A tale of two employees.

[buckeye45_73]

There were several embassy attacks in direct reaction to that video before Bengazi, 20+ after, no one's been caught for Bengazi, but the dupes all "know" it wasn't the video...stupid brainwashed a-holes LOL...

Franco still thinks it was a video.....now THAT is hilarious

 

[blackhawk]

Greg Hicks was demoted for speaking out about Benghazi while Susan Rice got promoted for at worst lying about it or at best intentionally misleading the nation about Benghazi.

Do you have proof she lied?

In the late 90s a group of republicans formed under the banner "Project For a New American Century ". [Please google it] Rumsfeld, Chaney and Bolton were part of this group. They lobbied then Pres. Bill Clinton to make regime change in Iraq an official policy of United States government. Clinton agreed.

When the Bush defense team - anchored by Rumsfeld Cheney and Bolton - assumed power in early 2001 they had one goal: remove Hussein and use Iraq to build a larger presence in the Gulf region.

Bush's chief terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, was fired because he asked the Bush administration to focus more on Al Qaeda than regime change in Iraq. Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan, says that he was rebuffed every time he tried to talk about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

The man was fired because he wanted the Bush administration to focus more on terrorism than a pre-planned policy to use Iraq as part of a larger goal to build a larger military presence in the Gulf Region.



He was fired for asking the Bush administration to take the August 6th memo seriously.

Proof that she lied lets see President Obama and many of his supporters say that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in his September 12th speech in the Rose Garden a mere one day after the attack yet on the following Sunday Susan Rice goes on all five Sunday talk shows and says it was a protest gone bad in response to a video that is either lying or stupidity take your pick. I go with lying because as much as I disagree with this Presidents policies and agenda he has not surrounded himself with stupid people.

 

[candycorn]

Greg Hicks was demoted for speaking out about Benghazi while Susan Rice got promoted for at worst lying about it or at best intentionally misleading the nation about Benghazi.

Do you have proof she lied?

In the late 90s a group of republicans formed under the banner "Project For a New American Century ". [Please google it] Rumsfeld, Chaney and Bolton were part of this group. They lobbied then Pres. Bill Clinton to make regime change in Iraq an official policy of United States government. Clinton agreed.

When the Bush defense team - anchored by Rumsfeld Cheney and Bolton - assumed power in early 2001 they had one goal: remove Hussein and use Iraq to build a larger presence in the Gulf region.

Bush's chief terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, was fired because he asked the Bush administration to focus more on Al Qaeda than regime change in Iraq. Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan, says that he was rebuffed every time he tried to talk about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

The man was fired because he wanted the Bush administration to focus more on terrorism than a pre-planned policy to use Iraq as part of a larger goal to build a larger military presence in the Gulf Region.



He was fired for asking the Bush administration to take the August 6th memo seriously.

Proof that she lied lets see President Obama and many of his supporters say that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in his September 12th speech in the Rose Garden a mere one day after the attack yet on the following Sunday Susan Rice goes on all five Sunday talk shows and says it was a protest gone bad in response to a video that is either lying or stupidity take your pick. I go with lying because as much as I disagree with this Presidents policies and agenda he has not surrounded himself with stupid people.

He did call it terrorism; everyone knows that.

 

[blackhawk]

Do you have proof she lied?

In the late 90s a group of republicans formed under the banner "Project For a New American Century ". [Please google it] Rumsfeld, Chaney and Bolton were part of this group. They lobbied then Pres. Bill Clinton to make regime change in Iraq an official policy of United States government. Clinton agreed.

When the Bush defense team - anchored by Rumsfeld Cheney and Bolton - assumed power in early 2001 they had one goal: remove Hussein and use Iraq to build a larger presence in the Gulf region.

Bush's chief terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, was fired because he asked the Bush administration to focus more on Al Qaeda than regime change in Iraq. Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan, says that he was rebuffed every time he tried to talk about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

The man was fired because he wanted the Bush administration to focus more on terrorism than a pre-planned policy to use Iraq as part of a larger goal to build a larger military presence in the Gulf Region.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKqnVMYWhw

He was fired for asking the Bush administration to take the August 6th memo seriously.

Proof that she lied lets see President Obama and many of his supporters say that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in his September 12th speech in the Rose Garden a mere one day after the attack yet on the following Sunday Susan Rice goes on all five Sunday talk shows and says it was a protest gone bad in response to a video that is either lying or stupidity take your pick. I go with lying because as much as I disagree with this Presidents policies and agenda he has not surrounded himself with stupid people.

He did call it terrorism; everyone knows that.

And the Following Sunday Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows and said it was in response to the youtube video so if he said it was terrorism on the 12th and she said it wasn't the next Sunday what is that is not lying? Surly your not suggesting she didn't hear the speech on the 12th and not know he called it terrorism which you say everyone knows.

 

[Intense]

Greg Hicks was demoted for speaking out about Benghazi while Susan Rice got promoted for at worst lying about it or at best intentionally misleading the nation about Benghazi.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Sadder still, is those that can't form an ethical opinion until it is determined whether the target's name has an R or D after it.

 

[candycorn]

Proof that she lied lets see President Obama and many of his supporters say that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in his September 12th speech in the Rose Garden a mere one day after the attack yet on the following Sunday Susan Rice goes on all five Sunday talk shows and says it was a protest gone bad in response to a video that is either lying or stupidity take your pick. I go with lying because as much as I disagree with this Presidents policies and agenda he has not surrounded himself with stupid people.

He did call it terrorism; everyone knows that.

And the Following Sunday Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows and said it was in response to the youtube video so if he said it was terrorism on the 12th and she said it wasn't the next Sunday what is that is not lying? Surly your not suggesting she didn't hear the speech on the 12th and not know he called it terrorism which you say everyone knows.

He did call it terrorism. Not sure why you deny that when it's on videotape available from a number of sources and was highlighted during the second Presidential debate,

The causes of the terrorism were not understood or at least, in Susan Rice's case, the administration wasn't willing to convey our true understanding as it appears. As far as I know, the terrorist didn't broadcast their motivations during the attack, were not interviewed during the attack, so the motivations were not abundantly clear in any case.

 

[blackhawk]

He did call it terrorism; everyone knows that.

And the Following Sunday Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows and said it was in response to the youtube video so if he said it was terrorism on the 12th and she said it wasn't the next Sunday what is that is not lying? Surly your not suggesting she didn't hear the speech on the 12th and not know he called it terrorism which you say everyone knows.

He did call it terrorism. Not sure why you deny that when it's on videotape available from a number of sources and was highlighted during the second Presidential debate,

The causes of the terrorism were not understood or at least, in Susan Rice's case, the administration wasn't willing to convey our true understanding as it appears. As far as I know, the terrorist didn't broadcast their motivations during the attack, were not interviewed during the attack, so the motivations were not abundantly clear in any case.

You on the left can just not admit they lied about that lets be clear I have been giving the President the benefit of the doubt on his Rose garden speech this is the main line that speech about him calling it terrorism.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Now I would call that a general statement about terrorism not calling the Benghazi a terrorist attack but if other's feel that is calling Benghazi a terrorist attack so be it that does not change the fact Susan rice went out and said it was a protest in response to a video not terrorism. So either Obama lied when claiming the above was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack or Rice lied when she said the attack was a protest in response to a video that got out of control because the Benghazi attack can not be both a terrorist attack and a protest that went bad.

 

[FJO]

There were several embassy attacks in direct reaction to that video before Bengazi, 20+ after, no one's been caught for Bengazi, but the dupes all "know" it wasn't the video...stupid brainwashed a-holes LOL...

Franco still thinks it was a video.....now THAT is hilarious

francoHFW is actually Baghdad Bob.

 

[candycorn]

And the Following Sunday Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows and said it was in response to the youtube video so if he said it was terrorism on the 12th and she said it wasn't the next Sunday what is that is not lying? Surly your not suggesting she didn't hear the speech on the 12th and not know he called it terrorism which you say everyone knows.

He did call it terrorism. Not sure why you deny that when it's on videotape available from a number of sources and was highlighted during the second Presidential debate,

The causes of the terrorism were not understood or at least, in Susan Rice's case, the administration wasn't willing to convey our true understanding as it appears. As far as I know, the terrorist didn't broadcast their motivations during the attack, were not interviewed during the attack, so the motivations were not abundantly clear in any case.

You on the left can just not admit they lied about that lets be clear I have been giving the President the benefit of the doubt on his Rose garden speech this is the main line that speech about him calling it terrorism.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Now I would call that a general statement about terrorism not calling the Benghazi a terrorist attack but if other's feel that is calling Benghazi a terrorist attack so be it that does not change the fact Susan rice went out and said it was a protest in response to a video not terrorism. So either Obama lied when claiming the above was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack or Rice lied when she said the attack was a protest in response to a video that got out of control because the Benghazi attack can not be both a terrorist attack and a protest that went bad.

Okay, let's say she lied for the sake of argument...

Now what?

 

[blackhawk]

He did call it terrorism. Not sure why you deny that when it's on videotape available from a number of sources and was highlighted during the second Presidential debate,

The causes of the terrorism were not understood or at least, in Susan Rice's case, the administration wasn't willing to convey our true understanding as it appears. As far as I know, the terrorist didn't broadcast their motivations during the attack, were not interviewed during the attack, so the motivations were not abundantly clear in any case.

You on the left can just not admit they lied about that lets be clear I have been giving the President the benefit of the doubt on his Rose garden speech this is the main line that speech about him calling it terrorism.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Now I would call that a general statement about terrorism not calling the Benghazi a terrorist attack but if other's feel that is calling Benghazi a terrorist attack so be it that does not change the fact Susan rice went out and said it was a protest in response to a video not terrorism. So either Obama lied when claiming the above was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack or Rice lied when she said the attack was a protest in response to a video that got out of control because the Benghazi attack can not be both a terrorist attack and a protest that went bad.

Okay, let's say she lied for the sake of argument...

Now what?

Well for one I would not be promoting her you have a President who is losing both trust and credibility with the American people at a pretty good clip this does not help and it continues to increase the distrust people have in government that was pretty high to start with. How serious can you take someone who says people will be held accountable when their idea of holding someone who lied for the sake of argument accountable is to promote them?

 

[Anitabeme]

Do you have proof she lied?

In the late 90s a group of republicans formed under the banner "Project For a New American Century ". [Please google it] Rumsfeld, Chaney and Bolton were part of this group. They lobbied then Pres. Bill Clinton to make regime change in Iraq an official policy of United States government. Clinton agreed.

When the Bush defense team - anchored by Rumsfeld Cheney and Bolton - assumed power in early 2001 they had one goal: remove Hussein and use Iraq to build a larger presence in the Gulf region.

Bush's chief terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, was fired because he asked the Bush administration to focus more on Al Qaeda than regime change in Iraq. Clarke, who was first hired by Reagan, says that he was rebuffed every time he tried to talk about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

The man was fired because he wanted the Bush administration to focus more on terrorism than a pre-planned policy to use Iraq as part of a larger goal to build a larger military presence in the Gulf Region.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKqnVMYWhw

He was fired for asking the Bush administration to take the August 6th memo seriously.

Proof that she lied lets see President Obama and many of his supporters say that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in his September 12th speech in the Rose Garden a mere one day after the attack yet on the following Sunday Susan Rice goes on all five Sunday talk shows and says it was a protest gone bad in response to a video that is either lying or stupidity take your pick. I go with lying because as much as I disagree with this Presidents policies and agenda he has not surrounded himself with stupid people.

He did call it terrorism; everyone knows that.

He said it was an "act of terror".

 

[LoneLaugher]

Brilliant!

 

[candycorn]

You on the left can just not admit they lied about that lets be clear I have been giving the President the benefit of the doubt on his Rose garden speech this is the main line that speech about him calling it terrorism.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Now I would call that a general statement about terrorism not calling the Benghazi a terrorist attack but if other's feel that is calling Benghazi a terrorist attack so be it that does not change the fact Susan rice went out and said it was a protest in response to a video not terrorism. So either Obama lied when claiming the above was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack or Rice lied when she said the attack was a protest in response to a video that got out of control because the Benghazi attack can not be both a terrorist attack and a protest that went bad.

Okay, let's say she lied for the sake of argument...

Now what?

Well for one I would not be promoting her you have a President who is losing both trust and credibility with the American people at a pretty good clip this does not help and it continues to increase the distrust people have in government that was pretty high to start with. How serious can you take someone who says people will be held accountable when their idea of holding someone who lied for the sake of argument accountable is to promote them?

I doubt the President will lose much credibility or trust in appointing Susan Rice.

Condi Rice lied about the capabilities of the Iraqi government--they had no nuclear program at all. Echoing Bush's lie about Yellow Cake uranium in the SOU.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Read more at The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam... - Condoleezza Rice at BrainyQuote

Susan Rice has very small shoes to fill except that Rice said it while being the sitting National Security Advisor and was supposed to know better than most about those capabilities she lied about or, at best, was woefully ignorant of.

PS: She (nor Bush) was held accountable for unabashed lies. The difference is this; Susan Rice was on the TV (for some bizarre reason) a week after the attacks, Bush and Condi Rice had much more time to analyze the Intel. Rice got promoted to the Secretary of State job if memory serves.

As stated earlier, Dr. Condi Rice was an administrator at Stanford before she got the gig. Susan Rice is the Ambassador to the UN. I doubt either one makes you a good candidate for the National Security Advisor. We have dozens of people at CIA would could do a better job than Susan Rice.

Obviously, none of these facts will matter to you; if Obama does it, you oppose it. Am I right?

 

[blackhawk]

Okay, let's say she lied for the sake of argument...

Now what?

Well for one I would not be promoting her you have a President who is losing both trust and credibility with the American people at a pretty good clip this does not help and it continues to increase the distrust people have in government that was pretty high to start with. How serious can you take someone who says people will be held accountable when their idea of holding someone who lied for the sake of argument accountable is to promote them?

I doubt the President will lose much credibility or trust in appointing Susan Rice.

Condi Rice lied about the capabilities of the Iraqi government--they had no nuclear program at all. Echoing Bush's lie about Yellow Cake uranium in the SOU.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Read more at The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam... - Condoleezza Rice at BrainyQuote

Susan Rice has very small shoes to fill except that Rice said it while being the sitting National Security Advisor and was supposed to know better than most about those capabilities she lied about or, at best, was woefully ignorant of.

PS: She (nor Bush) was held accountable for unabashed lies. The difference is this; Susan Rice was on the TV (for some bizarre reason) a week after the attacks, Bush and Condi Rice had much more time to analyze the Intel. Rice got promoted to the Secretary of State job if memory serves.

As stated earlier, Dr. Condi Rice was an administrator at Stanford before she got the gig. Susan Rice is the Ambassador to the UN. I doubt either one makes you a good candidate for the National Security Advisor. We have dozens of people at CIA would could do a better job than Susan Rice.

Obviously, none of these facts will matter to you; if Obama does it, you oppose it. Am I right?

I love how the left keep trying deflect from Obama by going back to Bush almost four and a half years since Bush left office and that is still the left's and your's it seems big justification for every Obama scandal but Bush, but Bush , but Bush. The President was already losing credibility and trust before promoting Rice I really doubt that will help we will get a real good idea of the effect of Rice Benghazi and the other Obama scandals in next year's midterms. The only question left is will you respond with a new but Bush or just re- post this one?

 

[jknowgood]

Okay, let's say she lied for the sake of argument...

Now what?

Well for one I would not be promoting her you have a President who is losing both trust and credibility with the American people at a pretty good clip this does not help and it continues to increase the distrust people have in government that was pretty high to start with. How serious can you take someone who says people will be held accountable when their idea of holding someone who lied for the sake of argument accountable is to promote them?

I doubt the President will lose much credibility or trust in appointing Susan Rice.

Condi Rice lied about the capabilities of the Iraqi government--they had no nuclear program at all. Echoing Bush's lie about Yellow Cake uranium in the SOU.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Read more at The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam... - Condoleezza Rice at BrainyQuote

Susan Rice has very small shoes to fill except that Rice said it while being the sitting National Security Advisor and was supposed to know better than most about those capabilities she lied about or, at best, was woefully ignorant of.

PS: She (nor Bush) was held accountable for unabashed lies. The difference is this; Susan Rice was on the TV (for some bizarre reason) a week after the attacks, Bush and Condi Rice had much more time to analyze the Intel. Rice got promoted to the Secretary of State job if memory serves.

As stated earlier, Dr. Condi Rice was an administrator at Stanford before she got the gig. Susan Rice is the Ambassador to the UN. I doubt either one makes you a good candidate for the National Security Advisor. We have dozens of people at CIA would could do a better job than Susan Rice.

Obviously, none of these facts will matter to you; if Obama does it, you oppose it. Am I right?

Shhh they wasn't held accountable because just about everyone in both houses were saying the samething.

 

[Londoner]

I love how the left keep trying deflect from Obama by going back to Bush almost four and a half years since Bush left office and that is still the left's and your's it seems big justification for every Obama scandal but Bush, but Bush , but Bush. The President was already losing credibility and trust before promoting Rice I really doubt that will help we will get a real good idea of the effect of Rice Benghazi and the other Obama scandals in next year's midterms. The only question left is will you respond with a new but Bush or just re- post this one?

Your side invented the blame game. 9/11 happened under Bush, but you blamed Clinton. The housing meltdown happened under Bush, but you blamed the Dems. Whenever something bad happens, it's because of Liberal policies or values. The Illegal immigrant problem in California is blamed on Liberals, despite Reagan's passage of the largest Amnesty Bill in this nation's history. You have been blaming the Left for everything for ages. Meanwhile Bush can't be held responsible for anything, including things that happened on his watch.

 

[blackhawk]

I love how the left keep trying deflect from Obama by going back to Bush almost four and a half years since Bush left office and that is still the left's and your's it seems big justification for every Obama scandal but Bush, but Bush , but Bush. The President was already losing credibility and trust before promoting Rice I really doubt that will help we will get a real good idea of the effect of Rice Benghazi and the other Obama scandals in next year's midterms. The only question left is will you respond with a new but Bush or just re- post this one?

Your side invented the blame game. 9/11 happened under Bush, but you blamed Clinton. The housing meltdown happened under Bush, but you blamed the Dems. Whenever something bad happens, it's because of Liberal policies or values. The Illegal immigrant problem in California is blamed on Liberals, despite Reagan's passage of the largest Amnesty Bill in this nation's history. You have been blaming the Left for everything for ages. Meanwhile Bush can't be held responsible for anything, including things that happened on his watch.

Benghazi didn't happen on Bush's watch as for 9-11 the only thing I ever blamed Clinton for was the weak action he took for the multiple attacks that did happen on his watch many of the policies that lead to the housing meltdown were put in place before Bush took office he does share part blame for continuing them the liberals get part blame for the illegal immigrant problem for the same reason Bush does for the housing meltdown continuing the policy. Now what if anything are willing to hold Obama responsible for on his watch?

 

[Trajan]

Susan Rice told no lies. She misled nobody.

Admit your mistakes, nutters.

lies, ok, she could have been in the dark, its 'possible'...I hardly think this is a win for Barry though, its payback, yea and it is in the words of Dana Milbank, a bunker mentality as well......

 

[LoneLaugher]

Susan Rice told no lies. She misled nobody.

Admit your mistakes, nutters.

lies, ok, she could have been in the dark, its 'possible'...I hardly think this is a win for Barry though, its payback, yea and it is in the words of Dana Milbank, a bunker mentality as well......

The release of the emails completely exonerated her. Those Senators and Congressmen/women who publicly maligned her character ought to retract their statements and express support for her new appointment.

Fucking McCain actually said that she was "not so bright". This woman is nothing if she is not bright.

A win for Barry? Man............the thought processes that you people display sometimes startles me.

 

[Katzndogz]

Susan Rice was promoted primarily to put her beyond the reach of Congressional subpena power.

She is a liar and an incompetent.
She did a terrible job as UN ambassador.

Susan Rice's miserable record at the UN | Fox News

She was promoted because the "good" job she can do is limited to keeping obama's secrets. Like the clandestine war on America that was just exposed.