Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-14-2012, 06:15 AM
 
Location: On the border of off the grid
3,179 posts, read 3,166,570 times
Reputation: 863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton View Post
I'm a Republican, but I endorse this. She didn't do anything wrong: the Benghazi aftermath was amateurishly managed, but not by her.
Yeah, she did. She allowed herself to be used as a patsy by the Obama regime to provide a false narrative regarding the murder of 4 Americans.

It would also appear Ms. Rice has what could be termed a "conflict of interest" down in the Congo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Rice is a bad egg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2012, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,783,417 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Lol. Have you ever seen McCain make the Sunday rounds? He's either lying himself or just plain stupid. I'm going with stupid since he picked Palin as a running mate.

Seriously - he thinks Rice is not competent and thought Palin was? HahahahahahaHAHAHAHA!
If you know the history of how Palin was picked you wouldn't be pointing a finger at McCain. Are you aware of the vetting process? The ball was dropped by McCain's people and the lawyers when it came to certain issues that Palin SHOULD have known about and didn't. McCain was given the go-ahead by those he relied on and it was only AFTER announcing her as a running mate that they found out just how stupid she was and the learned that neither side did the proper vetting - relying on the other to do it. Had the ball not been dropped and he had another running mate possibly things would have turned out differently.

As for Susan Rice the Dems will continue to blame the Republicans for her "fall from grace". Remove Libya from the equation and you (if possible, objectively) will see that she brought nothing to the table. She was well groomed and well connected. Other than that - she had nothing.

Susan Rice Didn

Rice, along with the rest of the Obama administration, does not know the meaning of diplomacy. What they are good at is being very undiplomatic. This isn't a race issue, it's a competency issue. SoS is pretty much an independent position, not one of loyalty or self-serving.

Here's a very interesting article on Susan Rice handling of the Congo, along with some Rice background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/wo...anted=all&_r=0

30 failures of Susan Rice while being US Ambassador to the UN:

Richard Grenell | Category | Susan Rice

There are plenty of reasons for Susan Rice NOT to be in the position of SoS - none of which has to do with race, gender, party affiliation and/or Libya.

People need to grow up and start assessing facts to determine competency - facts that go beyond race, gender or party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton View Post
I'm a Republican, but I endorse this. She didn't do anything wrong: the Benghazi aftermath was amateurishly managed, but not by her.
You're right. But she's the one they put in front of the cameras to tell the American public a false story.
And it wasn't just one talk show on one channel. She did the tour of talk shows across all channels saying one story while foreign press told another.

Why it was done is still a mystery. But she was the one that got the heat. No other names surfaced to take responsibility and all other agencies pointed fingers at each other.

She was the public figure that got thrown under the bus and took the fall for that wad of false propaganda that was told to the American public.

Notice it was not Hillary that went on the air that Sunday. That was Hillary's State Dept. not Rice's.
Why was it Rice and not Hillary that told that story ? I'm still wondering on that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,783,417 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
You're right. But she's the one they put in front of the cameras to tell the American public a false story.
And it wasn't just one talk show on one channel. She did the tour of talk shows across all channels saying one story while foreign press told another.

Why it was done is still a mystery. But she was the one that got the heat. No other names surfaced to take responsibility and all other agencies pointed fingers at each other.

She was the public figure that got thrown under the bus and took the fall for that wad of false propaganda that was told to the American public.

Notice it was not Hillary that went on the air that Sunday. That was Hillary's State Dept. not Rice's.
Why was it Rice and not Hillary that told that story ? I'm still wondering on that one.
Because Hillary told Obama to EFF-off when he asked her to go out there and lie? Valerie probably told Susan it would be good exposure for her and like the good soldier Susan was, exposed herself - only to be called an idiot. I bet Susan really thought it was the video when she said it was the video and she was really behind and out of the loop as to what everyone else seemed to know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,673,869 times
Reputation: 9174
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
What's funny is that the Repub minions somehow think Rice's withdrawal is a win for their side? It's anything but that.
Wong. As usual.

It opens a very important slot.

Don't be so tunnel visioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
Because Hillary told Obama to EFF-off when he asked her to go out there and lie? Valerie probably told Susan it would be good exposure for her and like the good soldier Susan was, exposed herself - only to be called an idiot. I bet Susan really thought it was the video when she said it was the video and she was really behind and out of the loop as to what everyone else seemed to know.
Sure looks that way doesn't it ?
Hillary is no fool.

Rice wanted the public exposure..well she got it didn't she ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,315 posts, read 26,217,746 times
Reputation: 15647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper View Post
It's exactly what she said.

And why on earth would anyone feel threatened by MadCow? She's a silly little doofus who reads her talking points, then scratches them off her paper, like she's going through a grocery list. And boring! OMG! And those shoes! I think she thinks she's Ellen, or something, lol.

Both MadCow and Andrea are total wastes of skin.
This is Andrea Mitchels statement, where does she state republicans don't like blacks?

" I think this had become sort of an impossible challenge for her to be confirmed, that she realized that, the White House realized it as well. I think they know they are on good political solid ground, as you were just pointing out. This is not going to help Republicans at all, the fact that a woman and a woman of color has been forced out of a confirmation process even before she was nominate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,315 posts, read 26,217,746 times
Reputation: 15647
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I didn't being Clinton up but when others kept talking leaner talk about him and his BJs with Monica when his trial was about an entirely different woman and wholly different court case I just finally got tired of the Clinton behavior in our house he was using as his private bordello, the White House, I decided it was time to try to set some of them straight.

I don't know what you mean but I did try to set them straight. Are you also of a mind that it was Monica that he was in court about?
Clintons sex life consumed the republicans for months, they could have cared less about Al Queda, this was the most important issue of the day that they devoted most of their resources to solve. The fact that they wanted to impeach a president because of an affair will go down as one of the most bizarre requests in history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 08:16 AM
 
1,259 posts, read 2,258,385 times
Reputation: 1306
I think she would have done a great job as SOS also but the Republicans are more hell bent on being difficult than looking out for the best for our country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 08:33 AM
 
2,930 posts, read 2,224,829 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Clintons sex life consumed the republicans for months, they could have cared less about Al Queda, this was the most important issue of the day that they devoted most of their resources to solve. The fact that they wanted to impeach a president because of an affair will go down as one of the most bizarre requests in history.
"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights ac tion brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."
An Examination of Clinton's impeachment charges

Gee,...I didn't see where the president was impeached for an affair. Please point it out in the segment above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top