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.
Please educate me. Why all the attention, fixation and so much media coverage regarding Susan Rice, when, it was Obama himself that went to the United Nations and made that speech regarding the alleged video. He even sort of admitted he is the one who gave the talking points to her. It seems to me what he did was far worse. Going before the UN making a fool out of himself and the United States. Where am I going wrong?
Rice made a statement early on that said the attack was a result of armed protests, not terrorism. The question now is whether the CIA briefed Obama before he addressed the nation in the Rose Garden.
In other words, what did the White House know, and when?
Get you head out of Fox News' and/or Limbaugh's rear end to hear and believe what they say, and get educated about how the President challenged the idiots who went after Rice who wasn't even around to defend self.
It seems to me that we just read a coverup post. Is that what you intended or were you just trying to make Obama out to be a hero?
You would have to ask Senile McCain and his two suck up lapdog wannabes, Kelly and Lindsey about the fixation on Rice. But as far as the issue, the assessment of the information that was available`at the time presented. If people actually listen to what Rice said, there were no definitive conclusions yet made. But, Ol' Senile John is still in 2008 mode.
I guess you don't know what Petraeus said this morning about what the CIA thought before somebody told Rice what to say. He says that he called it terrorism on the 14th and Rice went on TV two days later with a story that somebody provided for and that somebody was outside the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community. The information available at the time had been put into the system and somebody there had changed it completely.
Ignorance on the subject. This is President Obama:
"As I've said before she 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 UN Ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."
And you demonstrate ALL the traits of a Fox News and Limbaugh believer... but that didn't start with this thread either.
Nice "redirection" of the facts.
Pre-election Obama hid behind Hillary and let her accept responsibility for Benghazi. Obama let Susan Rice go out and make an idiot of herself on national televison, sacrificing all her credibility and probably sabotaging any hope of being SOS.
After the election, suddenly he's tough guy puffing out his chest.
BFD.
Obama hid behind two women. You can also make the case he hid behind Candy Crowley in the debates. He's a coward.
The fixation on Susan Rice is not a fixation on Susan Rice. It's a fixation on being obstructionist with regards to this President's policies and proposals. The Republican Party's strategy during the first four years was to fight the President on everything. I think the level of dissatisfaction with Congress as a whole should indicate to the Republican Party that they would be better served choosing their fights, rather than just fighting on everything. There has been strong indications that President Obama would appoint Susan Rice as Hillary Clinton's replacement for Secretary of State. The Republican Party seems to intend to oppose that appointment. And the current criticism of Susan Rice lays the groundwork for that opposition.
I see that you haven't availed yourself of the information Rep. Peter King made available about the questioning of Petraeus. According to Petraeus the CIA had said it was terrorist inspired and she came out with a different story about it being spontaneous. I think if you had seen any of that you would know that somebody changed the intelligence story, handed it to Rice and she naively spread the second story.
The fixation on Rice seems to me to be what is needed since someone changed the story the intelligence community was talking about from the beginning. Rice was a complete outsider who had no chance to be involved in the real story other than what the "tool" pushers pushed out on her.
Ignorance on the subject. This is President Obama:
"As I've said before she 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 UN Ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."
And you demonstrate ALL the traits of a Fox News and Limbaugh believer... but that didn't start with this thread either.
I see that you wrote that post without any information from the Congressional hearings today involving David Pertraeus. What the President said yesterday, about her talking about the intelligence that had been given her was very true but somebody in the White House had changed the story before they gave it to her. The good General says that within two days of the event the CIA was saying that the event was terrorism and then someone, somewhere gave her the lie to push.
Maybe you need to avail yourself of what Petraeus said this morning so you can leave Obama's words with yesterday.
He is a coward who likes to hide behind women's skirts and the MSM lets him get away with it.
You guys from the right are so far off the information path, it isn't funny anymore. Let me give you the straight scoop from the cloakroom.
First, In Obama's first press conference since being re-elected, he said "you want to pick a fight over Benghazi? Well, pick a fight with me. Bring it on." Leads me to believe that republicans are too chicken to go after Obama.
Second, the real agenda of the republicasn party is to get John Kerry positioned as Sec. of State over Rice. This opens up a democratic seat in the Senate that they can run Scott Brown in and probably win. The attacks on Susan Rice have nothing to do with Benghazi. It's all about the open senate seat repubs want to get back.
I guess you don't know what Petraeus said this morning about what the CIA thought before somebody told Rice what to say. He says that he called it terrorism on the 14th and Rice went on TV two days later with a story that somebody provided for and that somebody was outside the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community. The information available at the time had been put into the system and somebody there had changed it completely.
I think you are reading things into Petraeus's testimony that weren't actually said.
And you might need to review King's comments, as well, because King pointedly states that he recalls Petraeus's testimony immediately after the Benghazi attack being markedly different than Petraeus's testimony today. That DOESN'T support your supposition that somebody "outside the CIA" changed the information completely. What it suggests is that immediately following the attack, there was a scramble for information, and that different parties read the information differently.
I see that you wrote that post without any information from the Congressional hearings today involving David Pertraeus.
Correct. I simply posted Obama handling the idiots, which the OP is obviously clueless about having created this thread. Now you know Obama IS challenging the accusers to go after him, instead.
He is a coward who likes to hide behind women's skirts and the MSM lets him get away with it.
McCain is a chauvinist who wants to get his old fogies to gang up on Rice and put that woman folk back in a skirt, pregnant and in the Kitchen.
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.
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.
