Susan Rice new Secretary of State?
 

YouTube

Yep she is who I want representing our interests globally.

Yeah, she will end of in the middle of the quagmire too.

She has that bed time story telling type voice that the left seems to respond well to. "Thats not thunder....there is nothing to be afraid of they are just bowling in heaven" type.

It's interesting...

She has a really impressive resume.

The recent reporting and testimony appears to dissolve the conspiracy theory that she was either uninformed or intentionally misleading the American people.

Jack, were you going to revise your post?

-spence

Hadn't seen the recent testimony? Thanks for the info.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right, the most recent spin is that she was misinformed and was sent out to mislead the American people unintentionally, this would suggest that the Administration at the highest levels didn't vet the information that Rice was provided with and sent to the Sunday shows to disseminate...not likely...the Senate Repubs should not oppose her....it's Obama's choice as far as I'm concerned, it will save them from being called racists and woman haters, which apparently has already begun in this regard as business as usual,


this reminds me of a David Cicciline quote form the election "it was never my intent to mislead anyone intentionally"

that was a beauty:uhuh:

Actually, the most recent remarks by government officials is that her talking points were approved by the CIA and FBI.

-spence

and we know who they answer to....she was not running out there to spin the story with remarks that were not first throughly vetted by Obama & Co.... not on an issue like this....right before an election...they put a lot of effort into the "video spawned violence" angle...not an accident or oversight or edit....and it follows the narrative of this bunch whenever terrorism erupts, which is, don't call it terrorism and blame something else...there's a pattern:uhuh: I don't blame her, she was just doing what she was told

'She has a really impressive resume."

So did Justice Robert Bjork.

Spence, she said somethinig on 5 national TV shows, that every single fair-minded person, even at that time, knew was a crock. That means either she lied, or she's stupid. No third option.

There has never been, and never will be, a spontaneous riot that involves the use of mortars. One does not just happen to carry them around.

Furthermore, the CIA annex in Benghazi does not have a sign on the front lawn displaying that it's a CIA building. There was OBVIOUSLY some pre-planning involved. Anyone who isn't convinced of that, is too stupid for the job.

Of course, all republican opopsition to her nomination has already been labeled as sexist and racist by your liberal ilk. It's just not comprehensible to the liberals that we want to do better than to have a lying moron as SecState. We already have a SecState who is a lying moron, we don't need two in a row. Because as I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, Hilary claimed that on an overseas trip, she had to DIVE! into the Humvee because of sniper fire at the airport. When video showed that to be a lie, her excuse was that she was tired from the night before.

Republicans made sure Powell had ALL the correct info when he went in front of security council. WMD's totally existed, right.

He had the available intelligence, all of which pointed to the existence of WMDs.

Striperman, it's funny. At that time, very few people doubted that Iraq had WMDs. Everyone saw the same evidence, and the vast majority of folks (including many Democrats in the US Senate) concluded that there were WMDs. Both Bill and Hilary Clinton said that, based on the evidence, Iraq had WMDs. Yet liberals don't hold the Clintons responsible for their error. Can you explain why that is?

Analyzing intelligence isn't always an exact science, and mistakes are made. There is a difference between being incorrect, and being dishinest and/or stupid. When analyzing evidence, yuo can do everything teh right way, and still come to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened in Iraq. That's not what happened in Benghazi. In Benghazi, everyone involved asked for more security, and it seems with good reason (lots of threats). 10 weeks later, we don't know who denied those requests, or why.

If you want to get some facts, look at the Democarts in the US Senate who approved of the invasion - such neocons as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer.

If Bush had that evidence, and ignored it, and it turned out there were WMDs, would history view him more kindly?

Jim, I concur with your reply to striperman36. But let's say that striperman's analogy is not a false one. That Bush actually did "make sure" that powell misled us and the U.N with a false picture. How does that make the Benghazi cover-up any better? Wouldn't it be the same type of thing that the Dems would up pounding bush for?

There were WMD's found, I'll look for my old post when I get on my desktop.
THERE WERE WMD's FOUND
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Big difference with a lifetime appointment.

Even Petreus who testified there were reports it did start as a protest? Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in. Other reports were that the militants had a few people go out front shouting to make it look like there was a protest.

Any way you cut it the reports don't indicate an administration cover up.

You seriously don't think a well armed militia couldn't scrounge up a mortar in 6 hours? Jesus Jim, the entire reason the CIA annex was there in the first place was a mission to curb the PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS.

The CIA annex wasn't attacked until 5am. It was only a mile away. The attackers clearly could have just followed them back there.

You still haven't read anything reported on this tragic event have you?

-spence

I've never seen anything credible that Bush personally misled anyone, just as I don't see anything credible that Obama has personally misled anyone.

This is a tragedy turned into manufactured scandal.

-spence

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO DDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTT GGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOO TTTTTTTTHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEE EEE

some people just need to continue to flog dead horses

Senate OKs 'BioShield' bill for anti-terror drugs | The San Diego Union-Tribune
WMDs Found in Iraq

When people keep saying there were no WMD's found and using it as fact I feel it necessary to respond.
"Cheeney is out of his mind" was a horrible thread:yak5:

thats the same stuff he used on the northern Iraqi's. it's old stuff not anthrax

(1) Did Bush knowingly give Powell false information to present as "evidence" to the UN?

(2) Let's say the Bush/Iraq thiing isn't any better than Benghazi. well, if those 2 things are similar, why did the media crucify Bush, and that same media is giving Rice a pass?

"Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in"

First, from what I recall (I could be wrong), the video outside the consulate showed no protest before the attack.

"Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in"

When did she say that? When did she say that the protest and the attack were distinct?

"Big difference with a lifetime appointment"

OK, spence. So how long of an appointment is satisfied with merely an impressive resume?

Secstate is a high profile position, and high up in line for succession to the Presidency. A swell-looking resume isn't enough. i'd also counter that her resume is no longer impressive. She made a horse's ass out of herself, and the Benghazi attack was most certainly not the first time her incompetence was shown.

Finally Spence, why do your liberal pals label criticism of Rice as "racist"? What's the evidence of that?

"the reports don't indicate an administration cover up"

Spence, have the reports divulged who denied the requests for extra security, and why? Stevens sent all kinds of supporting evidence for why he was requesting extra security. Not only did he not get extra security, he ended up with less security, as they removed 2 teams out of there, against the wishes of those whose lives were at stake.

"You still haven't read anything reported on this tragic event have you?"

Do us both a favor, and stop patronizing me. I've read plenty. Unlike you, I don't limit myself to sources that are fanatically pro-Obama.

This tragic event was easily preventable if our commander-in-chief didn't believe that his charming smileis are all it takes to make us safer. Just because you have a teenage infatuation with Obama (you remind me of my first girlfriend with New Kids On The Block), doesn't mean our enemies do.

[QUOTE=spence;970841I don't see anything credible that Obama has personally misled anyone.
.

-spence[/QUOTE]

No? How about the town hall debate, when a guy asked Obama who denied Stevens the extra security, and why?

Obama's response was something to the effect of "the diplomats are patriots and heroes, and they work for me".

That's not misleading? No? Did he answer the question?

floggin a dead horse does nothing but waste time and oxygen. Have at it Jim. no one's listening

Let's examine that...in the second debate, the town hall, a man asked Obama this question about tthe security staffing in Benghazi...

"Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama:

"Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again.

And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we're going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them."

Spence, was that answering the question that was asked? Was that even close to answering the question that was asked?

Obama was either deliberately misleading that man and everyone watching, or Obama is too stupid to understand the question that was asked. There is no third option.

you tell me, Spence. How is that not deliberate misleading on Obama's part?

Not to worry, it's just "Folks" that are trying to kill us, they are not Terrorists,
just "Folks."
Show me the video of the Situation Room that night, ya know like the one
when the Seals got Bin Laden, and that should help clear up a lot of Bengazy
questions.

Not to worry, it's just "Folks" that are trying to kill us, they are not Terrorists,
just "Folks."
Show me the video of the Situation Room that night of the attack, ya know like the one when the seals got Bin Laden, and that should help clear up a lot of Bengazi
questions.

Right, it's never terrorists. Obama won't call the Fort Hood massacre an act of terrorism, but rather, it was a case of "workplace violence", as if the shooter's agenda was similar to that of a disgruntled postal worker.

How do you ever win a war, when you refuse to admit who you are fighting against?

And one of the base commanders (Lt Gen Cone) said it wasn't an act of terrorism either. Why aren't you crying about him? Oh right, then it would prove you hate America!

Likwid, like the vast majority of Americans, I have no idea who Gen Cone is. If Gen Cone said that, he is also an idiot.

When the killer believes he is killing in the name of Islam, and he shouts "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he kills Americans, that is what makes him an Islamic terrorist.

Likwid, you are not going to get me with a simple Gotcha question. I'm not a glaring hypocrit. Every single person who says Ft Hood was not an act of Islamic terrorism, is an idiot. And sying he's an idiot, in no way "proves I hate America". Why would it imply I hate America? I have served America more than a person like you ever will.

Fair enough?