U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[FlapJacks]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What are you talking about? Did anyone from our government suspect that there would be an attack on buildings using planes in 2001?And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

Not planes specfically, but there was this:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Holy ####, what a newsflash. You mean the attacks on the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, and the first bombing of the WTC didn't indicate this to people? Gosh we're stupid.

 

[FlapJacks]

Top secret CIA Brief to the President of the United States: The French are rude and Snooty and look down upon Americans

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Top secret CIA Brief to the President of the United States: The French are rude and Snooty and look down upon Americans, but their chicks walk, talk and smell nice and they love Doctor Detroit.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

 

[pantherclub]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

 

[sporthenry]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

So you only care when big name people are killed? Do you care about Staff Sgt. Battle Jr.'s death? How about all the Green on Blue attacks? I care about all American deaths overseas. Yes, it it easy to point fingers in Libya (although some of you are even struggling with the finger pointing) when the information comes out that the Consulate was in danger just like we can blame Bush/Clinton for not heeding the warnings from Osama about 9/11. But that is just playing Monday Morning QB. Does anyone know how many of our consulates are under constant threat? Heck, the US Embassy in Egypt was breached just hours before Benghazi. Maybe we should just bring everyone back here where we can protect them. When the actual facts come out about Obama's negligence then we can talk. I fail to see what Rice said on Meet the Press or Obama said at the UN, which I'm sure 95% of Americans didn't even see or watch, matters. Who was his misleading? And what was his gain? I guess some of you hate Obama so much that you think it was a coverup but I'm sure he wanted to get to the bottom as much as anyone else. Most Americans aren't going to blame the President for evil committed by others just like we didn't blame Bush for failing to stop Osama.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

 

[pantherclub]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

The first reports was that he made some heroic effort and saved some other soldiers. Then it went downhill from there

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

So you only care when big name people are killed? Do you care about Staff Sgt. Battle Jr.'s death? How about all the Green on Blue attacks? I care about all American deaths overseas. Yes, it it easy to point fingers in Libya (although some of you are even struggling with the finger pointing) when the information comes out that the Consulate was in danger just like we can blame Bush/Clinton for not heeding the warnings from Osama about 9/11. But that is just playing Monday Morning QB. Does anyone know how many of our consulates are under constant threat? Heck, the US Embassy in Egypt was breached just hours before Benghazi. Maybe we should just bring everyone back here where we can protect them. When the actual facts come out about Obama's negligence then we can talk. I fail to see what Rice said on Meet the Press or Obama said at the UN, which I'm sure 95% of Americans didn't even see or watch, matters. Who was his misleading? And what was his gain? I guess some of you hate Obama so much that you think it was a coverup but I'm sure he wanted to get to the bottom as much as anyone else. Most Americans aren't going to blame the President for evil committed by others just like we didn't blame Bush for failing to stop Osama.

I would like to respond to your post but you're coming out of left field so I don't know where to start. Did I say I only care about big name people? Don't get to worked up at the straw man you created.

 

[Todd Andrews]

 

[Politician Spock]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

So you only care when big name people are killed? Do you care about Staff Sgt. Battle Jr.'s death? How about all the Green on Blue attacks? I care about all American deaths overseas. Yes, it it easy to point fingers in Libya (although some of you are even struggling with the finger pointing) when the information comes out that the Consulate was in danger just like we can blame Bush/Clinton for not heeding the warnings from Osama about 9/11. But that is just playing Monday Morning QB. Does anyone know how many of our consulates are under constant threat? Heck, the US Embassy in Egypt was breached just hours before Benghazi. Maybe we should just bring everyone back here where we can protect them. When the actual facts come out about Obama's negligence then we can talk. I fail to see what Rice said on Meet the Press or Obama said at the UN, which I'm sure 95% of Americans didn't even see or watch, matters. Who was his misleading? And what was his gain? I guess some of you hate Obama so much that you think it was a coverup but I'm sure he wanted to get to the bottom as much as anyone else. Most Americans aren't going to blame the President for evil committed by others just like we didn't blame Bush for failing to stop Osama.

I would like to respond to your post but you're coming out of left field so I don't know where to start. Did I say I only care about big name people? Don't get to worked up at the straw man you created.

'Twas a beautiful strawman though.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

The first reports was that he made some heroic effort and saved some other soldiers. Then it went downhill from there

You're correct but there was an early report in CNN International, which I used to watch quite frequently, that this may be a case of friendly-fire, and much like Benghazi, there was information that kept coming out that supported this; like that there were no enemy bodies found or that there were no enemy bullets found in our soldiers. I think that the last straw for me was hearing that Tillman's fellow soldiers burnt his body to hide the evidence; it really was a disgusting episode.

 

[pantherclub]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

The first reports was that he made some heroic effort and saved some other soldiers. Then it went downhill from there

You're correct but there was an early report in CNN International, which I used to watch quite frequently, that this may be a case of friendly-fire, and much like Benghazi, there was information that kept coming out that supported this; like that there were no enemy bodies found or that there were no enemy bullets found in our soldiers. I think that the last straw for me was hearing that Tillman's fellow soldiers burnt his body to hide the evidence; it really was a disgusting episode.

I will take your word for it but the early report from the army was that he did some superman level stuff. Like I said, then it went down from there. They changed teh official story something like 3 times. Its really nothing at all like Lybya

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

The first reports was that he made some heroic effort and saved some other soldiers. Then it went downhill from there

You're correct but there was an early report in CNN International, which I used to watch quite frequently, that this may be a case of friendly-fire, and much like Benghazi, there was information that kept coming out that supported this; like that there were no enemy bodies found or that there were no enemy bullets found in our soldiers. I think that the last straw for me was hearing that Tillman's fellow soldiers burnt his body to hide the evidence; it really was a disgusting episode.

I will take your word for it but the early report from the army was that he did some superman level stuff. Like I said, then it went down from there. They changed teh official story something like 3 times. Its really nothing at all like Lybya

The similarities, for me, lies in the refusal to deal with overwhelming contradictory evidence.

 

[pantherclub]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

The first reports was that he made some heroic effort and saved some other soldiers. Then it went downhill from there

You're correct but there was an early report in CNN International, which I used to watch quite frequently, that this may be a case of friendly-fire, and much like Benghazi, there was information that kept coming out that supported this; like that there were no enemy bodies found or that there were no enemy bullets found in our soldiers. I think that the last straw for me was hearing that Tillman's fellow soldiers burnt his body to hide the evidence; it really was a disgusting episode.

I will take your word for it but the early report from the army was that he did some superman level stuff. Like I said, then it went down from there. They changed teh official story something like 3 times. Its really nothing at all like Lybya

The similarities, for me, lies in the refusal to deal with overwhelming contradictory evidence.

I have no idea what you are talking about now and what "Overwhelming contradictory evidence" you are referring to in regards to Libya

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?

Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

You sure about that?

The odd thing was that I had heard almost from the first reports that this could be a case of friendly-fire and the were going to need to do an autopsy to determine it; the secret was out and it seemed like the Army tried to change the details afterward. I do not recall the administration issuing a story line other than what a hero Tillman was for enlisting; I do recall the Army trying to present a scenario where the two U.S. Groups involved where engaged with the enemy, when even this was doubtful. Regardless the question poised to me was would I even care if this didn't involve Clinton or Obama and the answer is yes, since I was angry about Tillman's death reporting to his families. If anyone cares; the piece about this story that drove me, besides the purely political handling of it during the election by the Obama campaign, was the spectacle made of the President and Clinton at the memorial while the truth was starting to unfold - it is the same anger I felt when Tillman was being memorialized.

The first reports was that he made some heroic effort and saved some other soldiers. Then it went downhill from there

You're correct but there was an early report in CNN International, which I used to watch quite frequently, that this may be a case of friendly-fire, and much like Benghazi, there was information that kept coming out that supported this; like that there were no enemy bodies found or that there were no enemy bullets found in our soldiers. I think that the last straw for me was hearing that Tillman's fellow soldiers burnt his body to hide the evidence; it really was a disgusting episode.

I will take your word for it but the early report from the army was that he did some superman level stuff. Like I said, then it went down from there. They changed teh official story something like 3 times. Its really nothing at all like Lybya

The similarities, for me, lies in the refusal to deal with overwhelming contradictory evidence.

I have no idea what you are talking about now and what "Overwhelming contradictory evidence" you are referring to in regards to Libya

Libya was obviously not just an over-active protest.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Now I remember why I stopped posting in this thread the last time.

Gives me a headache.

 

[fatness]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings.

This.

 

[fatness]

Personally, I don't want to be associated with either side anymore however I do want some straight answers. The sex scandal is not the cause of the Benghazi attack, no clear thinking person would associate those two events. But what does seem to be in question is if there was an ongoing investigation and if there were folks behind the curtains telling Petreaus that if he wanted to get out of this alive with his job and dignity that he better go along with the "talking points".

That's as reasonable as the birth certificate questions.

 

[fatness]

McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN

According to a Democratic aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.

The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.

When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.

"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."

 

[Doctor Detroit]

McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN

According to a Democratic aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.

The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.

When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.

"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."

Now you've done it

when I saw you go after McCain and Pickles aiding the effort, really struck a nerve with me.

 

[fatness]

Earlier this week, John McCain argued that Susan Rice is “not qualified” to be the next secretary, since she said the Benghazi attack began spontaneously.

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.” (CBS “This Morning”)

“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.” (Fox and Friends)

In 2005, Mr. McCain argued that Condoleezza Rice was qualified to be the next secretary of state, even though she testified that there were WMDs in Iraq.

“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he believed would serve him best.” (The Senate floor)

link

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Personally, I don't want to be associated with either side anymore however I do want some straight answers. The sex scandal is not the cause of the Benghazi attack, no clear thinking person would associate those two events. But what does seem to be in question is if there was an ongoing investigation and if there were folks behind the curtains telling Petreaus that if he wanted to get out of this alive with his job and dignity that he better go along with the "talking points".

That's as reasonable as the birth certificate questions.

Again, simply your opinion. It's unreal how the Obama backers keep going with the line of trying to either tear down, make fun, or humiliate anyone who wants to ask questions. I think it only adds more weight to the skeptics. The issues are not even close. I never questioned Obama's b/c but because I am wanting to question the events of the past week and the timing suddenly I am a wack-a-loo to everyone who votes Obama, it's ridiculous.

 

[cstu]

Personally, I don't want to be associated with either side anymore however I do want some straight answers. The sex scandal is not the cause of the Benghazi attack, no clear thinking person would associate those two events. But what does seem to be in question is if there was an ongoing investigation and if there were folks behind the curtains telling Petreaus that if he wanted to get out of this alive with his job and dignity that he better go along with the "talking points".

That's as reasonable as the birth certificate questions.

Again, simply your opinion. It's unreal how the Obama backers keep going with the line of trying to either tear down, make fun, or humiliate anyone who wants to ask questions. I think it only adds more weight to the skeptics. The issues are not even close. I never questioned Obama's b/c but because I am wanting to question the events of the past week and the timing suddenly I am a wack-a-loo to everyone who votes Obama, it's ridiculous.

I think threatening a four star general if he didn't comply would be a poor negotiating tactic. Other than his decision to stick his #### in the wrong place he's been nothing but a man of integrity so it's it hard to imagine he would lie simply because he was told to. Also, what would he have to lose by telling the truth after he was forced to resign?

 

[cstu]

Earlier this week, John McCain argued that Susan Rice is “not qualified” to be the next secretary, since she said the Benghazi attack began spontaneously.

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.” (CBS “This Morning”)

“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.” (Fox and Friends)

In 2005, Mr. McCain argued that Condoleezza Rice was qualified to be the next secretary of state, even though she testified that there were WMDs in Iraq.

“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he believed would serve him best.” (The Senate floor)

link

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Earlier this week, John McCain argued that Susan Rice is “not qualified” to be the next secretary, since she said the Benghazi attack began spontaneously.

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.” (CBS “This Morning”)

“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.” (Fox and Friends)

In 2005, Mr. McCain argued that Condoleezza Rice was qualified to be the next secretary of state, even though she testified that there were WMDs in Iraq.

“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he believed would serve him best.” (The Senate floor)

link

When asked about this rank hypocrisy, he would say something like "that's your opinion" or "that was a totally different situation" or "there are four brave Americans dead." This man is honestly losing it, and I say that as a concerned citizen.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Personally, I don't want to be associated with either side anymore however I do want some straight answers. The sex scandal is not the cause of the Benghazi attack, no clear thinking person would associate those two events. But what does seem to be in question is if there was an ongoing investigation and if there were folks behind the curtains telling Petreaus that if he wanted to get out of this alive with his job and dignity that he better go along with the "talking points".

That's as reasonable as the birth certificate questions.

Again, simply your opinion. It's unreal how the Obama backers keep going with the line of trying to either tear down, make fun, or humiliate anyone who wants to ask questions. I think it only adds more weight to the skeptics. The issues are not even close. I never questioned Obama's b/c but because I am wanting to question the events of the past week and the timing suddenly I am a wack-a-loo to everyone who votes Obama, it's ridiculous.

MoP just face it, you are now a racist, homophobe, KooK.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Personally, I don't want to be associated with either side anymore however I do want some straight answers. The sex scandal is not the cause of the Benghazi attack, no clear thinking person would associate those two events. But what does seem to be in question is if there was an ongoing investigation and if there were folks behind the curtains telling Petreaus that if he wanted to get out of this alive with his job and dignity that he better go along with the "talking points".

That's as reasonable as the birth certificate questions.

Again, simply your opinion. It's unreal how the Obama backers keep going with the line of trying to either tear down, make fun, or humiliate anyone who wants to ask questions. I think it only adds more weight to the skeptics. The issues are not even close. I never questioned Obama's b/c but because I am wanting to question the events of the past week and the timing suddenly I am a wack-a-loo to everyone who votes Obama, it's ridiculous.

I think threatening a four star general if he didn't comply would be a poor negotiating tactic. Other than his decision to stick his #### in the wrong place he's been nothing but a man of integrity so it's it hard to imagine he would lie simply because he was told to. Also, what would he have to lose by telling the truth after he was forced to resign?

Colin Powell walked the company line under Bush

 

[FlapJacks]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings.

This is crazy talk

fyp

 

[FlapJacks]

Earlier this week, John McCain argued that Susan Rice is “not qualified” to be the next secretary, since she said the Benghazi attack began spontaneously.

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.” (CBS “This Morning”)

“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.” (Fox and Friends)

In 2005, Mr. McCain argued that Condoleezza Rice was qualified to be the next secretary of state, even though she testified that there were WMDs in Iraq.

“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he believed would serve him best.” (The Senate floor)

link

Apples and Oranges. Everybody from the Russians to Clinton to Gore to most Democrats to poster child Joe Wilson thought Iraq had WMDs.

Anybody with any resaonable access to the evience in this case would no that this was no spontaneous attack.

I hate these absurdly false equivalencies. Do you you really believe these are in any way similar?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Earlier this week, John McCain argued that Susan Rice is “not qualified” to be the next secretary, since she said the Benghazi attack began spontaneously.

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.” (CBS “This Morning”)

“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.” (Fox and Friends)

In 2005, Mr. McCain argued that Condoleezza Rice was qualified to be the next secretary of state, even though she testified that there were WMDs in Iraq.

“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he believed would serve him best.” (The Senate floor)

link

Apples and Oranges. Everybody from the Russians to Clinton to Gore to most Democrats to poster child Joe Wilson thought Iraq had WMDs.

Anybody with any resaonable access to the evience in this case would no that this was no spontaneous attack.

I hate these absurdly false equivalencies. Do you you really believe these are in any way similar?

You're right. They're not equivalent. What Condi did was much much worse.

 

[fatness]

Again, simply your opinion. It's unreal how the Obama backers keep going with the line of trying to either tear down, make fun, or humiliate anyone who wants to ask questions. I think it only adds more weight to the skeptics. The issues are not even close. I never questioned Obama's b/c but because I am wanting to question the events of the past week and the timing suddenly I am a wack-a-loo to everyone who votes Obama, it's ridiculous.

Your opinion is based on nothing but your suspicion and opinion. Playing the victim doesn't change that.

 

[fatness]

I hate these absurdly false equivalencies. Do you you really believe these are in any way similar?

Yes. But what Rice did was worse. Remember that war for, um, no reason?

 

[fatness]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings.

This is crazy talk

I change quotes I don't like.

fyp

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I hate these absurdly false equivalencies. Do you you really believe these are in any way similar?

Yes. But what Rice did was worse. Remember that war for, um, no reason?

Truth.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Again, simply your opinion. It's unreal how the Obama backers keep going with the line of trying to either tear down, make fun, or humiliate anyone who wants to ask questions. I think it only adds more weight to the skeptics. The issues are not even close. I never questioned Obama's b/c but because I am wanting to question the events of the past week and the timing suddenly I am a wack-a-loo to everyone who votes Obama, it's ridiculous.

Your opinion is based on nothing but your suspicion and opinion. Playing the victim doesn't change that.

No one is playing victim, just stating how you and others are going about it. What evidence would we have at this point? We aren't allowed to ask questions and the people involved have changed their stories 3 and 4 times, kind of hard to get straight answers. That's not an opinion, that's a mild fact.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Good god Fox is awful. Just flipped on Geraldo and he had Paul Bremer on to discuss Benghazi. Yes, that Paul Bremer.

 

[sporthenry]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

So you only care when big name people are killed? Do you care about Staff Sgt. Battle Jr.'s death? How about all the Green on Blue attacks? I care about all American deaths overseas. Yes, it it easy to point fingers in Libya (although some of you are even struggling with the finger pointing) when the information comes out that the Consulate was in danger just like we can blame Bush/Clinton for not heeding the warnings from Osama about 9/11. But that is just playing Monday Morning QB. Does anyone know how many of our consulates are under constant threat? Heck, the US Embassy in Egypt was breached just hours before Benghazi. Maybe we should just bring everyone back here where we can protect them. When the actual facts come out about Obama's negligence then we can talk. I fail to see what Rice said on Meet the Press or Obama said at the UN, which I'm sure 95% of Americans didn't even see or watch, matters. Who was his misleading? And what was his gain? I guess some of you hate Obama so much that you think it was a coverup but I'm sure he wanted to get to the bottom as much as anyone else. Most Americans aren't going to blame the President for evil committed by others just like we didn't blame Bush for failing to stop Osama.

I would like to respond to your post but you're coming out of left field so I don't know where to start. Did I say I only care about big name people? Don't get to worked up at the straw man you created.

So where is your outrage over the thousands of Americans who died on the actual 9/11 when our intelligence community failed? Where is your outrage about the faulty intelligence about WMD that killed thousands of Americans in Iraq? What about the thousands that are killed in Afghanistan? Surely you don't believe that we haven't had intelligence lapses especially with all the green on blue attacks. So yes, I take that to mean you only care about big names or what Fox News or even HBO feeds you.

 

[tommyGunZ]

MOP, you're searching for shadows that aren't there. Patreaus would not testify that the CIA approved the talking points Rice used on the Sunday morning shows unless it was fact. It would be simple to prove Patreaus is lying if what he was saying wasn't true.

Stop letting the right wing kooks string you along on a story that makes zero sense. You're smarter than this.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

MOP, you're searching for shadows that aren't there. Patreaus would not testify that the CIA approved the talking points Rice used on the Sunday morning shows unless it was fact. It would be simple to prove Patreaus is lying if what he was saying wasn't true.

Stop letting the right wing kooks string you along on a story that makes zero sense. You're smarter than this.

Yeah, no.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

So you only care when big name people are killed? Do you care about Staff Sgt. Battle Jr.'s death? How about all the Green on Blue attacks? I care about all American deaths overseas. Yes, it it easy to point fingers in Libya (although some of you are even struggling with the finger pointing) when the information comes out that the Consulate was in danger just like we can blame Bush/Clinton for not heeding the warnings from Osama about 9/11. But that is just playing Monday Morning QB. Does anyone know how many of our consulates are under constant threat? Heck, the US Embassy in Egypt was breached just hours before Benghazi. Maybe we should just bring everyone back here where we can protect them. When the actual facts come out about Obama's negligence then we can talk. I fail to see what Rice said on Meet the Press or Obama said at the UN, which I'm sure 95% of Americans didn't even see or watch, matters. Who was his misleading? And what was his gain? I guess some of you hate Obama so much that you think it was a coverup but I'm sure he wanted to get to the bottom as much as anyone else. Most Americans aren't going to blame the President for evil committed by others just like we didn't blame Bush for failing to stop Osama.

I would like to respond to your post but you're coming out of left field so I don't know where to start. Did I say I only care about big name people? Don't get to worked up at the straw man you created.

So where is your outrage over the thousands of Americans who died on the actual 9/11 when our intelligence community failed? Where is your outrage about the faulty intelligence about WMD that killed thousands of Americans in Iraq? What about the thousands that are killed in Afghanistan? Surely you don't believe that we haven't had intelligence lapses especially with all the green on blue attacks. So yes, I take that to mean you only care about big names or what Fox News or even HBO feeds you.

How the hell do you know what my outrage is, or was; I wasn't even on these boards then. If you want to come to conclusions about me, based on no information, then have at it, but your outrage doesn't make you seem more informed, just screwy. What about all the thousand killed in Afghanistan; was this not a "justified" war? I do not see Benghazi as an intelligence failure; in fact, I see it as the intelligence got it right. I do not watch HBO, BTW. I not outraged over soldiers dying, I get outraged when their actions are used to support a political cause.

 

[FlapJacks]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

I absolutely love that this is the world you've constructed for yourself.

 

[pantherclub]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

I hope that keeps you warm when you wrap yourself in that.

 

[Apple Jack]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I cared when the details of Pat Tillman's death was distorted; as a matter of fact it was very similar to Benghazi except that there was no doubling down when the jig was up.

So you only care when big name people are killed? Do you care about Staff Sgt. Battle Jr.'s death? How about all the Green on Blue attacks? I care about all American deaths overseas. Yes, it it easy to point fingers in Libya (although some of you are even struggling with the finger pointing) when the information comes out that the Consulate was in danger just like we can blame Bush/Clinton for not heeding the warnings from Osama about 9/11. But that is just playing Monday Morning QB. Does anyone know how many of our consulates are under constant threat? Heck, the US Embassy in Egypt was breached just hours before Benghazi. Maybe we should just bring everyone back here where we can protect them. When the actual facts come out about Obama's negligence then we can talk. I fail to see what Rice said on Meet the Press or Obama said at the UN, which I'm sure 95% of Americans didn't even see or watch, matters. Who was his misleading? And what was his gain? I guess some of you hate Obama so much that you think it was a coverup but I'm sure he wanted to get to the bottom as much as anyone else. Most Americans aren't going to blame the President for evil committed by others just like we didn't blame Bush for failing to stop Osama.

I would like to respond to your post but you're coming out of left field so I don't know where to start. Did I say I only care about big name people? Don't get to worked up at the straw man you created.

So where is your outrage over the thousands of Americans who died on the actual 9/11 when our intelligence community failed? Where is your outrage about the faulty intelligence about WMD that killed thousands of Americans in Iraq? What about the thousands that are killed in Afghanistan? Surely you don't believe that we haven't had intelligence lapses especially with all the green on blue attacks. So yes, I take that to mean you only care about big names or what Fox News or even HBO feeds you.

How the hell do you know what my outrage is, or was; I wasn't even on these boards then. If you want to come to conclusions about me, based on no information, then have at it, but your outrage doesn't make you seem more informed, just screwy. What about all the thousand killed in Afghanistan; was this not a "justified" war? I do not see Benghazi as an intelligence failure; in fact, I see it as the intelligence got it right. I do not watch HBO, BTW. I not outraged over soldiers dying, I get outraged when their actions are used to support a political cause.

My God you are a beautiful mess.

 

[Apple Jack]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Not that that is even close to true, but those that did believe it believed it because Cheney and friends neglected to tell them that the only source for that "intellegence" was a man known for providing bogus information. So erroneous was his information that the CIA gave him the code name CURVEBALL. They knew the intel was bunk and used it anyway and even hustled Colin Powell into selling it. I really wish he'd write a book about that, but the closest we've gotten was his Chief of State letting slip the suggestion that they had doubts. The bigger the lie...So what is this "overwhelming evidence?" Or even just garden-variety whelming evidence?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

What really ###### me off about this whole thing is that some people are practically begging for information to come out that would give them a way to blame Obama for this. It seriously makes me sick.

 

[squistion]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

 

[pantherclub]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

and toby keith

 

[Apple Jack]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

and toby keith

Oh, he's burned a Dixie Chick in effigy.