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 11-14-2012, 04:16 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,149,237 times
Reputation: 4166

Advertisements

Today at his press conference, Obama said:

"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?"
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2012, 05:50 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,149,237 times
Reputation: 4166
The board liberals have been very voluble since the election.

But for some reason none of them seem to want to address this question.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
29,911 posts, read 17,262,883 times
Reputation: 9606
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Rational World Park
4,991 posts, read 4,237,062 times
Reputation: 2374
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,893 posts, read 12,747,020 times
Reputation: 9137
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
29,911 posts, read 17,262,883 times
Reputation: 9606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 06:13 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,149,237 times
Reputation: 4166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Rational World Park
4,991 posts, read 4,237,062 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
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?

Intellectual? Please..

"Rice attended Stanford University, where she received a Truman Scholarship, and graduated with a B.A. in history in 1986. She was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.[7][8]
Awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, Rice attended New College, Oxford, where she earned a M.Phil. in 1988 and D.Phil. in 1990. The Chatham House-British International Studies Association honored her dissertation titled "Commonwealth Initiative in Zimbabwe, 1979-1980: Implication for International Peacekeeping" as the UK's most distinguished in international relations."

Susan Rice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess "intellectual" is having to go to five colleges to get B.A. like Palin.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 06:17 PM
 
21,635 posts, read 11,753,367 times
Reputation: 8505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Today at his press conference, Obama said:

"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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2012, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Rational World Park
4,991 posts, read 4,237,062 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
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.
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2022, 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