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.
Considering that ignorance is what I must deal with, there can be no redirection, but to force direction. I used your stupid argument for it. If you could actually read and comprehend statements for yourself, if not hear it, you certainly won't do worse than being told what and how to think of anything. That is where your blind loyalty to Fox News and Limbaugh shows its ugly face (technically, it ain't a face, as I said, it is the rear where tuck in your ears to listen and obey).
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.
His real agenda is to block Susan Rice's nomination to Sec. of State. Then John Kerry will get it and open up a seat in the Senate. Repubs will run Scott Brown for the seat and probably win. That is what's really going on. No S#it! You have to trust me on this one. I know wherein I speak.
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.
I most certainly have availed myself of the information provided for by Representative Peter King. I think you need to review that information. Because you and Glen Beck are not accurately representing Mr King's remarks. More than that, you aren't accurately representing Ms Rice's remarks. She is on the record as saying that there was a terrorist element in the attacks, on that infamous Sunday when she appeared on multiple political talk shows. At the time, neither the CIA nor anyone else actually understood the nature of the attacks. And I use the plural "attacks" because there was an attack on the embassy and a later attack on the annex. The attacks were distinctive, which suggests that distinctions need to be made in who was involved, and the aims of the people involved.
Your presumption that the intelligence story was deliberately changed simply is not supported by the facts. At that time, the intelligence story was evolving, as more information was being acquired. Ms Rice spoke according to what she knew. Petraeus at the time spoke to Congress according to what he knew. And yesterday, when Petraeus spoke, according to Representative King, what Petraeus knew had substantively changed.
How many times do you feel that you ought to be put in place, daily?
"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."
How in hell did you put me in place? By quoting Obama yesterday when he made his cowardly attempt to deflect from his tool, Susan Rice? You need to see what Petraeus said this morning about what the CIA had reported and how somebody changed it completely to what she was given as what happened. She was told what somebody in the White House wanted told and not the official intelligence story. The Won is about to get his whole foot in his mouth and you may want to move you lips from his hind end when he makes it.
Yeah, you put me in my place but with day old info that looks a lot less true today.
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?
"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them" - President Obama
^^^^^
Why was Obama saying this at the UN on Sept. 25th? Let alone on Sept. 12th
I don't even think the video had 600 hits AFTER the attack.
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."
How in hell did you put me in place? By quoting Obama yesterday when he made his cowardly attempt to deflect from his tool, Susan Rice? You need to see what Petraeus said this morning about what the CIA had reported and how somebody changed it completely to what she was given as what happened. She was told what somebody in the White House wanted told and not the official intelligence story. The Won is about to get his whole foot in his mouth and you may want to move you lips from his hind end when he makes it.
Yeah, you put me in my place but with day old info that looks a lot less true today.
"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them"
^^^^^
Why was Obama saying this at the UN on Sept. 25th? Let alone on Sept. 12th
I don't even think the video had 600 hits AFTER the attack.
I mean really why mention a video that sparked demonstrations, protests and riots in 20 countries. How silly to talk about that a the UN.
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.
Yup, like clockwork. No articulate argument, so you go straight to name calling and badmouthing. Senile McCain? Really? You just can't hide the hate, can you libs?
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.
Even Obama admitted she had nothing to do with any of it. Who better to press the story than someone who didn't know the real story? Why else would they trot her out there?
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.
