I should come down and consume some Heady Topper. Let the haters pout today. I'm suprised someone hasn't jumped on a Liberal Thanksgiving plot today.

Where is Mitt anyway

Spence, here is one analysis of Rice's tenure as US Ambassador to the UN...written by Richard Grenell, who served as the spokesman for no less than four US Ambassadors to the UN. Enjoy the reading...

"Susan Rice's miserable record at the UN...

Most reporters haven’t been following Ambassador Susan Rice’s performance at the United Nations since her appointment in January 2009. To many journalists, Rice’s misleading interviews on the five Sunday Shows the weekend after the 9/11/12 terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were one of the first times they had heard from her. To veteran foreign policy observers, Rice’s shameful performance that Sunday was one of many blunders over the last four years.

Rice’s refusal to answer questions about why she blamed the Benghazi violence on a YouTube video was met Wednesday with a feisty defense from President Obama saying don’t blame Rice because the White House sent her out to do the Sunday shows. The “stop picking on Susan” retort from the president looked like a big brother defending his little sister on the playground. It was an odd moment for a woman wanting to be America’s top diplomat.

Obama’s spirited warnings to Republicans to leave Rice alone appeared to be a sign that the White House is shielding Rice from answering further questions about her performance.

The case against Susan Rice has been building for years with little fanfare. Not surprising, the mainstream media reporters based at the UN have either ignored her mistakes or strategically covered them up.

The Washington Post’s UN reporter Colum Lynch even wrote a glowing profile of Rice on September 23 – a week after her Sunday shows debacle – where he didn’t mention the Libya controversy until the 13th paragraph (a Washington Post staffer told me that editors had to add language about the Libya controversy to the piece).

Rice’s diplomatic failures and silence in the face of outrageous UN antics have given the United States pathetic representation among the 193 members of the world body. UN members, not surprisingly, prefer a weak opponent. Rice is therefore popular with her colleagues. It may explain why she ignored Syria’s growing problems for months.

Speaking out and challenging the status quo is seldom cheered at the UN. Her slow and timid response left the United States at the mercy of Russia and China, who ultimately vetoed a watered down resolution an unprecedented three times.

Ironically, Rice was very critical of the US’s performance at the UN under President George W. Bush and vowed to build better relationships with every country. In her current stump speech Rice claims with a straight face that her goal has been accomplished, “We’ve repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We’ve ended needless American isolation on a wide range of issues. And as a consequence, we've gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.”

Rice has been consistently silent on other important issues and ineffective when she does engage. She skipped Security Council meetings when Israel needed defending and even failed to show up for the emergency session on the Gaza Flotilla incident.

Rice didn’t even show up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab Spring revolution last year. Rice stayed silent when Iran was elected to the U.N. women’s committee, she didn’t call out Libya when it was elected to the Human Rights Council, she was absent from the Haiti crisis meeting and was a no-show for the last open meeting scheduled before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood. When she actually does show up, she is a miserable failure.

Take the crucial issue of Iran. Rice spent the last several years undermining and grumbling about the Bush administration’s increasingly tough measures but has only been able to pass one resolution of her own – compared with the Bush team’s five.

Rice’s one and only Iran resolution was almost 30 months ago. And it passed with just 12 votes of support – the least support we have ever seen for a Security Council sanctions resolution on Iran. In fact, Rice lost more support with her one resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined. She may claim she has repaired relationships with other countries but the evidence shows she’s gotten less support than the team she ridicules.

Whether the issue is Sudan, Egypt, North Korea, Israel or Rwanda, Rice has been either missing in action or unable to deliver a quick and effective resolution.

The Rice record at the UN speaks for itself. Anyone looking objectively at what she has or hasn’t accomplished during her tenure will deduce she has failed to convince UN members to support US priority issues. Nominating Susan Rice for Secretary of State is a mistake not just because of her Sunday show deceptions but because her tenure as America’s representative to the UN has been unworthy of a promotion"

Spence, if the information here is accurate, it seems to be at odds with your declaration that she has had a rather stellar career.

That's the best you could come up with?

How was Obama being "pressed"? It was town hall debate, and the man asked a simple question. That's not being 'pressed', is it? God knows the moderator wasn't going to 'press' Obama.

Obama did not tell the gentleman, "gee, I know the answer to that question, but I can't answer because of an internal investigation". Spence, if that's the case, i agree it's a valid answer. But it's not what Obama said. You're going to greater lengths to excuse him, than he himself did. Can you appreciate that?

It's been 11 weeks, and we have no answers.

Spence that was weak...

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:...that was funny:)

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

Answer - of course not.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

it is an odd obsession of his :)

And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).

Wow. A discussion about Susan Rice's possible appointment has devolved into the predictable Bush did it too or did it worse or just did it. Who woulda thunk.

The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.

KSM was charged with terrorism.

Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.

Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

Another thing I was thankful for on Thanksgiving...Not Spending any time in the Political Forum......:hee:

"KSM was charged with terrorism."

But why? If charging someone with terrorism makes it harder to convict them (compared to just charging them with murder), WHY charge KSM with terrirism?

"Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?"

Sure I have.

I posted Obama's dodge from the debate. You said Obama coukdn't answer, because of an ongoing investigation. Spence, did you even read Obama's response? Please show us where in that response, Obama said he couldn't answer because it might jeopardize an investigation?

"half baked conspiracy theory?"

Spence, is it a half-baked conspiracy theory that Stevens asked for extra security, and was denied? Am I making that up? Is that a Foxnews, right-wing conspiracy?

That's the most troubling part of this. And when Obama was asked about it at the debate, he absolutely misled America with his answer. You won't admit that, because you cannot admit that Obama would do something so sleazy. But the proof is right there in the transcript. You said Obama never misled anyone, but we have physical proof that he did.

"I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack "

So do I. And if you read this thread, you'll see that it was Likwid who brought that up, not me.

"It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq "

Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?

It shows the hipocrisy.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971138
Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?[/QUOTE]

R. Clark said from day 1 Pres. Bush was saying - it's Iraq, we have to go after Iraq. They all voted on the evidence that was shown to them by the admin. If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?

I guess he wanted to finish what his father didn't do - get Hussain out of Iraq.

Are you suggesting that Jim in CT in order to discuss what he feels are reasons that Rice should not be made Secretary of State, has also to point out that Bush had supposedly done something similar or else he's being hypocritical? This would lead to over-lengthy awkward conversations where every speaker back and forth had to inject other previous examples to whatever he says everytime he says something. The discussion might dwell a long time on each speaker going back to point out other examples of previous Presidents and their SecStates before getting to the discussion at hand. Anyway, in most cases, those previous "problems" were already discussed at the time they occurred. Must they be rehashed over and over every time a new case is discussed or else it shows hypocrisy? Not to mention that Jim doesn't even equate the two circumstances so to him it is not hypocrisy. That would be you labeling him, as you do everytime you want to point out his supposed hypocrisy and labeling. Was it hypocritical of you to point out what you think Bush did to get us to invade Iraq, but did not point out how other presidents, including Democrats, manipulated us into war?

Or is this just a way to change the topic?

It shows the hypocrisy of criticizing the actions of a president while ignoring the actions of the only person(s) you can compare those actions to - previous presidents.

If someone doesn't want to discuss previous examples, they don't have to. If you want to bring up other pres, go right ahead. John will allow it. I didn't see any rules against it. I never realized you didn't like "over-lenghly awkward conversations".

Did I say I didn't like them? Hey, nice going though. In your own judgmental way you've managed to steer the conversation off of Rice. EEEK--I've let myself get caught up in another PaulS poo-poo. I apologize to all for extending this non-sense.

" If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?"

If Bush intenionally misled them, no one would condone that. Least of all me. But those people who say Bush made stuff up to finish what his father started, are about as rational as those who say Obama is a Muslim. Kooks on both sides. Obviously you have thrown your hat in with one of those groups, because to you, it's OK to falsely accuse the President of treason, presumably as long as the President is white and conservative. I don't know what other motive you have for making up jibberish about Bush. We don't need to make up stuff about Obama, there's more than enough real krazy stuff to point bring up.

Paul, you are now a psychatriast, you can read Bush's mind, and you know that he "wanted" to go to war.

I have never heard Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, claim that they were duped. I guess you have more insode scoop than they do. If they're not saying it, I can't imagine why you are claiming it.

Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton both said that they were sure Iraq had WMDs. They get a pass. That's not hypocrisy, Paul?

You asked why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war. I told you a possible reason. Clark stated that right from the beginning he was saying that it was Iraq who was responsible for 9/11 - that is not reading his mind.

Paul, John Kerry says he was misled, and that's it? He says it, so it's true?

I can find kooks who say Obama is a Muslim. Does that make it true?

I can find kooks who say 09/11 was an inside job. Does that make it true?

PaulS, if Bush willfully misled the Senate into voting for the war, I have one simple question for you. Why wasn't Bush impeached when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006?

Here's another...if Bush "wanted" to go to war, why did he give Saddam Hussein so many chances to avoid war? If Hussein had agreed to the terms of the UN resolution, the war would not have happened. The Bush administration gave Hussein several chances to comply. If Bush "wanted" to go to war, why give Hussein so many chances to avoid war?

Funny. One minute Bush is a dumb hick, right off the set of 'Hee Haw'. The next minute, he's a real-life Jack Bauer who manufactures evidence to fool almost the entire Senate, and he does it in such a way, that they cannot touch him for it. That's one sharp cookie.

Even Spence said, in this thread, that there is no evidence that Bush intentionally misled anyone. That's a pretty good indicator.

Paul, the Senate was not misled. They looked at the evidence, and made the wrong conclusion. That their conclusion was wrong, does not mean it was unethical. If Hussein repeatedly kicks out weapons inspectors, it's not lunacy to conclude that he's hiding something. It's that simple.

Did George Bush mislead Bill Clinton, who said several times that he believed Hussein had WMDs?

you should read his posts...ignore(ance) is bliss, you might learn something...I read yours, can't say I've learned much from them because most of them are just rehashed talking points and insults, you do seem very cranky and you just say the same things over and over.... you never have anything nice to say either, try being nice :)

Thanks ScottW for the original thought (at least it wasn't the usual unattributed cut and paste). I'll have to go back and reread all your posts to see how someone who so frequently argues w/people and makes prob. more snarky and snide comments than anyone else here thinks others are cranky. :rotf2:

"Rehashed talking points" - from the king of the cut and paste?? That is funny:biglaugh:

dfsafa

that was predictable :uhuh:

and your predictible:biglaugh:

Please don't get this thread closed, I have a few responses I'm behind on.

-spence

and a whole bunch that you just completely skipped, should we make a list for a homework assignment for you? :)

please listen to Spence, I'm always interested in what he has to say....and check your spelling..."and" was correct...1 out of 3

Paul, so now you are qualified to speculate on why they didn't impeach Bush.

They didn't impeach Bush, because he (unlike Bill Clinton) didn't commit an impeachable offense.

Yes, there were a lot of folks who wanted him impeached. Mouth-breathing, unquestioning, morinic simpletons, who believe everythiyng they hear when it comes from those who despise Bush.

Bush was wrong (as were a whole lot of Democrats in the senate, and Bill and Hilary Clinton, as well as the democrats' new hero, Colin Powell). Being wrong, is not the same as lying. If it were, you would be a textbook compulsive liar. Because yu are wrong almost every time.

Paul, let's see the evidence that Bush knowingly manufactured false evidence, without which the Senate would not have voted for war. You made that accusation, so please either back it up, or admit that it's about as valid a theory as saying Obama is a Muslim (which would be less disturbing that Obama's true religion, Black Liberation Theology)

Here's what happened. Many of the Dems in the Senate voted for the war because, like Bush, they believed there were probably WMDs. When there weren't, and when the war became very unpopular, those same Dems had to distance themselves from the now-unpopular war. The easiest way to do it? Blame Bush. That's how it all started, that was Ground Zero for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Paul, what do you think of US senators who lied about why they voted for the war, simply because public sentiment changed? Those flip-floppers are the ones who lied. Because they know they weren't 'duped'. But unlike Bush, most of them don't have the integrity to say "I made a mistake".

If there was any evidence that Bush lied, that 2006 Congress would have impeached him in a nanosecond. They hated Bush, because Bush beat them like a dog. That 2006 congress ( a huge victory for the dems) was elected with one mandate - get us the hell out of Iraq. And not only did Bush prevent them from getting out of Iraq, he forced them to go along with the Surge, which they said was doomed to fail, yet it worked like a charm. They had colossal egg on their faces, they got completely destroyed by the dumb hick Bush. They hated him for it, and they still hate him for it.

There's no way they would have decided not to impeach him, if they had a chance of doing so.

oh brother...Spence, quick, say something about Susan Rice.....

I'll say somehting about her...she's precisely what I would expect from Obama, an incompetent liar who is invulnerable to criticism. She is invulnerable to criticism, because anyone who dares to criticize her is either a sexist or as racist. This is, of course, happening already. And when you flat-out accuse a titanic hero like John McCain of being a racist, you are revealing how pathetic you truly are.

And I love Obama's Rambo impression at the press conference (you wanna come after her, then you better come after ME!"). very dignified and presidential.

I hope she gets confirmed, i hope the GOP just lets him do everytihng he wants to do, so that the collapse will be that much more spectacular and undeniable in root cause.

don't know about all of that but Obama did win and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and McCain can't complain about anything as he's a panderer extraordinaire, the same people that will pat him on the back and extoll the virtues of the "maverick" when he's being "reasonable" will viciously attack him at the first opportunity on something like this and call him a racist, shouldn't surprise anyone, there are many things that are currently unavoidable....4 more years of Obama is one, further implementation of Obamacare is another(although, I just read an article in The Hill detailing the many issues they're having setting up the exchanges which will cause major problems)....a day of reckoning is coming regarding Federal spending and they can't increase taxes enough to keep up with spending and there is no will to reduce spending and more Americans seem to become dependant on government with each passing day, I think many Americans have "checked out" in many ways.....there are unavoidable problems abroad both economically and militarily which will compound problems here....Obama has not only fundamentally changed America, he's effectively divided it and will continue to because that is the key to his success, with the majority of the media acting as a propoganda machine for him the Republicans only play into his hand when they oppose him on something like this.....

"call him (McCain) a racist, shouldn't surprise anyone"

First, we shouldn't be surprised by it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be appalled by it. Second, I bet it comes as surprise to his adopted daughter, who isn't white.

Predictable - you can't help yourself:rotf2:

You're a joke. You ask why he wasn't impeached and then when I give you why I thought he wasn't, you insult me. Just as before when you state Kerry never said he was mislead. I copy a quote where he said he was and then you say it wasn't true. You ask me why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war and I told you why I thought and what R. Clark said and again you insult me.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

Take a step back gentlemen....or we will tuck this one away in the archives. :hee:

lets keep it civil....

Paul, I asked why he wasn't impeached. You didn't know the answer, so you invented a hypothetical that supported your previous (also false) conclusion that Bush clearly committed an impeachable offense.

You did indeed show a quote where Kerry said he was duped, and I credit you for that. Although, with no evidence, that seems about as valid a claim as Trump claiming that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

"If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question"

You're making up answers out of thin air, answers which, shockingly, support your conclusions.

Where is the evidence that Bush intenionally fabricated evidence, without which the Senate would have voted against the war? All of your theories are based on that assumption, that the senate was 'misled'. OK, let's see it.

And situations where Bush's conclusions were wrong, are not the same as intentional deception. I'm sure you agree there's a difference between an honest mistake and a lie.

The notion that Bush lied in order to give him a pretext to invade, just because he wanted to finish what Daddy started, is absurd. When you consider the irrefutable fact that Bush gave Saddam dozens of chances to avoid war by complying with the UN treaties, your entire premise falls apart. If you 'want' war with someone, you don't give them dozens of opportunities to avoid war.

If you want to say (with the benefit of hindsight) that Bush jumped the gun, you can make a compelling case for that. To say that Bush intentionally deceived the US Senate, the UN, and all the other nations that provided troops, is anothe rmatter.

Try not to get another thread shut down if you can, please.

Paul S -

"While there was a popular support for impeaching him I believe that the reason the Dems. didn't was that they saw how the backlash against the Clinton impeachment hurt the Rep"

OK. So the very best you could do, was to speculate that Bush wasn't impeached because the Democrats didn't want to deal with the fallout. Even if that's true (which it's not), you're admitting that the Democrats cared more about getting re-elected than they cared about seeking justice for getting suckered into war. Is that what you think of your Democratic elected officials?

I think most of the threads that get shut down are when people return the anger and hate that you post.

Here are 2 easily found posts that shows he mislead the American public. (The one about curveball is from wikipedia)

In October of 2002, a National Security Estimate summary called a President's Summary, was written specifically for George W. Bush. In that document, Bush was told that despite the buzz that Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

This memo, however, did not stop Bush from announcing, three months later, in the State of the Union speech, that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes in order to build a nuclear weapon. Later that year, when then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley did a review of documents, and discovered the President's Summary, Karl Rove gathered White House aides together and explained that it would look bad if the American people knew that Bush had been advised that the aluminum tubes were probably harmless.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (Arabic: رافد أحمد علوان‎, Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān; born 1968), known by the Central Intelligence Agency cryptonym "Curveball", is an Iraqi citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program.[1] Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the Iraq Survey Group's final report published in 2004.[2][3]

Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service and the British Secret Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory.[1][4] On November 4, 2007, 60 Minutes revealed Curveball's real identity.[5] Former CIA official Tyler Drumheller summed up Curveball as "a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth."[1]

And an interview with Lawrence Wilkerson about curveball

Colin Powell was lied to and ‘manipulated’ into supporting the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

The former Secretary of State was deliberately not told that information he used to make his famous speech justifying the war was bogus, a former colleague claimed.

Instead the George W Bush White House abused his good reputation to give the push for war much-needed credibility.

The claims were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s former chief of staff, in an angry and revealing interview.

He spoke out after the main source for Powell’s report justifying the Iraq invasion which he presented to the UN Security Council in February 2003 admitted he made the whole thing up.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, or ‘Curveball’ as he was known by the CIA, said he let his imagination run wild with claims about Saddam Hussein and that he was doing it just to overthrow the regime.

When he saw Powell relaying the fabricated information to the UN he was stunned.

Speaking to America’s NBC, Wilkerson said he did not believe that when Powell gave his speech - which came just a month before the invasion - he knew the truth.

‘I never heard a single word of doubt expressed about what we were told were four separate sources which proved the existence of mobile biological labs,’ he said.

‘What I’ve found out since makes me very angry.

An Iraqi defector, codenamed Curveball, left, says he lied about Saddam Hussein's bioweapons programme in order to encourage the United States to declare war and topple the dictator.

‘I cannot come to any other conclusion that we were flat out lied to, especially when I have discovered that no U.S. people were present when Curveball was interrogated.

‘I have some serious doubts, I think there was some manipulation of this material and some outright lying.’ Asked if the office of former Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney manipulated Powell into giving a speech, he replied: ‘Absolutely. Absolutely.’ He added that Colin Powell had the credibility that none of the others had because he was a war sceptic surrounded by hawks.

‘The were using him,’ Wilkerson said.

Powell has said that he wants to know why the doubts about Curveball were not raised before he gave his speech, which was seen as a crucial factor in persuading other countries to support the invasion.

But Wilkerson said that in the end even if Powell did know it would have made little difference.

‘Had Curveball not even existed we still would have gone to war because George W Bush and #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney were determined to do so,’ he said.