Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » What is the real reason McCain et al are crazy over Susan Rice being Secretary of State?

What is the real reason McCain et al are crazy over Susan Rice being Secretary of State?

+4
Watcher
ZVUGKTUBM
Sal
othershoe1030
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Guest


Guest

I recall outrage and claims that bush mislead/misinformed... standards meet duplicity.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

W_T_M wrote:
knothead wrote:For newswatcher: There are questions from this incident and I am confident the truth will come out . . . . we deserve answers so we agree on that. Your claim that Democrats are crying foul is based on historical evidence that it seems extremely doubtful that any substantive information should derail the nomination Of Ambassador Rice. Condi Rice was nominated and appointed after extremely questionable issues arose during her confirmation hearing. This,while extremely unfortunate, does not rise to the level of denying a sitting President his choice for Secy. of State. To me, it is politics and both McCain and Collins campaigned for Scott Brown so it is my view that the GOP pitbulls are leading the charge in hopes of bringing in John Kerry to make that MA seat open for Scott Brown It is politics . . . . pure and simple.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Bingo. Nail, head, etc...

But you are far more optimistic than I will ever be. I cannot imagine a day when the facts of this situation (the GOP shill's overt attempt to play politics) will even be acknowledged by the uber-partisan twins pretending to be experts, much less accepted as fact.

When the corner is to your back and you paint as hard and fast as they do, a sane person would drop the brush and leave the room.

Their intransigent position points toward the larger picture w/ our USC. For the GOP, it does not matter that the POTUS should be allowed to appoint whomever he wishes...due deference is a de facto rule of thumb since G. Washington was a road guard. The attempt by McCain and Graham to filibuster the appointment is nothing but a political food fight. They lost but cannot see the scoreboard, and their blind allegiance to the whispered vow to fight Pres. Obama on any and every issue is yet another millstone around the neck of the GOP.

Unless they adopt some serious changes, they are destined for the dustbin of political relevance.

The GOP's not very agile to say the least and they've painted themselves into a dead end position on so many things.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:I recall outrage and claims that bush mislead/misinformed... standards meet duplicity.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I guess you forget that the voices of reason were shouted down and called unpatriotic, treasonous, and cynical.

Go figure....

Guest


Guest

[quote="W_T_M"]
nochain wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:[color=blue]I tary of State. Surely it can't be her dismal record at the U.N. although I am sure other nations would prefer her in negotiations given her many weaknesses. Hillary will be a tough act to follow and Rice is not the right pick.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK, seriousness it shall be.

Why don't you tell us what makes YOU more qualified than he is to pick Pres. Obama's Cabinet Members...?

And if my memory serves me right, your side opposed Sen. Clinton as much if not more than Ms. Rice.





"....could someone get me an evian, with a lime twist and crushed ice...?"

I am as qualified as anyone else to form an opinion even if it disagrees with BHOs stance. It seems BHO takes the easy way out when it comes to "picks". Friends like Rice are not always the right fit for a major position. "My side" opposed Clinton? Perhaps the R's did - not necessarily me - I don't recall thinking about it one way or the other. I would have voted for Clinton if she had run this time for Pres - and she should have.

Guest


Guest

[quote="nochain"]
W_T_M wrote:
nochain wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:[color=blue]I tary of State. Surely it can't be her dismal record at the U.N. although I am sure other nations would prefer her in negotiations given her many weaknesses. Hillary will be a tough act to follow and Rice is not the right pick.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK, seriousness it shall be.

Why don't you tell us what makes YOU more qualified than he is to pick Pres. Obama's Cabinet Members...?

And if my memory serves me right, your side opposed Sen. Clinton as much if not more than Ms. Rice.





"....could someone get me an evian, with a lime twist and crushed ice...?"

I am as qualified as anyone else to form an opinion even if it disagrees with BHOs stance. It seems BHO takes the easy way out when it comes to "picks". Friends like Rice are not always the right fit for a major position. "My side" opposed Clinton? Perhaps the R's did - not necessarily me - I don't recall thinking about it one way or the other. I would have voted for Clinton if she had run this time for Pres - and she should have.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Including me...?

There's always 2016, unless the Mayans were right, and IN MY OPINION, they aren't.

I'm so sorry if I misunderstood you in believing that everyone is entitled to your opinion, and that's a fact.

Sal

Sal

I, for one, hope that the Repukes continue their pattern of obstruction and sabotage.

The American people are not buying what they're selling in regards to Benghazi.

2014 may be a real bloodbath.

Guest


Guest

ummm... who's obfuscating the benghazi incident? lol... it's interesting that the same tactics were used in the fast and furious incident... and likely for similar gunrunning ops. Circle the wagons... it's not an issue when it's democrats.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:ummm... who's obfuscating the benghazi incident?

the Repukes

it's interesting that the same tactics were used in the fast and furious incident... and likely for similar gunrunning ops.

Indeed.

It's a very common form of right wing scandal mongering.

They excel at "smell test" insinuations, ginning up the sense that there must be something very wrong with a flurry of questions, not necessarily related or leading to any obvious conclusion, but always leading to the impression that something very important was being covered up.

And there's never any there there.

Guest


Guest

Whelp... I got the impression that federal agents allowed/facilitated guns going to mexican criminal cartels and to insurgent forces in libya. No? It was a spontaneous demonstration? I never did hear an excuse for fast and furious... enlighten me please.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Whelp... I got the impression that federal agents allowed/facilitated guns going to mexican criminal cartels and to insurgent forces in libya. No? It was a spontaneous demonstration? I never did hear an excuse for fast and furious... enlighten me please.

My bad.

I'd forgotten about when Eric Holder was frog-marched out of the DOJ in handcuffs, and how the American people lost faith in Obama and denied him a second term.

lmao

Guest


Guest

What is the real reason McCain et al are crazy over Susan Rice being Secretary of State? - Page 3 Contempt-fast-and-furious-project-gunrunner-politics-1340917981

Guest


Guest

[quote="Sal"]
PkrBum wrote:Whelp... I got the impression that federal agents allowed/facilitated guns going to mexican criminal cartels and to insurgent forces in libya. No? It was a spontaneous demonstration? I never did hear an excuse for fast and furious... enlighten me please.

My bad.

I'd forgotten about when Eric Holder was frog-marched out of the DOJ in handcuffs, and how the American people lost faith in Obama and denied him a second term.

lmao[/quote


Oh... So when a democrat arms criminals and extremist elements you are for it.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:I recall outrage and claims that bush mislead/misinformed... standards meet duplicity.

Making a mistake (<---being generous there) that leads us into war is quite different than making a mistake that....well...what, exactly, are the consequences of Rice's mistake again? I mean, beyond a fabricated republican cover-up conspiracy?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I recall outrage and claims that bush mislead/misinformed... standards meet duplicity.

Making a mistake (<---being generous there) that leads us into war is quite different than making a mistake that....well...what, exactly, are the consequences of Rice's mistake again? I mean, beyond a fabricated republican cover-up conspiracy?

Bush didn't fabricate/manipulate the intelligence... saddam would still be in power had he followed the UN terms. I didn't agree with removing him by force unless it was surgical... but it is a fact that he had and used wmd's.

again... you support the govt promoting misinformation when democrats are in charge?

Ever wondered why obama supported regime overthrows in egypt and libya but syria, iran and other N.African countries are slaughtering the downtrodden with little more than lip service?



Last edited by PkrBum on 11/29/2012, 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:
Oh... So when a democrat arms criminals and extremist elements you are for it.

It was bad policy.

It was bad policy when started under a Republican administration, and it was bad policy when it was continued under a Democratic administration.

That's why when Holder caught wind of it, he ended it.

Unfortunately, some people got killed.

That is the totality of the Fast and Furious "scandal".

You've got a hell of a lot less to work with regarding Benghazi, and that's really saying something.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I recall outrage and claims that bush mislead/misinformed... standards meet duplicity.

Making a mistake (<---being generous there) that leads us into war is quite different than making a mistake that....well...what, exactly, are the consequences of Rice's mistake again? I mean, beyond a fabricated republican cover-up conspiracy?

Bush didn't fabricate/manipulate the intelligence... saddam would still be in power had he followed the UN terms. I didn't agree with removing him by force unless it was surgical... but it is a fact that he had and used wmd's.

again... you support the govt promoting misinformation when democrats are in charge?

Ever wondered why obama supported regime overthrows in egypt and libya but syria, iran and other N.African countries are slaughtering the downtrodden with little more than lip service?

So I'll re-pose my question. When Bush erred, we ended up in a war that lasted roughly a decade. When Rice erred....what happened exactly? You seem to be suggesting that these two errors are on almost equal ground here. Help me see the consequence that hangs opposite and in balance with a mistake that led to a decade long war.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
Oh... So when a democrat arms criminals and extremist elements you are for it.

It was bad policy.

It was bad policy when started under a Republican administration, and it was bad policy when it was continued under a Democratic administration.

That's why when Holder caught wind of it, he ended it.

Unfortunately, some people got killed.

That is the totality of the Fast and Furious "scandal".

You've got a hell of a lot less to work with regarding Benghazi, and that's really saying something.

Rice was sent out with a political agenda to those talk shows... it would have been understandable for there to have been less to work with considering the sensitive nature of a cia op. Some of us flat laughed when carney blamed it on a youtube video the next morning... but he is just a mouthpiece. Most knew it was bs... the Ambassador to the United Nations sure as hell did... disqualifying her imo from promotion or greater responsibility. Obama can keep her on at the UN for all I care about that body... but she is a proven political lackey at this point.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I recall outrage and claims that bush mislead/misinformed... standards meet duplicity.

Making a mistake (<---being generous there) that leads us into war is quite different than making a mistake that....well...what, exactly, are the consequences of Rice's mistake again? I mean, beyond a fabricated republican cover-up conspiracy?

Bush didn't fabricate/manipulate the intelligence... saddam would still be in power had he followed the UN terms. I didn't agree with removing him by force unless it was surgical... but it is a fact that he had and used wmd's.

again... you support the govt promoting misinformation when democrats are in charge?

Ever wondered why obama supported regime overthrows in egypt and libya but syria, iran and other N.African countries are slaughtering the downtrodden with little more than lip service?

So I'll re-pose my question. When Bush erred, we ended up in a war that lasted roughly a decade. When Rice erred....what happened exactly? You seem to be suggesting that these two errors are on almost equal ground here. Help me see the consequence that hangs opposite and in balance with a mistake that led to a decade long war.

Similar acts may have very different outcomes... the first was poor/incomplete intelligence... the second was deliberately contrived intelligence. I hope the consequences are limited to the deaths of the four americans... we may not know the extent of the operation for a very long time.

Sal

Sal

1. In the wake of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's first televised appearance, on September 16, shortly after the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi where she said that it seemed, from the intelligence on hand, that it might have been, in part, a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video, conservatives, including the Siamese Senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, accused Rice of covering up the role of terrorists. The story went that she did so in order to avoid...something or other, who the fuck knows...in order to help the campaign of President Obama.

2. The attacks on Rice increased, all based on weak assertions of a cover-up, something that perhaps needed more investigation, if there was any evidence at all beyond some talking points that had some blacked-out information. Right-wing spoogebuckets jumped in, declaring it an impeachment-worthy debacle. GOP candidate Mitt Romney made the alleged cover-up of terrorist involvement an issue in the presidential campaign. America's angriest leprechaun, John McCain, was pretty much puffin' away on his wee pipe non-stop, calling into question Rice's intellect and her competence, vowing to block her if she was nominated to be Secretary of State when Hillary Clinton leaves.

3. When more information became available, especially after the election, that the CIA had, in fact, done the editing of the Benghazi talking points in order to protect U.S. interests and not tip off the people involved, conservatives then shifted their attention to whether or not the White House had conspired with the CIA to do so and Susan Rice now became less the evil minion of President Obama and more the willing dupe in the story. Always the barometer of outrage, John McCain kicked the dirt in dismay.

4. Now that Rice has spoken behind closed doors to senators, in a private meeting that everybody immediately knew every detail about, McCain, Graham, and Lieberman-with-smaller-tits Kelly Ayotte are all upset again, this time perhaps at the State Department, certainly still with Rice, although now for what was and wasn't done before and after the attacks than what Rice said on Sunday morning gab shows. Also, the President is a liar or something. Who the fuck knows?

So to summarize:
Based on the information they initially had, right-wingers, including elected officials, got angry at the U.N. ambassador. When they received more information, they changed their story. When they got more information, they changed their story again. Or perhaps it has just evolved as more facts are known.

Which, of course, would be just the fuck what happened in the Obama administration over the Benghazi situation. But if conservatives realize that, it would create a black hole-like void of dissonance. Heads would explode. Panic would reign in the streets. Megyn Kelly would assault Steve Doocy with a strap-on. Chaos, you know.

Or, really, they'd just act like they never said anything and move on to the next fake outrage.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-real-benghazi-conspiracy-why-did.html

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Similar acts may have very different outcomes... the first was poor/incomplete intelligence... the second was deliberately contrived intelligence. I hope the consequences are limited to the deaths of the four americans... we may not know the extent of the operation for a very long time.

Wait. I think we may be talking about two different things here. What action of Rice are you referring to that caused the deaths of four Americans? Obviously Rice's mischaracterization of the events in Benghazi could not have caused the events in Benghazi.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Wrong... the cia upon request provided talking points that would not compromise intelligence or ops.

That information was then changed/manipulated and then promoted/disseminated.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Similar acts may have very different outcomes... the first was poor/incomplete intelligence... the second was deliberately contrived intelligence. I hope the consequences are limited to the deaths of the four americans... we may not know the extent of the operation for a very long time.

Wait. I think we may be talking about two different things here. What action of Rice are you referring to that caused the deaths of four Americans? Obviously Rice's mischaracterization of the events in Benghazi could not have caused the events in Benghazi.

I misspoke... my train of thght was the support provided to the insurgents and then the lax security dispite requests and alarming reports of instability. The middle east and north africa haven't know this level of chaos in a very long time... a decade of conflict may be wishful thinking.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Wrong... the cia upon request provided talking points that would not compromise intelligence or ops.

That information was then changed/manipulated and then promoted/disseminated.

What the liberal free pass for BHO agents are dismissing out of hand is the true reason for concern - if information is modified who makes the decision and what kind of intel is making it to the decision makers? The result is nameless staffers influencing political and public opinion. The CIA finally admitted "someone" altered the documents provided to Rice but this does not absolve her in any way. As the Ambassador to the UN she had access to information well before her staged press tour. Then to have Big Daddy BHO act out in the faux pretense of "protecting" her she is shown to be weak (which she is based on her dismal UN record). The larger issue is why this WH persists in obfuscating, lying, dodging, and spinning even when it doesn't really have to do so. The actions and motives of this WH are not to be trusted.

2seaoat



A tempest in a teapot......when you have no policies for the American public.....but are bought and paid for shills of the American Oligarchy....you need to create a boogy man to divide America, and have Americans working against their economic interests......when most Americans awaken from their slumber and vote what is best for middle America....the shills now have to make it about the safety of the nation from foreign boogy men.....and so it goes......a tempest in a teapot for anybody with a fifth grade education, but if anybody does not think Susan Rice was conceptually wrong on those Sunday shows.....well she was wrong......but so was Colin Powell in front of the UN.......and where was the indignation....the threat of congressional committee.....nope... because people realized a good man was given bad intelligence.....a good woman was given bad intelligence, and hmmmmmmm some folks think that the intelligence was modified because of political pressure.......where on earth would they have gotten that model from......again small teacup.....smaller tempest.......

knothead

knothead

nochain wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Wrong... the cia upon request provided talking points that would not compromise intelligence or ops.

That information was then changed/manipulated and then promoted/disseminated.

What the liberal free pass for BHO agents are dismissing out of hand is the true reason for concern - if information is modified who makes the decision and what kind of intel is making it to the decision makers? The result is nameless staffers influencing political and public opinion. The CIA finally admitted "someone" altered the documents provided to Rice but this does not absolve her in any way. As the Ambassador to the UN she had access to information well before her staged press tour. Then to have Big Daddy BHO act out in the faux pretense of "protecting" her she is shown to be weak (which she is based on her dismal UN record). The larger issue is why this WH persists in obfuscating, lying, dodging, and spinning even when it doesn't really have to do so. The actions and motives of this WH are not to be trusted.

*****************************************************

Dang, you sound like John McCain . . . . . to the gallows with the witch and impeach this neophyte!!

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » What is the real reason McCain et al are crazy over Susan Rice being Secretary of State?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum