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

knothead wrote:

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!!

2seaoat wrote: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.......

W_T_M wrote:

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....

Markle wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

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....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

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.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

2seaoat wrote: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.......

Please stop being so logical, Seaoat.

Did you know that Markel has added the Benghazi attack to his long list of "Fatal Muslim Attacks" that he routinely blames Democrats for?

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.

W_T_M wrote:
Both spellings of defence/defense are acceptable in football terminology....which I was using.