the region were irrelevant to the committee request, senior administration officials said, and that any mention of Ansar could expose classified information.
    ...
    Petraeus wrote, “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then. . .


    General P's own man edited that portion out of the story...

    Vision and revision, the beat goes on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      :)

      And the spin continues.

      Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung of the WaPo. Are their viewpoints credible or just slightly skewed?

      At 9:42 p.m. Sept. 11, 2012, as violent anti-American demonstrations unfolded across the Middle East and North Africa over an anti-Islam video made in the United States, a group of armed men attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

      Eight months later, and they are still talking about the Muhammad video.

      Recriminations in Washington began within hours. But it was not until a month later that it became clear that the CIA, rather than the State Department, maintained the most significant presence in Benghazi.

      Nonsense, there were dozens of stories put out about Benghazi and from day one everyone knew about the CIA presence there and in some articles even their mission there was mentioned. A simple count of the people involved in Benghazi would tell you that the CIA had a much larger presence there than State. If it was a month before Wilson and DeYoung learned that the CIA "maintained the most significant presence in Benghazi" then it is likely they should be doing restaurant reviews rather than writing on the political pages.

      Then, evidently in an effort to protect the White House and State, they offer up a stream of meaningless factoids one can only assume are designed to confuse the uninformed.

      The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested.

      Ruppersberger, a Democrat, would naturally want to minimize any information that would be politically embarrassing to the administration especially with the election coming up.


      Near the diplomatic outpost was a CIA installation where about two dozen intelligence and security personnel were based. Their mission was to track weapons shipments out of the country and to identify the numerous militias operating in Benghazi.

      Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified.


      And the point is? The initial attack didn't take place at the annex. It took place at the State run facility a mile away.

      What Petraeus decided to do with that request is the pivotal moment in the controversy over the administration’s Benghazi talking points. It was from his initial input that all else flowed, resulting in 48 hours of intensive editing that congressional Republicans cite as evidence of a White House coverup.

      And this is some type of revelation. Pivotal moment. It was from the initial input that all else flowed? Petreus was asked to develop the initial talking points. In doing so he tried to cover his own ass. The authors then blame Petreaus when all the other players begin trying to cover their own asses?

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      Included was a six-point draft that began, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired” by anti-American demonstrations elsewhere “and evolved” into assaults against “the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”

      This is the only thing in the article I can see Petreaus should be blamed for. We have already talked about the quality of the CIA analysts.


      “We’ve tried to work the draft talking points for HPSCI through the coordination process but have run into major problems,” the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs wrote to Petraeus at 9:52 p.m. Sept. 14. “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”

      The article indicates every agency was against the CIA talking points on national security grounds except the CIA and the White House, one would think the two most responsible for it. From the article, it was obvious that Petreaus didn't like the final talking points and we are to assume the White House was divorced from the process other than to act as referee for a bunch of squabbling children.

      .


      Delete
    3. .

      General P's own man edited that portion out of the story...

      In any other instance, rat would be accusing Morrell of insubordination as he did with the two CIA agents who risked their own lives to save the diplomats.

      .

      Delete
  3. This has a certain whiff to it goes it not?

    Updated at 9 a.m. ET

    (CBS News) The FBI was involved in a fatal shooting near Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla., early Wednesday that killed a man with ties to the older brother suspected in last month’s deadly terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon.

    CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, a former FBI assistant director, reported on “CBS This Morning” that the man, Ibragim Todashev, was friends with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a suspect in the attack that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

    The FBI has not commented on the relationship between Todashev and Tsarnaev.


    Miller reported that FBI agents went to Todashev's apartment complex after midnight Wednesday morning to question him. Todashev had been on the bureau's radar since Tsarnaev was identified as a suspect in the bombing.

    "He had been interviewed along with a number of other people in the apartment complex, but the interest in him was higher because of a couple of factors: He was in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev. He had been to Boston to visit him, and he was planning a trip to Chechnya," Miller said.

    FBI agents went to question him overnight after there were indications that he canceled that trip, Miller said.

    "In the encounter in the apartment, something went wrong," Miller said.

    In a statement Wednesday, the FBI said, "We are currently responding to a shooting incident involving an FBI special agent. The incident occurred in Orlando Florida. The agent encountered the suspect while conducting official duties. The suspect is deceased. We do not have any further details at this time. We expect to have more information later this morning."

    Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in a shootout with police outside Boston in the days after the marathon bombings. His younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, remains in federal custody awaiting trial.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An FBI agent hit the person he/she was aiming at?

    Okay, now I'm really suspicious. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the dude was the co murderer of 3 in boston several years ago. the dead guy? a mixed martial arts jihadist that helped murder 2 Jews and a Non-Jew.

      Jihadists.

      yep....

      Delete
    2. .

      "In the encounter in the apartment, something went wrong," Miller said.

      In a statement Wednesday, the FBI said, "We are currently responding to a shooting incident involving an FBI special agent. The incident occurred in Orlando Florida. The agent encountered the suspect while conducting official duties. The suspect is deceased. We do not have any further details at this time. We expect to have more information later this morning."


      Kind of sounds like Hillary in talking of Qhaddafi, "We came, we saw, he's dead."

      "Something went wrong." "We have no additional info." Yet without any aditional info some her automatically assume the FBI is in the right. In a nation where the executive claims the right to assassinate terrorists on sight without trial or evidence, where a terrorist is identified as one for knowing other terrorists or even being in the proximity of one, is it any wonder?

      .

      Delete
  5. It looks like General P was trying to strengthen the appearance that the attack in Benghazi was linked to the Cairo event of the same day, and thus, to the video.

    Wanting to reinforce the original story of demonstration and spontaneous attack.

    Did General P know that there had been no demonstration, in Benghazi on 12SEP2012?

    If he did not know, how could the White House?
    If he did know, does that mean the White House did, too?

    General P testified on 13SEP2012 there had been a demonstration, prior to the attack.
    Deliberate misinformation supplied to Congress in a public setting, or was all of DC in the dark as to what had happened in Benghazi, even days later, after the personnel were evacuated and their initial debriefing?

    Think now ...
    Who was General P covering up for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all have read, and most I think agree ...

      Mr Obama lives in a protective bubble. The data points reaching him, like all modern Presidents filtered and controlled. In many ways the modern President is a prisoner in the Oval office.

      If the CIA Director does not know what is really happening, at his facility and to his personnel, how in the whirled could the President and his staffers even have a clue?

      Delete
    2. .

      The shadow Dem continues his campaign of disinformation.

      Well, let's see, the DOS was informed by their own people that it was an attack not a spontaneous demonstration on the day of the attack.

      By September 12, the info that it was a terrorist attack was known by everyone in the administration except the president?

      What the hell does this guy do? He was aware of the attack the day it happens yet he doesn't demand to know the latest intel that is available.

      Plausible deniability? Not hardly. Obama was still touting or at least implying the video was a reason of the Benghazi attack in a speech he gave on September 20.

      Reminds me of that old SNL skit.

      We Know Nothing

      .

      Delete
    3. Well, Q, we do know that the Congress was briefed by the CIA chief, General P, on the 13SEP12 and the Congressmen were told, by General P, that the attack sprang up from the demonstration, spontaneously.

      Now, you say that State knew different on 12EP12, and I do believe that they did.
      I also believe that General P knew that same data point on 12SEP12.

      He would have been intentionally misinforming the Congressmen on the 13SEP12 if what I think is true, is in fact reality.

      Who should the President have believed, about foreign forces attacking US interests, the State Dept or the CIA, when they are at variance?

      Who should the Congress believe, or those interested residents of the whirled believe?

      Benghazi was a CIA town and it would appear that the CIA Chief has been talking out his ass from the day of the event.
      We all know his wife could not trust him.

      Delete
    4. What was the President being told, by General P, as to the cause of the attack on the day of the attack.

      Was General P telling the President what he told Congress?

      Were General P and the President on the same page, telling US all the video, demonstration, and attack tale, together from the beginning?

      That obviously was part of the cover story concocted by whomever wrote the story and the story both the President and General P presented, even knowing it to be a tall tale, at best.

      Delete
    5. .

      Rat, I have no problem with you criticizing the CIA or Petreaus in particular especially on the initial message regarding the video. However, I do object when you use that criticism as cover for State, the White House, the NSS or any of the other players.

      As Petreaus stated, the ultimate decision on what went into the talking points rested with the NSS. The points themselves were only issued after White House approval. There is plenty of guilt to go around yet you try to center it on one agency among many.

      As I said a number of times before, the brouhaha over talking points is merely a political issue. My concern is with the death of the four Americans and the factors leading up to it not any potential cover-up after the fact.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      IMO, the discussions on the talking points is political kabuki for the most part. The only thing that interests me in the discussion is anything that impacts on the death of the 4 Americans. In the discussions on the e-mails and direct conversation between the people on the ground in Benghazi and their masters in D.C., there appears to be quite a story that needs telling. As far as, the 'who shot who' quarrels and the CYA moves by the various players, I could care less.

      There may be something interesting, something we don't already know about CIA activities in Benghazi. If so, hopefully it will come out. However, that is a separate story, to my mind, from the policy of 'normalization' and any other political reasons that lead to the decision to deny the the requests from those on the ground in Libya for additional security.

      .

      Delete
  6. I saw that yesterday General Bunk was in not so rare form.

    Creating his own arguments back and forth with himself and creating dialogue from others to create the appearance of discussion.

    Amazing....

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least I did not write that ...

    Hitler, as quot wrote, was right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The General needs a serotonin reuptake inhibitor before bed time, WiO. Sleep deprived, he has been much more nasty and rancid lately than normally. Always on edge, it's a horrid thing to witness, and with the bull shit on his boots from the ranch.....pewwy...


    Issa on Fox News now!!! Fifth Amendment to be featured soon.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's insane. This is why you should not respond to him and his weird arguments. It just feeds him.

      Make fun of him? Sure. But dont try to have a logical discussion with it.

      General Bunk will select out of context words, make up words and just down and out lie. So dont try to trap a rat. It's pointless.

      Delete
    2. Munchies!

      Le's see we have a Welfare Sovereign and an Israeli Palestinian unable to create a cognizant thought, even working together.

      We've gone from rebuttal of every talking point, to admitting to defeat at that strategy.
      Now the Israeli wants to coordinate his minion and attempt the ostrich tactic of sticking their heads in the sand.
      Next, the Tactical Turtle, will it be lumbering out to enter the fray?

      Delete
  9. O Lord, it's beginning again, see above, Wed May 22, 09:44:00 AM EDT

    Gonna be another long and fruitless day....

    So I'm tuning into Fox for the Fifth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, let General Bunk spew, it just shows the viewers of the blog how insane he is.

      Delete
  10. The Welfare King of Euphemism has returned!

    The latest piece of horrific news relating to the abortion of black babies, a policy boobie first advocated for and endorsed in November of 2008, turned into a murder trial and conviction.

    The Welfare Sovereign's proxy in Philadelphia, convicted of murder in the first.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The American people seem to have decided, early on, that this was going to be a "he said/she said."

    They seem to be mildly interested, but not overly excited by the events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of "Benghazi," of course; not the trial in Philadelphia.

      Delete
  12. O lovely, lovely, Lois Lerner has zipped her lips for all the world to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'most transparent administration in our history' has clammed up, lawyered up, lip zipped up.

      Delete
    2. TOP IRS OFFICIAL TAKES THE FIFTH...
      LOIS LERNER: 'I will not answer any questions or testify today'...
      'I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG'...drudge

      Having asserted she has not done anything wrong, she pleads the Fifth.

      bwaahahaha

      Delete
    3. The IRS story aint over by a long shot.

      Most of America cant stand the IRS. Even lower than a used car salesman..

      The "5th" amendment idea by the top administrators of government departments shows a real disconnect to regular folk....

      It's going to get interesting.

      Delete
    4. Obama Administration mantra:

      Constitutional Rights For Me But Not For Thee

      gotta run.....

      Delete
    5. The IRS thing and the AP thing could have legs but the Benghazi whine may drown it out.

      Delete
    6. Neither side of the aisle wants tax code reform.
      Neither want to diminish the power or authority of the IRS.

      Each wants to direct that power and authority, themselves.

      The GOP, letting a good crisis go to waste.

      An issue most all voters could rally to, real tax code reform.
      One that would re-stimulate the Middle Class and job creation through simplification and elimination of the list of Federal taxes, replaced by one. FICA, Medicare, Income taxes all combined.

      All incomes sources tax at the same rate, at each graduated levels, whether derived from labor or capital, eliminate corporate tax havens, on or off shore.
      Tax every ones corporate healthcare benefits, or let the self-employed or those without corporate benefits to buy theirs with pre-tax dollars.

      The list is certainly not complete.

      Delete
    7. Tax reform is one thing but the IRS operating in a politically motivated way could do real damage to the Obama team if it could be shown that they had a hand in steering the IRS to audit organizations based on their politics.

      Delete
    8. The Republicans could put some life back into their Party, but they won't.

      Because they are, in their hearts, Republicans.
      Just don't know how to Party.

      Their two biggest winners in the whole 20th Century could certainly Party. Neither though was a "Real" conservative, Teddy Roosevelt, he was a Bull Moose Progressive, the other winner, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat, and proud of it.

      The 21st century Republicans ...
      They've lost that loving feeling, oh that loving feeling
      They've lost that loving feeling, now it's gone, gone, gone

      With apologies to ...
      ... THE RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS - YOU'VE LOST THAT LOVING FEELING LYRICS

      Delete
  13. Friends of Syria, my ass.

    Syria: 'Friends of Syria' meeting in Amman
    22 MAY, 09:25

    (ANSAmed) - AMMAN, MAY 22 - Jordan will host on Wednesday friends of Syria meeting in the capital Amman with the aim of laying the foundation for an international conference to resolve the 2 year crisis.

    The meeting will bring together Foreign ministers of 11 countries as well as representatives of the national coalition for Syria opposition groups. Diplomatic sources said the meeting will focus on setting up a working group from within the national coalition to hold talks with representatives of Syrian authorities on one negotiation table.

    Although opposition groups have voiced out rejection to sitting on one table with officials from Damascus, sources said involvement of Syrian government will be crucial to ending the conflict, which claimed more than 100,000 lives and lead to displacement of around 4 million Syrians. Countries taking part in the conference include the US, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, the UAE and Germany.

    US secretary of state John Kerry was scheduled to hold a press conference in Amman with his Jordanian counterpart, Nasser Judeh ahead of the meeting in order to lay down talking points of the meeting, according to diplomatic sources. Jordan is also keen on hearing from donor countries about their aid plan to the kingdom in light of the rising number of refugees, which reached more than 450,000.(ANSAmed).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Occupy yourself withpositive activities and stay Modafinil Kopen Nederlanded on
    tasks and current situations can prove difficult, and doing so
    thus takes practice to improve.

    Check out my homepage; work

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another plus from an employer perspective: keeping workers at the office.
    Don't be involved in a crash, compared with 6. Despite good intentions, it's not going to
    say Phentramin is the cure for your pills ip204ing difficulties.
    This condition usually arises in people between the age groups of 15 30
    yrs are more prone to snoring. To protect the skin from the harmful pills ip204 rays of the
    sun.

    My webpage: work

    ReplyDelete
  16. Terror attack in London. God is not great. Next post.

    ReplyDelete