Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"As I said before, she <UN Ambassador Susan Rice> made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received..."
Why did no reporter ask:
"Mr. President, if Susan Rice 'had nothing to do with Benghazi' as you just said, then why did you pick her to go on five different TV talk shows to "explain" it? Why did you avoid picking somebody who DID have something to do with it, who might have actual knowledge of what happened and why?"
0bama sent Rice, his UN ambassador, to speak about state department and CIA matters. If she is a willing be made a fool and used as a tool to spread propaganda, then we don't need her as the Sec. of State.
Why would anyone go after him, he never knows a damn thing about anything. If you want a long winded answer for "I don't know" then ask 0bama any question, about anything.
She was the individual choosen to relay the intelligence as it was known at the time. So? Also, I think Obama is hoping for a confirmation battle on Rice. Following that election and with comments like those Romney made during his ridiculous conference call today denegrating minorities and women, the GOP will just further solidify their reputation as minority/women bashing fools. It couldn't get any worst then having two old white angry guys like McCain and Graham being the ones front and center attacking Rice. Another TOTAL miscalculation of the situation.
All the key players, including Hillary, were in town that Sunday. Anyone but Susan should have made those TV appearances. But 0bama wanted someone nobody ever heard of before who could be blamed without repercussions.
She was the individual choosen to relay the intelligence as it was known at the time. So? Also, I think Obama is hoping for a confirmation battle on Rice. Following that election and with comments like those Romney made during his ridiculous conference call today denegrating minorities and women, the GOP will just further solidify their reputation as minority/women bashing fools. It couldn't get any worst then having two old white angry guys like McCain and Graham being the ones front and center attacking Rice. Another TOTAL miscalculation of the situation.
And she was made to look like a fool, because she made completely ignorant statements. We need a more intellectual thinking person as a Sec. of State, or are you comfortable with a Sec. of State who speaks about things she does not know anything about, does not cross verify, just because someone told her to say them?
She was the individual choosen to relay the intelligence as it was known at the time.
So Obama said... except that it was already known at the time, that the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration that went out of control because of a video (as Rice announced on those talk shows), it was a carefully-planned and coordinated terrorist attack.
So that leads to the next question: Why was Rice briefed to say it was spontaneous result of a video, when the briefers knew it wasn't? And who, exactly, told her to say it was?
And she was made to look like a fool, because she made completely ignorant statements. We need a more intellectual thinking person as a Sec. of State, or are you comfortable with a Sec. of State who speaks about things she does not know anything about, does not cross verify, just because someone told her to say them?
She didn't look like a fool. Did she wag a vile of "WMD" at the UN? Or did she relay the intel that was signed off on by the CIA Director?
"As I said before, she <UN Ambassador Susan Rice> made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received..."
Why did no reporter ask:
"Mr. President, if Susan Rice 'had nothing to do with Benghazi' as you just said, then why did you pick her to go on five different TV talk shows to "explain" it? Why did you avoid picking somebody who DID have something to do with it, who might have actual knowledge of what happened and why?"
Who specifically gave her that alleged information?
So Obama said... except that it was already known at the time, that the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration that went out of control because of a video (as Rice announced on those talk shows), it was a carefully-planned and coordinated terrorist attack.
So that leads to the next question: Why was Rice briefed to say it was spontaneous result of a video, when the briefers knew it wasn't? And who, exactly, told her to say it was?
If you don't believe the President, then the remainder of your drivel is just drivel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.