UN Ambassador Rice

[hueytaxi]

How could our President defend Rice over her earlier comments on Benghazi?? She at best gave preliminary incomplete and erroneous information in briefings or as some would say, added to the coverup of incompetence or complacency. Now a contender for public office? This is ridiculous. Whatever accomplishments she has are shelved over this.

[Gehringer_2]

How could our President defend Rice over her earlier comments on Benghazi?? She at best gave preliminary incomplete and erroneous information in briefings or as some would say, added to the coverup of incompetence or complacency. Now a contender for public office? This is ridiculous. Whatever accomplishments she has are shelved over this.

Why wouldn't someone defend an employee who was doing their job as it had been given to them to do?

I think there there two pretty dumb things about this whole manufactured controversy. First you can't really have a cover-up over a period of time so short that it basically simply overlaps the fog of war. The wrong information was not out there long enough for it to have any policy implications or for anyone to profit in any way from it being out there. To be a cover-up in any meaningful sense, there had to be a point to it.

Furthermore, there is really no there there in this whole story. In the final analysis whether the attack was spontaneous, premeditated or some combination of both, ultimately makes no difference, has no policy implication (like we could be going after Al Qaeda any harder?) , has nothing to do with what protection policies would have made a difference prior the the event. It's a distinction without a difference. The Islamic street has been attacking US embassies since 1980 in Iran and Pakistan (where there were also deaths), we've been fighting Al Qaeda since 2000. It's not like an attack from either of these quarters is anything new or unexpected or creates any change in any of our basic understandings of the world or even US politics.

It's like arguing over whether a mafia hit was the Giotti's or the Giacalonne's.

[pfife]

The intelligence she was using is public information.

Manufactroversy

[chasfh]

Why wouldn't someone defend an employee who was doing their job as it had been given to them to do?

I think there there two pretty dumb things about this whole manufactured controversy. First you can't really have a cover-up over a period of time so short that it basically simply overlaps the fog of war. The wrong information was not out there long enough for it to have any policy implications or for anyone to profit in any way from it being out there. To be a cover-up in any meaningful sense, there had to be a point to it.

Furthermore, there is really no there there in this whole story. In the final analysis whether the attack was spontaneous, premeditated or some combination of both, ultimately makes no difference, has no policy implication (like we could be going after Al Qaeda any harder?) , has nothing to do with what protection policies would have made a difference prior the the event. It's a distinction without a difference. The Islamic street has been attacking US embassies since 1980 in Iran and Pakistan (where there were also deaths), we've been fighting Al Qaeda since 2000. It's not like an attack from either of these quarters is anything new or unexpected or creates any change in any of our basic understandings of the world.

It's like arguing over whether a mafia hit was the Giotti's or the Giacalonne's.

Not as though this really needs saying, but leaping above the actual details here, the actual "there" is the eventual impeachment of President Obama (since election defeat is no longer an option). That's the real story. Benghazi was always only a potential tool in to achieve that end. Benghazi will dissipate only once another tool presents itself.

[monkeynuts]

While I greatly respect McCain's past military history - he's an American war hero - he has become a complete joke as a politician. I have very little respect for what he brings to the political plate.

He is out there tearing apart Susan Rice for her account, yet he also completely supported Condoleeza Rice becomming SOS after the Iraq War debacle and her false statements about Hussein's WMDs (if the argument is that Condy only spoke with what intel she had available, how is that at all different than Susan?). He is out there saying that Susan Rice is not qualified to be SOS, yet he picks Sarah frickin' Palin to be his VP. He has become a grumpy, angry old man who is more concerned with picking political fights and settling old scores than standing up for what is actually right. It's sad, really, as he has very much tarnished his reputation among many people over the last five years.

[pfife]

This thing is so rich on multiple levels, coming from the same folks who were cheerleading invading IRaq based on faulty intel. These election losers would obviously not care about her comments if they had resulted in thousands of troop lives lost, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.


Beyond ridiculous.

When will people learn the conservative media is lying to them? They tell people the president didn't call this a terrorist attack when he clearly did. They tell people Romney was going to curbstomp Obama in the election when everyone else knew that wasn't the case, and of course they were wrong. Now, they imply some lame coverup when the intelligence she was using is publicly available for everyone to see.

You all can chose to misinform yourselves, but don't please don't think the rest of us, including the President, want to live in that infested rat hole you inhabit.

[Gehringer_2]

That's the real story. Benghazi was always only a potential tool in to achieve that end. Benghazi will dissipate only once another tool presents itself.

HaHa. If the House Repubs are dumb enough to bring a 2nd empty impeachment against a Democratic President in a single generation, that pretty much would be the one thing that could overcome their Gerrymandering advantages and wash them into the minority in the 2014 mid-term.

[pfife]

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.

Come up with a real issue

[mtutiger]

I think there there two pretty dumb things about this whole manufactured controversy. First you can't really have a cover-up over a period of time so short that it basically simply overlaps the fog of war. The wrong information was not out there long enough for it to have any policy implications or for anyone to profit in any way from it being out there. To be a cover-up in any meaningful sense, there had to be a point to it.

Honestly, to me, this is one of the more confusing aspects of all the conservative outrage about Benghazi.

[pyrotigers]

This thing is so rich on multiple levels, coming from the same folks who were cheerleading invading IRaq based on faulty intel. These election losers would obviously not care about her comments if they had resulted in thousands of troop lives lost, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.

This thing is so rich on multiple levels, coming from the same folks who were taking to the streets with Cindy Sheehan over Iraq. These election losers obviously don't care about thousands of lives lost in Pakistan or a botched and foolish intervention in Libya.

When will people learn that the liberal media is lying to them? Obama has been one of the more bloodthirsty presidents in modern history and yet he inexplicably left a repeatedly threatened outpost in an incredibly dangerous area undefended on the anniversary of 9-11. Now, they just bash George W. Bush and focus on the possibility of a coverup while ignoring the dead.

On a more serious note, I'd love to hear you explain how you can say that the president clearly called it a terrorist attack the day it happened and yet the intelligence for Susan Rice to not call it a terrorist attack six days later was clear to us all. Why it would seem either Obama or Rice was either knowingly lying or just going off half cocked and saying something crazy. Or maybe, just maybe, you might consider that it wasn't a cover up, it wasn't murder, it was just gross incompetence and a horrendous misreading of intelligence that clearly stated it was a terrorist attack from day one. Just the way George W. Bush handled the middle east for years.

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post



Come up with a real issue

Bob Corker: Intelligence Officials 'Immediately Let Everybody Know' Benghazi Was Terrorism
What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack - CNN.com
Questions and Answers on the Benghazi Attack - NYTimes.com

You'd have to be awfully naive to think it wasn't obvious to everyone that it was a terrorist attack immediately, regardless of whether the CIA said something stupid that contradicted every other source including eyewitness testimony.

Not that I expect there to be any middle ground here of course. Either you think this is a complete non issue or you're a deranged conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama personally murdered everyone in Libya. You can't possibly have any sort of nuanced discussion.

On a related note, NO BLOOD FOR OIL. BUSH IS HITLER.

[pfife]

This thing is so rich on multiple levels, coming from the same folks who were taking to the streets with Cindy Sheehan over Iraq. These election losers obviously don't care about thousands of lives lost in Pakistan or a botched and foolish intervention in Libya.

When will people learn that the liberal media is lying to them? Obama has been one of the more bloodthirsty presidents in modern history and yet he inexplicably left a repeatedly threatened outpost in an incredibly dangerous area undefended on the anniversary of 9-11. Now, they just bash George W. Bush and focus on the possibility of a coverup while ignoring the dead.

This made no sense.

I feel no need to waste my time with it.

On a more serious note, I'd love to hear you explain how you can say that the president clearly called it a terrorist attack the day it happened

He said it in the Rose Garden the day after. The transcript has been posted here several times, I feel no need to google it for you.

and yet the intelligence for Susan Rice to not call it a terrorist attack six days later was clear to us all. Why it would seem either Obama or Rice was either knowingly lying or just going off half cocked and saying something crazy.

They get different intelligence. You do realize one is the President, and one is not, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, you might consider that it wasn't a cover up, it wasn't murder, it was just gross incompetence and a horrendous misreading of intelligence that clearly stated it was a terrorist attack from day one. Just the way George W. Bush handled the middle east for years.

Or maybe, just maybe, different people get different intelligence. Rice got "talking points". To borrow a phrase from you, if you think the President gets "intelligence talking points" - you'd have to be pretty naive.

I love how you jump to the worst possible conclusions possible. Guess that's what happens when you're a hater.

[pfife]

I'm wondering something.... If this is a huge coverup, what were they attempting to cover up?

[tigerkid23]

While I greatly respect McCain's past military history - he's an American war hero - he has become a complete joke as a politician. I have very little respect for what he brings to the political plate.

He is out there tearing apart Susan Rice for her account, yet he also completely supported Condoleeza Rice becomming SOS after the Iraq War debacle and her false statements about Hussein's WMDs (if the argument is that Condy only spoke with what intel she had available, how is that at all different than Susan?). He is out there saying that Susan Rice is not qualified to be SOS, yet he picks Sarah frickin' Palin to be his VP. He has become a grumpy, angry old man who is more concerned with picking political fights and settling old scores than standing up for what is actually right. It's sad, really, as he has very much tarnished his reputation among many people over the last five years.

I wouldn't make the jump to "complete joke" quite yet, but I don't really like the way the McCain-Graham-Ayotte cabal has handled this business with Susan Rice calling her unqualified for the SoS job and whatnot. Listen, the Sunday morning shows were an absolute disaster and its obvious that someone hung her out to dry, but this is a highly qualified woman and one of our country's bright foreign policy minds. Stanford and Oxford graduate, Rhodes Scholar, experience with the National Security Council and the State Department under Clinton, longtime protege of Madeline Albright, and now she is serving as UN Ambassador. That's a hell of resume and calling her unqualified is just not based in reality from my point of view.

[mtutiger]

I wouldn't make the jump to "complete joke" quite yet, but I don't really like the way the McCain-Graham-Ayotte cabal has handled this business with Susan Rice calling her unqualified for the SoS job and whatnot. Listen, the Sunday morning shows were an absolute disaster and its obvious that someone hung her out to dry, but this is a highly qualified woman and one of our country's bright foreign policy minds. Stanford and Oxford graduate, Rhodes Scholar, experience with the National Security Council and the State Department under Clinton, longtime protege of Madeline Albright, and now she is serving as UN Ambassador. That's a hell of resume and calling her unqualified is just not based in reality from my point of view.

Absolutely the correct read here...

And regarding the McCain-Graham-Ayotte cabal, I've gotten to the point with them (especially McCain/Graham, considering the whole Iraq fiasco that they cheerled) that I can't take them too seriously.

[tigerkid23]

I do feel that her record is fair game to discuss at her confirmation hearings, but any attempt to block her from being the SoS should President Obama nominate her would simply amount to political grand standing. For the record, I felt the same in '05 when certain Democratic senators (including Kerry, Boxer, and Byrd IIRC) tried to block Condoleeza Rice's appointment despite her stellar credentials and bevy of experience. That said, I still have a gut feeling that Kerry ends up running the State Department. His name has been floated around for Defense (has Panetta officially said he won't return for a second term as SoD?), but I think he would be a better fit at State.

[monkeynuts]

I wouldn't make the jump to "complete joke" quite yet, but I don't really like the way the McCain-Graham-Ayotte cabal has handled this business with Susan Rice calling her unqualified for the SoS job and whatnot. Listen, the Sunday morning shows were an absolute disaster and its obvious that someone hung her out to dry, but this is a highly qualified woman and one of our country's bright foreign policy minds. Stanford and Oxford graduate, Rhodes Scholar, experience with the National Security Council and the State Department under Clinton, longtime protege of Madeline Albright, and now she is serving as UN Ambassador. That's a hell of resume and calling her unqualified is just not based in reality from my point of view.

To be clear, it's not this single issue that has so disappointed me in McCain. He has taken quite a few actions over the last five years - most notably the Palin pick - that diminished his standing in my mind.

[pfife]

Another interesting irony - why all of the sudden do wingers care whether or not the application of the word "terrorist" is correct? They just spent more than a decade calling people terrorists who never even got a trial.

[monkeynuts]

I do feel that her record is fair game to discuss at her confirmation hearings, but any attempt to block her from being the SoS should President Obama nominate her would simply amount to political grand standing. For the record, I felt the same in '05 when certain Democratic senators (including Kerry, Boxer, and Byrd IIRC) tried to block Condoleeza Rice's appointment despite her stellar credentials and bevy of experience. That said, I still have a gut feeling that Kerry ends up running the State Department. His name has been floated around for Defense (has Panetta officially said he won't return for a second term as SoD?), but I think he would be a better fit at State.

There is a theory - which I think is quite possible - that they are trying to personally tear down Rice so that Kerry will be SOS. By Kerry being SOS, that opens back up his senate seat which then Scott Brown could reclaim within a couple months.

If this is the GOP's strategy, I'd find it repulsive they'd try to ruin a good woman's name for the sake of picking up a seat.

[pfife]

Well that's dumb strategy but elections are pretty much ruining each other for the win

[monkeynuts]

Well that's dumb strategy but elections are pretty much ruining each other for the win

Agreed. It happens both ways, but just disappointed McCain would possibly involve himself in that (if that strategy is true).

[ewsieg]

Another interesting irony - why all of the sudden do wingers care whether or not the application of the word "terrorist" is correct? They just spent more than a decade calling people terrorists who never even got a trial.

To be fair, it was only 8 years. Since then it's been on the democrats hands, 4 years and counting now.

There is a theory - which I think is quite possible - that they are trying to personally tear down Rice so that Kerry will be SOS. By Kerry being SOS, that opens back up his senate seat which then Scott Brown could reclaim within a couple months.

If this is the GOP's strategy, I'd find it repulsive they'd try to ruin a good woman's name for the sake of picking up a seat.

I wouldn't be surprised. I do think that most of this Benghazi stuff is being overblown. That being said, I also firmly believe that the White House, and Rice, knew more than they were saying initially and were intentionally trying to kill/downplay the story by continuously pointing to it being an "act of terrorism" that just happened to erupt out of nowhere, instead of a premeditated "act of terrorism" which it was. It has nothing with covering up something they screwed up, it had to do with politics and trying to control a issue that popped up so close to the election.

[pfife]

To be fair, it was only 8 years. Since then it's been on the democrats hands, 4 years and counting now.

So when Obama became president, right wingers all of the sudden don't believe these folks are terrorists?

And these folks are the ones crying about what's considered terrorism?

odd.

[chasfh]

HaHa. If the House Repubs are dumb enough to bring a 2nd empty impeachment against a Democratic President in a single generation, that pretty much would be the one thing that could overcome their Gerrymandering advantages and wash them into the minority in the 2014 mid-term.

When it comes to going directly after Democrats, I think you might be overestimating the Republicans' ability to both take the long view and calculate the consequences of their actions.

[tigerkid23]

There is a theory - which I think is quite possible - that they are trying to personally tear down Rice so that Kerry will be SOS. By Kerry being SOS, that opens back up his senate seat which then Scott Brown could reclaim within a couple months.

If this is the GOP's strategy, I'd find it repulsive they'd try to ruin a good woman's name for the sake of picking up a seat.

Agreed if it is their strategy. It's an interesting theory that seems to make some sense. Though, it's no shoo-in that Brown would win the special election, so the D's would sort of control their own destiny. But yeah, if that's really the strategy, then I'd be very disappointed. It's not like going from 55-45 to 54-46 makes all that much of a difference anyways.

[pfife]

tigerkid, you should post in this forum more

[tigerkid23]

tigerkid, you should post in this forum more

I've been a longtime lurker. I'm a political junkie (global, national, state, local...all of it), but I sort of avoided all the election season vitriol around here. Now that it's over, I'll likely be around more.

[pfife]

I've been a longtime lurker. I'm a political junkie (global, national, state, local...all of it), but I sort of avoided all the election season vitriol around here. Now that it's over, I'll likely be around more.

vitriol? what vitriol?

[sinister porpoise]

Bob Corker: Intelligence Officials 'Immediately Let Everybody Know' Benghazi Was Terrorism
What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack - CNN.com
Questions and Answers on the Benghazi Attack - NYTimes.com

You'd have to be awfully naive to think it wasn't obvious to everyone that it was a terrorist attack immediately, regardless of whether the CIA said something stupid that contradicted every other source including eyewitness testimony.

Susan Rice was given direct information from the CIA saying the attacks were spontaneous. There's no reason to believe what you are saying about lots of other information going the other way. We are naive if we don't accept Bob Corker at face value?

The Intel Behind Obama

Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous.

The talking points say, among other things, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

[ewsieg]

So when Obama became president, right wingers all of the sudden don't believe these folks are terrorists?

And these folks are the ones crying about what's considered terrorism?

odd.

I was poking fun at those that spoke of Bush as the anti-christ for doing this, yet felt Obama was the greatest foreign policy president ever even though he continued many of Bush's tactics, often including holding terrorists without trial and upped the anti by flat out targeting and killing american citizens on foreign lands.

[mtutiger]

I was poking fun at those that spoke of Bush as the anti-christ for doing this, yet felt Obama was the greatest foreign policy president ever even though he continued many of Bush's tactics, often including holding terrorists without trial and upped the anti by flat out targeting and killing american citizens on foreign lands.

Who are "those"?

[ewsieg]

Who are "those"?

I could start with just about every elected democrat at the state and national level, add in just about every democratic strategist and i'd conservatively say probably 50% of the voters that voted for Obama.

[T&P_Fan]

While I greatly respect McCain's past military history - he's an American war hero - he has become a complete joke as a politician. I have very little respect for what he brings to the political plate.

He is out there tearing apart Susan Rice for her account, yet he also completely supported Condoleeza Rice becomming SOS after the Iraq War debacle and her false statements about Hussein's WMDs (if the argument is that Condy only spoke with what intel she had available, how is that at all different than Susan?). He is out there saying that Susan Rice is not qualified to be SOS, yet he picks Sarah frickin' Palin to be his VP. He has become a grumpy, angry old man who is more concerned with picking political fights and settling old scores than standing up for what is actually right. It's sad, really, as he has very much tarnished his reputation among many people over the last five years.

McCain missed a classified briefing today because he was holding a press conference demanding answers to the questions being answered in said briefing. Although I am sure the briefing probably didn't yield any hidden gems, I think McCain should attend these meetings. The excuse was a scheduling conflict.

McCain Misses Classified Briefing While Blasting White House - Yahoo! News

[mtutiger]

I could start with just about every elected democrat at the state and national level, add in just about every democratic strategist and i'd conservatively say probably 50% of the voters that voted for Obama.

What does the opinions of elected democrats, democratic strategists and 50% of the Democrat voters have to do with the fact that the GOP has spent years calling people terrorists who never got a fair trial?

[hueytaxi]

Stirring up the liberal elite is more fun than a firecracker in an ant bed. LMAO!

[Ingefanclub]

I'm wondering something.... If this is a huge coverup, what were they attempting to cover up?

1. The Americans in the Libyan embassy begged for protection several times in the months leading up to the attack.

2. Obama and is team denied the protection wanted for the embassy.

3. Obama blamed the attack on a movie that riled up protestors in Libya.

4. Once the attack was underway Obama sat there and watched with his team as the terrorists dragged the Americans through the streets for hours. Obama did not send back up which was an hour away and could have helped end the conflict.

5. Then for the next week Obama, Rice and Clinton blamed a movie that portrayed Mohammed in a bad light being responsible for an impromtu riot that caused this.

Am I missing anything?

[hueytaxi]

1. The Americans in the Libyan embassy begged for protection several times in the months leading up to the attack.

2. Obama and is team denied the protection wanted for the embassy.

3. Obama blamed the attack on a movie that riled up protestors in Libya.

4. Once the attack was underway Obama sat there and watched with his team as the terrorists dragged the Americans through the streets for hours. Obama did not send back up which was an hour away and could have helped end the conflict.

5. Then for the next week Obama, Rice and Clinton blamed a movie that portrayed Mohammed in a bad light being responsible for an impromtu riot that caused this.

Am I missing anything?

I think the fact that Amb. Stevens was mutilated and sodomized.

[ewsieg]

What does the opinions of elected democrats, democratic strategists and 50% of the Democrat voters have to do with the fact that the GOP has spent years calling people terrorists who never got a fair trial?

Apparently nothing, at least when you're the type of person that can rail against one person for doing it, yet support another that does it.

[Gehringer_2]

There is a theory - which I think is quite possible - that they are trying to personally tear down Rice so that Kerry will be SOS. By Kerry being SOS, that opens back up his senate seat which then Scott Brown could reclaim within a couple months.

If this is the GOP's strategy, I'd find it repulsive they'd try to ruin a good woman's name for the sake of picking up a seat.

Maybe after Albright, Powell, C. Rice, and Hills, the white guys just want the job back.....

[hueytaxi]

I'll take Rice over Kerry

[mtutiger]

Apparently nothing, at least when you're the type of person that can rail against one person for doing it, yet support another that does it.

I'm not sure who you are referring to. If it's me, I'm not a huge fan of Obama's foreign policy and have made it well known on this board. Frankly, he's a war criminal.