Susan Rice new Secretary of State?

[spence]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

-spence

[scottw]

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 I don't blame her, she was just doing what she was told

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

'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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So did Justice Robert Bjork.

Big difference with a lifetime appointment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

Because I'd wager you really know absolutely nothing about Rice other than what FOX News made up about her involvement in the Benghazi coverage.

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

Code words.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because I'd wager you really know absolutely nothing about Rice other than what FOX News made up about her involvement in the Benghazi coverage.

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

Code words.

-spence

Spence, I keep asking who denied the extra security, and why. If you claim that Foxnews is the only station harping on that, you are correct. Here is where you're wrong...you see that as a sign of bias on the part of Foxnews, I see it as a sign of bias on the part of the other networks, who are more than willing to ignore these 4 deaths, rather than ask challenging questions of Obama.

I also think it's immoral to withold support during a 6 hour firefight, when we had assets available that were far more than what was needed to get the situation under control. And the administration knew that in real time. We've discussed this, and you disagree.

I do not recall that you have ever defended the decision to deny Stevens the extra security he asked for. You have a patter here of being very selective in what you choose to respond to. If there's an easy answer that makes Obama look awesome, you're all over it. If it's something that makes him look incompetent, you choose not to respond. I've seen that time and time again, and many people here have called you on it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?



-spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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.