Thank god for Susan rice

[jwoodie]

Congratulations to Susan Rice! Thank you, President Obama, for showing wingnuts who is really in charge of the country! Susan Rice was a great choice for National Security Adviser!

Too bad she wasn't National Security Adviser prior to 9/11 instead of Condi Rice.

I am beginning to think that you are really a conservative who makes liberals look like idiots.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are you going for King of the Non-Sequitur? Waht difference does it make how Rice was confirmed in 2009? Now she has a record. And that record is one of incompetence, arrogance, and lying. This makes her perfect for the Obama Administration. No wonder he wanted her as SecState.

She had a record prior to being our UN ambassador. She is a victim of the New Reactionary Republican Party.

Her poor performance and arrogance is not the result of the GOP. Her decision to lie for the administration on national TV was not caused by the GOP.

Is there ever anything that Democrats will take responsibility for?

The decision to go after her and falsely accuse her of lying for using the approved media talking points was made by the New Reactionary Republican Party. That folks like you parrot their false accusations is in no way surprising.

 

[JoeBlam]

I wonder if the US Military has protocols for ignoring the President if he gets catastrophic national security advice?

Short of the Pentagon declaring martial law and putting the occupants of the White House under arrest, the answer is no. Legal orders must be followed regarless of how wrong you know them to be. I been on the tip of the spear and can tell you it ain't pretty what was done in that era in the name of the United States of America.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

She had a record prior to being our UN ambassador. She is a victim of the New Reactionary Republican Party.

Her poor performance and arrogance is not the result of the GOP. Her decision to lie for the administration on national TV was not caused by the GOP.

Is there ever anything that Democrats will take responsibility for?

The decision to go after her and falsely accuse here of lying for using the approved media talking points was made by the New Reactionary Republican Party. That folks like you parrot their false accusations is in no way surprising.

We now know the approved media talking points were scrubbed 12 times of all accurate information. It seems the only defense of Rice is that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course she lied.

She went out on every talk show and said the attack was in retaliation for a fucking U-Tube video. She knew all along, via the CIA, that it was an attack by AQ.

This is about Barry, his administration and Behghazi. Not 9-11, the Iraq war or any other POTUS.
Get real. Everytime someone criticizes your hero you start in with your deflection bs. You drag Bush and the kitchen sink in to deflect. Good Gawd. Barry and his administration fucked up big time and you just don't want to admit it.

Barry could care less about four dead men. He jetted off to his fundraiser. Hardly the actions of a POTUS fully involved in an attack on his Embassy and the death of HIS amabassador and three other very good men. He's a fucking jackass.

No lie at all.

"First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. "

September 16: Benjamin Netanyahu, Susan Rice, Keith Ellison, Peter King, Bob Woodward, Jeffrey Goldberg, Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts | NBC News

Hell. The CIA had men right there. Woods worked for the CIA. Ya don't think he didn't let em know who was attacking?? There was no demonstration. It was a straightup attack.

They said it was AQ from the get go. No one, except Rice and the administration, mentioined anything about a video.

They had months of warnings about this attack and it coincided with 9-11. Thats what it was about. Not some damned video.

So the violence that raged across the ME over the video for a week killing 50 was just a cover so an AG affiliated group in Libya could strike us in Benghazi?

There were several reports claiming that the attack on the Consulate was in retaliation for the Video.

Administrations develop and disseminate media talking points that do not contain all the information available to them all the time. Why the sudden outcry? Sour apples? Upcoming elections? It really sets a unique precedent for future administrations. Do you think the Bush administrations' talking points on how Iraq was rebuilding it's WMD program contained all we knew at the time or just the cherry picked stuff that helped bolster the case for intervention?

 

[NLT]

Susan Rice is a angry black bitch racist just like Moochelle, obama likes his women that way.

 

[Sallow]

Are you going for King of the Non-Sequitur? Waht difference does it make how Rice was confirmed in 2009? Now she has a record. And that record is one of incompetence, arrogance, and lying. This makes her perfect for the Obama Administration. No wonder he wanted her as SecState.

She had a record prior to being our UN ambassador. She is a victim of the New Reactionary Republican Party.

Her poor performance and arrogance is not the result of the GOP. Her decision to lie for the administration on national TV was not caused by the GOP.

Is there ever anything that Democrats will take responsibility for?

She never had a poor performance.

That's a load of bullshit larded on by conservatives.

The same with the despicable charge that Obama "murdered" the men killed by militants.

No such charge was made against Bush by elected Democratic officials when some 3000 Americans were killed on US soil by terrorists who somehow managed to evade the most powerful and expensive military in the world to attack the most famous American city.

 

[NLT]

QUOTE=Lakhota;7336920]Congratulations to Susan Rice! Thank you, President Obama, for showing wingnuts who is really in charge of the country! Susan Rice was a great choice for National Security Adviser!

Too bad she wasn't National Security Adviser prior to 9/11 instead of Condi Rice.[/QUOTE]

 

[BlindBoo]

Her poor performance and arrogance is not the result of the GOP. Her decision to lie for the administration on national TV was not caused by the GOP.

Is there ever anything that Democrats will take responsibility for?

The decision to go after her and falsely accuse here of lying for using the approved media talking points was made by the New Reactionary Republican Party. That folks like you parrot their false accusations is in no way surprising.

We now know the approved media talking points were scrubbed 12 times of all accurate information. It seems the only defense of Rice is that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Simplistic in nature and reactionary. Perfect for the New Reactionary Republican Party.

 

[Sallow]

Her poor performance and arrogance is not the result of the GOP. Her decision to lie for the administration on national TV was not caused by the GOP.

Is there ever anything that Democrats will take responsibility for?

The decision to go after her and falsely accuse here of lying for using the approved media talking points was made by the New Reactionary Republican Party. That folks like you parrot their false accusations is in no way surprising.

We now know the approved media talking points were scrubbed 12 times of all accurate information. It seems the only defense of Rice is that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

Actually no.

We don't all "know" that.

We weren't in the room.

What we do know is that there may have been a turf war between the CIA and the state department.

And we also know that various law enforcement agencies were worried about compromising the investigation by putting out to much information.

We also know that it was corrected after 3 days.

How long did it take to correct the "incorrect" information about Iraq?

Huh?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The decision to go after her and falsely accuse here of lying for using the approved media talking points was made by the New Reactionary Republican Party. That folks like you parrot their false accusations is in no way surprising.

We now know the approved media talking points were scrubbed 12 times of all accurate information. It seems the only defense of Rice is that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Simplistic in nature and reactionary. Perfect for the New Reactionary Republican Party.

I'm not sure the word "opinion" means what you think it means.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The decision to go after her and falsely accuse here of lying for using the approved media talking points was made by the New Reactionary Republican Party. That folks like you parrot their false accusations is in no way surprising.

We now know the approved media talking points were scrubbed 12 times of all accurate information. It seems the only defense of Rice is that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

Actually no.

We don't all "know" that.

We weren't in the room.

What we do know is that there may have been a turf war between the CIA and the state department.

And we also know that various law enforcement agencies were worried about compromising the investigation by putting out to much information.

We also know that it was corrected after 3 days.

How long did it take to correct the "incorrect" information about Iraq?

Huh?

Let me rephrase, people who read and follow politics know that the media talking points were scrubbed 12 times. The reason for the scrubbing could be considered an opinion but not the fact that it was scrubbed.

"How long did it take to correct the "incorrect" information about Iraq?". Are you suggesting it's ok to lie to the american people because you think Bush lied to the american people? Because you think Bush lied to the american people then it's ok for other presidents and their subordinates to lie? Is this really the corrupt mentality we are forced to endure as a way to defend the indefensible?

 

[Claudette]

No lie at all.

"First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. "

September 16: Benjamin Netanyahu, Susan Rice, Keith Ellison, Peter King, Bob Woodward, Jeffrey Goldberg, Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts | NBC News

Hell. The CIA had men right there. Woods worked for the CIA. Ya don't think he didn't let em know who was attacking?? There was no demonstration. It was a straightup attack.

They said it was AQ from the get go. No one, except Rice and the administration, mentioined anything about a video.

They had months of warnings about this attack and it coincided with 9-11. Thats what it was about. Not some damned video.

So the violence that raged across the ME over the video for a week killing 50 was just a cover so an AG affiliated group in Libya could strike us in Benghazi?

There were several reports claiming that the attack on the Consulate was in retaliation for the Video.

Administrations develop and disseminate media talking points that do not contain all the information available to them all the time. Why the sudden outcry? Sour apples? Upcoming elections? It really sets a unique precedent for future administrations. Do you think the Bush administrations' talking points on how Iraq was rebuilding it's WMD program contained all we knew at the time or just the cherry picked stuff that helped bolster the case for intervention?

Cherry picking my ass and the discussion is about Barry's administration and Benghazi. Not Bush. Another deflection. Good Gawd. Anything so you don't have to admitt what a clusterfuck Barry's State Department made of Benghazi. How four very good men died because of the incompetance of that State Department..

There was no demonstration. Not in Benghazi. It was a straightup attack behind months of warnings. They attacked on 9-11. Hulloo.

The CIA knew it was AQ from the getgo and didn't have anything to do with a fucking video.

 

[whitehall]

Barry Hussein may have thought that he was pulling a fast one by deflectimg attention away from the other phone tapping and IRS scandals but it might backfire when Benghazi is brought back into focus during the confirmation hearing. You almost gotta laugh at the efforts of the administration to camouflage one scandal with another and defending their position by pleading incompetence.

 

[BlindBoo]

We now know the approved media talking points were scrubbed 12 times of all accurate information. It seems the only defense of Rice is that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Simplistic in nature and reactionary. Perfect for the New Reactionary Republican Party.

I'm not sure the word "opinion" means what you think it means.

Well since your first sentence was basically a well used parroted lie, as the points went through several revisions and only scrubbed of a few particular pieces of information. In the second sentence your opinion of Ambassador Rice came across loud and clear that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

The difference in the reaction to the 9-11-2001 attacks and the 9-11 Benghazi attack is stunning. In 2001 Democrats and Republicans came together and asked what can we do to help. In 2012 all the Republicans could think of is how can we hurt President Obama's chances for re-election! Even as the full extent of the anti-American demonstrations, riots, and attacks were not yet known, the Republican candidate was using the attacks to launch political attacks on the President.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hell. The CIA had men right there. Woods worked for the CIA. Ya don't think he didn't let em know who was attacking?? There was no demonstration. It was a straightup attack.

They said it was AQ from the get go. No one, except Rice and the administration, mentioined anything about a video.

They had months of warnings about this attack and it coincided with 9-11. Thats what it was about. Not some damned video.

So the violence that raged across the ME over the video for a week killing 50 was just a cover so an AG affiliated group in Libya could strike us in Benghazi?

There were several reports claiming that the attack on the Consulate was in retaliation for the Video.

Administrations develop and disseminate media talking points that do not contain all the information available to them all the time. Why the sudden outcry? Sour apples? Upcoming elections? It really sets a unique precedent for future administrations. Do you think the Bush administrations' talking points on how Iraq was rebuilding it's WMD program contained all we knew at the time or just the cherry picked stuff that helped bolster the case for intervention?

Cherry picking my ass and the discussion is about Barry's administration and Benghazi. Not Bush. Another deflection. Good Gawd. Anything so you don't have to admitt what a clusterfuck Barry's State Department made of Benghazi. How four very good men died because of the incompetance of that State Department..

There was no demonstration. Not in Benghazi. It was a straightup attack behind months of warnings. They attacked on 9-11. Hulloo.

The CIA knew it was AQ from the getgo and didn't have anything to do with a fucking video.

You're in your own little world. Susan Rice and the use of media talking points past and present is what I was discussing. Cherry picking your ass I'll leave to some other brave soul.

 

[blackhawk]

Watching the left try so desperately to defend and rationalize the actions of Rice, Holder, the I.R.S. and the Obama administrations handling of all this is funny as holy hell.

 

[Claudette]

So the violence that raged across the ME over the video for a week killing 50 was just a cover so an AG affiliated group in Libya could strike us in Benghazi?

There were several reports claiming that the attack on the Consulate was in retaliation for the Video.

Administrations develop and disseminate media talking points that do not contain all the information available to them all the time. Why the sudden outcry? Sour apples? Upcoming elections? It really sets a unique precedent for future administrations. Do you think the Bush administrations' talking points on how Iraq was rebuilding it's WMD program contained all we knew at the time or just the cherry picked stuff that helped bolster the case for intervention?

Cherry picking my ass and the discussion is about Barry's administration and Benghazi. Not Bush. Another deflection. Good Gawd. Anything so you don't have to admitt what a clusterfuck Barry's State Department made of Benghazi. How four very good men died because of the incompetance of that State Department..

There was no demonstration. Not in Benghazi. It was a straightup attack behind months of warnings. They attacked on 9-11. Hulloo.

The CIA knew it was AQ from the getgo and didn't have anything to do with a fucking video.

You're in your own little world. Susan Rice and the use of media talking points past and present is what I was discussing. Cherry picking your ass I'll leave to some other brave soul.

Rice used her own talking points dictated by the administration.

Jesus your blind. I guess you just can't admitt what a clusterfuck the Obama State Department made of Benghazi.

I'll leave you to some other brave soul.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Simplistic in nature and reactionary. Perfect for the New Reactionary Republican Party.

I'm not sure the word "opinion" means what you think it means.

Well since your first sentence was basically a well used parroted lie, as the points went through several revisions and only scrubbed of a few particular pieces of information. In the second sentence your opinion of Ambassador Rice came across loud and clear that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

The difference in the reaction to the 9-11-2001 attacks and the 9-11 Benghazi attack is stunning. In 2001 Democrats and Republicans came together and asked what can we do to help. In 2012 all the Republicans could think of is how can we hurt President Obama's chances for re-election! Even as the full extent of the anti-American demonstrations, riots, and attacks were not yet known, the Republican candidate was using the attacks to launch political attacks on the President.

The points were scrubbed 12 times. This is not a debatable point. One can debate on why the points were scrubbed but not the fact that they were scrubbed 12 times. When the spokesman for Obama, Jay Carney, said there was only one tiny little change made in the talking points, he was either lying or he is a blithering idiot. Since Obama did not correct Carney then Obama is either manipulating a lie or a blithering idiot. I find it odd that I have more confidence in the intelligence of Obama and Rice and Carney than you do. You simply believe them to be morons. I give them more credit.
You say that the full extent of the anti-American demonstrations, riots, and attacks were not yet known". They were known however. Hence all the scrubbing from the original talking points. The evidence of who attacked Benghazi was available about an hour or so after the attack. This is evidenced by all the scrubbing of who actually attacked Benghazi.
You also point out that the Republican candidate was using the attacks to launch political attacks on the president. Why did you leave out the fact that the Republican candidate was right? Why do facts and evidence have no meaning for you?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure the word "opinion" means what you think it means.

Well since your first sentence was basically a well used parroted lie, as the points went through several revisions and only scrubbed of a few particular pieces of information. In the second sentence your opinion of Ambassador Rice came across loud and clear that she is an easily used blithering idiot.

The difference in the reaction to the 9-11-2001 attacks and the 9-11 Benghazi attack is stunning. In 2001 Democrats and Republicans came together and asked what can we do to help. In 2012 all the Republicans could think of is how can we hurt President Obama's chances for re-election! Even as the full extent of the anti-American demonstrations, riots, and attacks were not yet known, the Republican candidate was using the attacks to launch political attacks on the President.

The points were scrubbed 12 times. This is not a debatable point. One can debate on why the points were scrubbed but not the fact that they were scrubbed 12 times. When the spokesman for Obama, Jay Carney, said there was only one tiny little change made in the talking points, he was either lying or he is a blithering idiot. Since Obama did not correct Carney then Obama is either manipulating a lie or an blithering idiot. I find it odd that I have more confidence in the intelligence of Obama and Rice and Carney than you do. You simply believe them to be morons. I give them more credit.
You say that the full extent of the anti-American demonstrations, riots, and attacks were not yet known". They were known however. Hence all the scrubbing from the original talking points. The evidence of who attacked Benghazi was available about an hour or so after the attack. This is evidenced by all the scrubbing of who actually attacked Benghazi.
You also point out that the Republican candidate was using the attacks to launch political attacks on the president. Why did you leave out the fact that the Republican candidate was right? Why do facts and evidence have no meaning for you?

No, see. You dont get it. When you say "the talking points were scrubbed" that's a lie according to the Left. Did Obama personally take a scouring pad and cleanser to the paper? No? Ok, then they weren't scrubbed.
See how easy that is?

Yes, that arrogant incompetent bitch Rice lied her ass off on TV, knowing it was a lie. Her confirmation as SecState came to a grinding halt. This position is her reward for remaining loyal in the face of truth. Sorry if the Left cannot accept that. No spin, no "BOOSH", no "they all do it", no "Sept was a long time ago" can change any of that. Live with it.