Susan Rice new Secretary of State?

[ecduzitgood]

Spence "The UK knew we didn't have a solid story" where did this come from?
You mention going to the UN for resolutions, well how many should Saddam have violated before action was taken if 16 weren't enough?

[scottw]

I just watched a Nov 26th clip from Morning Joe with Joe Klein who was on to provide the administration's talking points on Bengazi....it ends with an incredulous Joe Scarborough asking..."has the President invited you to play golf, because you are just gobbling up the talking points like a Thanksgiving Turkey"...what is sad is that they seem to find this all amusing...Spence's characterization that this is simply a contrived political attack by enemies(political) of Obama is not only inaccurate but completely dismissive of very serious issues not to mention the shameful way that anyone who has asks the questions has been characterized.... but that is the world that we live in currently....and for the next 4 years....

Time Magazine's Joe Klein Claims Susan Rice's Benghazi Talking Points 'Were Absolutely Accurate' | MRCTV

I watched the 27th as well where Scarborough asks aloud if Kelin was "on something" the day previous

Spence, you've more than earned a round of golf with the Prez.


Ecdu...you are just asking for more gobbling....

[scottw]

anyone paying attention to Egypt?..the guy that we graciously helped raise his stature over there in negotiating a cease fire because he apparently speaks terrorist, has just assumed dictatorial powers(which I don't think the Administration has condemned to date) ...good thing that Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate".....Hamas is being rearmed by Iran and I guess Israel is just waiting for the next attack....very "productive"

hey, this is a lot like the fiscal cliff negotiations, the Pres. and Sente assume more power, more money gets dumped on the problem and the Republicans sit around waiting for the next attack...nothing gets solved you just delay the inevitable...which will be really ugly

here's a question regarding Rice and Bengazi...noone seems to be sure why she was chosen to deliver the administration talking points on Bengazi as it's claimed she had little knowledge beyond what was written for her...is it possible that she was chosen specifically because she is black and a woman and any criticism could be easily dismissed as racist and sexist attacks?...as was and is being done....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

here's a question regarding Rice and Bengazi...noone seems to be sure why she was chosen to deliver the administration talking points on Bengazi as it's claimed she had little knowledge beyond what was written for her...is it possible that she was chosen specifically because she is black and a woman and any criticism could be easily dismissed as racist and sexist attacks?...as was and is being done....

That's my thinking too. Going on the Sunday morning talk shows and spreading cockamamie about an attack, is not something the ambassador to the UN usually does. So either it was to give the administration a reason to use the race card against anyone who dares to ask a question, or she is the only one who was willing to say it was because of the video, which everyone knew was false by that time.

It's very unlikely she'll be the next SecState. Even moderate Lindsay Graham (who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor) sald after meeting with Rice, he was more disturbed than before he met her. And he's not anyone's idea of a right-wing attack dog.

[scottw]

great article on Rice this morning in the WSJ...

Bayefsky and Mukasey: The Susan Rice Troubles Beyond Benghazi - WSJ.com


points out that the president demanded of his and Rice's critics , U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts."

but of course, he has a much lower standard for his supporters and appointees which is disturbingly common for this president on most issues...like...civility.....

"The president has said that Ms. Rice should not be criticized because she "had nothing to do with Benghazi" and so couldn't have known better when she gave her false account. According to Mr. Obama (and to her), she simply repeated talking points provided by an amorphous and anonymous "intelligence community."

But Ms. Rice did know at least a couple of things. She knew that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. She knew that after the attack the president insisted that U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts." She knew that the video story line was questionable, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and administration officials had already suggested publicly that the attack was al Qaeda-related. And she knew that the president had a political interest in asserting that al Qaeda wasn't successfully attacking senior American officials but was instead "on the run," as he maintained on the campaign trail.

Senators might therefore ask Ms. Rice why she was put forward to speak about Benghazi, and what part her personal ambition might have played in her willingness to assume the role known during the Cold War as "useful idiot." "

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

her willingness to assume the role known during the Cold War as "useful idiot." "

There's no shortage of useful idiots in this administration.