lindajoy wrote:
Im sorry as you know I usually do post a link.. Just forgot it in my haste for two days of celebrations now... The stand down comment was mine and he held our friggen military back all through the Middle East not letting them achieve a damn thing you whining hypocrite..
Amazing what can be achieved when the President listens to his seasoned well expierenced General that kick ass in words let alone putting them in charge of succeedng!!!You bet your sweet as* bo gave standing Orders to stand down!!!!!
My god look at the difference between what he did not accomplish in the Middle East and what Trump has accomplished in less than two years no less, give me a freaking break!
Here it is ~~Egg on your face is becoming...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-isra-terrorism-funding/Im sorry as you know I usually do post a link.. Ju... (
show quote)
no stand down order was given.. your own GOP 7th investigation stated that publicly..
HA HA HA,,, trump did change one thing and it was important.. he let the generals make local battle decisions.. other wise the strategy was the one developed by Obama and the general before the orange one
knew we had a war..
Did you read you info on your link>>...
It is of course nothing like what the right wing wishes it was.. President Obama had nothing to do with it.. but read the statement.
Nothing more then a glitch between group and lost paper work. the right wing will never stop the claims the wish were true.. but this is not..
he Obama administration approved the transfer of funding to the Islamic Relief Agency, a Sudan-based organization with ties to Al-Qaeda.
RATING
TRUE
WHAT'S TRUE
In May 2015, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control licensed World Vision International, a Christian NGO, to pay the $125,000 it owed to the Islamic Relief Agency. The same Treasury office had, a few months earlier, confirmed that the Islamic Relief Agency was on a Treasury list of suspected terrorist funders.
Sequence of Events
In March 2014, USAID signed off on a $723,405 grant to World Vision, with ISRA designated to receive a $200,000 sub-grant from that amount. A World Vision official closely involved in the matter told us that, before listing ISRA as a sub-grantee, the organization had searched the Treasury’s “Sanctions List” for any group operating in Sudan with “Islamic Relief” in their name but turned up no matches, indicating ISRA was not blocked. A USAID official told us that the $200,000 set aside for ISRA was to go towards humanitarian aid to people displaced by the ongoing conflict in Sudan at that time.
In November 2014, according to the World Vision official with whom we spoke, the organization was alerted to the possibility that ISRA might be on the Treasury’s list of blocked groups and conveyed those concerns to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is responsible for implementing and tracking economic sanctions.
The official told us that World Vision then voluntarily stopped working with ISRA while OFAC investigated ISRA’s status. This contradicted the account of a USAID official, who told us that USAID had instructed World Vision to put a hold on all their activities with ISRA.
The World Vision official broadly confirmed MEF’s claims, which were based on emails released under the Freedom of Information Act, that World Vision was eager for OFAC to quickly clarify the status of ISRA, telling us that the organization was frustrated by the delay in what should have been a straightforward verification of records.
In January 2015, OFAC finally confirmed that the Sudan-based Islamic Relief Agency to which USAID had granted $200,000 was indeed on the U.S. Treasury’s sanctions list. This meant World Vision (like any other U.S.-based entity or person) could not provide ISRA any support or engage in any financial transactions with that group.
However, World Vision still owed ISRA money for services ISRA had already provided in Sudan, on the basis of the $200,000 sub-grant awarded by USAID the previous March. But OFAC’s January 2015 ruling meant that ISRA could not be reimbursed for that work, so World Vision applied to OFAC for a license to meet those contractual obligations.
The World Vision official told us that the indefinite halt to their work with ISRA had put a severe strain on World Vision’s relationship with the Sudanese government. World Vision staff in Sudan had been experiencing harassment related to their debts to ISRA, the official said, and they felt they were at real risk of being kicked out of the country altogether — which would have spelled the end of their humanitarian work there. Paying their remaining debts to ISRA felt like the cost and condition of World Vision’s being allowed to continue working in Sudan, the official told us.
In the end, OFAC accepted World Vision’s application and granted them a license for a one-off transfer of $125,000 to ISRA, which a USAID official told us was for humanitarian assistance work that ISRA had already performed.
A World Vision spokesperson told us that the $125,000 transferred to ISRA came from “USAID funds,” confirming both the Middle East Forum and Fox News’ description of it as “taxpayer money.” In a statement, the spokesperson wrote:
World Vision received reimbursement of $125,000 from USAID of funds paid to ISRA for expenses they incurred and reported under that sub-grant.
Conclusion
The Middle East Forum is correct in their central claim that an office of the Treasury Department, which had confirmed ISRA was listed as a sanctioned entity, subsequently permitted a private NGO (World Vision) to transfer funds to ISRA.
Insofar as every office and agency of every federal government department between 2009 and 2016 was a part of the “Obama administration,” it can justifiably be said that this decision was made by the Obama administration. However, we saw no evidence that the decision was made by anyone beyond OFAC, least of all by President Obama himself.
We asked the Treasury Department which official directed the license to be given to World Vision for the May 2015 transfer, but an official told us OFAC does not discuss or comment on individual cases. We also contacted John Smith, who was OFAC’s director during the period outlined by the Middle East Forum, but did not receive a response in time for publication