QuakerOats;1320246 wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-i-made-susan-rice-talk-american-people-about-benghazi_663353.html

Yeah I heard that. Took a while to figure out how to do that dance. So, basically, they asked her to go talk about it but had no input to the message. Obama has complete denial. Too busy campaigning, I guess. I hoped after 4 years he could finally stop campaigning and start doing the job, but he's hard at work today still campaigning, still trying to compel everyone to support him and get behind him.

This is truly unbelievable, we have the Keystone Cops running our government. People of all political persuasions should be wary of how incompetently this has been handled, and Rice (not the smart Rice) might be the next Secretary of State?

Manhattan Buckeye;1320268 wrote:This is truly unbelievable, we have the Keystone Cops running our government. People of all political persuasions should be wary of how incompetently this has been handled, and Rice (not the smart Rice) might be the next Secretary of State?

Which is the irony in people celebrating the great socialist that's going to "stick it to the evil rich". He's not competent enough to do that, he's going to stick it to the poor and middle class, even if unintentionally. And the people who voted for him are too ignorant to know it.

gut;1320278 wrote:Which is the irony in people celebrating the great socialist that's going to "stick it to the evil rich". He's not competent enough to do that, he's going to stick it to the poor and middle class, even if unintentionally. And the people who voted for him are too ignorant to know it.

They're about to get an education.

believer;1320314 wrote:They're about to get an education.

That's debatable. They didn't learn anything the past 4 years so what's going to be different?

gut;1320319 wrote:That's debatable. They didn't learn anything the past 4 years so what's going to be different?

QFT :thumbup:

It cant be the video because when" version 08' "obama was elected we were now respected and loved again after 8 yrs of W. Right???

gut;1320319 wrote:That's debatable. They didn't learn anything the past 4 years so what's going to be different?

Had to sting listening to/reading about the Romney conference call to his donors and the $800 million down the toilet, eh?

What was the phrase you liked to use...."Doubling down on a loser?"

BoatShoes;1320442 wrote:Had to sting listening to/reading about the Romney conference call to his donors and the $800 million down the toilet, eh?

What was the phrase you liked to use...."Doubling down on a loser?"

Which is exactly what the Obama voters just gave us all - 4 more years of losing. More troubled companies for me to make money from, so it doesn't sting at all (and I didn't give Romney a dime). But I'm completely unsympathetic to the people who will continue to pay the price for their poor choice in leadership.

Petraeus Says CIA's Talking Points Were Edited to Play Down Terrorism...
Knew Immediately Al Qaeda-Linked Group Responsible for Benghazi...
... ELEMENT REMOVED FROM SUSAN RICE'S TALKING POINTS

QuakerOats;1321496 wrote:Petraeus Says CIA's Talking Points Were Edited to Play Down Terrorism...
Knew Immediately Al Qaeda-Linked Group Responsible for Benghazi...
... ELEMENT REMOVED FROM SUSAN RICE'S TALKING POINTS

It was just a miscommunication. Obama never intended for Rice to say the things shes said or, I presume, what he said in the weeks that followed (he must have simply misspoke...again and again).

SMFH....and this is what we have elected. Every action or inaction in this incident were political decisions based on the campaign. So much for transparency. Is this what we can expect about Iran, Gaza, Russia or whatever foreign crisis that will arise.... Obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, spin...all supported by media propagandists?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBYA_ATTACK_RICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-16-11-05-32

Now the race/gender card is played. Our government is a dysfunctional embarrassment. What motivation would be there to lie? How about an important election coming up and the unwillingness to admit this was a terrorist act?

Manhattan Buckeye;1321876 wrote:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBYA_ATTACK_RICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-16-11-05-32

Now the race/gender card is played. Our government is a dysfunctional embarrassment. What motivation would be there to lie? How about an important election coming up and the unwillingness to admit this was a terrorist act?

The media enables this bullshit...hell, they participate in it.

Sad I almost can't remember the last time I heard Dems step to the plate on policy. Everyone knows there's plenty of politics going on with Benghazi on both sides, but to accuse people of being racist/sexist is disgusting.

You'd think that if they really cared about Susan Rice and her reputation they'd be demanding to know who fed her false information and made her go out and try to sell it. Gen. Petraeus tells congress that they knew within 2 hours it was an Alqaida affiliate....and Rice is on talk shows 5 days later peddling a lie. You have to have blinders on or be high on kool-aid not to think that something that something is not quite right here.

gut;1320278 wrote:Which is the irony in people celebrating the great socialist that's going to "stick it to the evil rich". He's not competent enough to do that, he's going to stick it to the poor and middle class, even if unintentionally. And the people who voted for him are too ignorant to know it.

gosh that was what was nice about the republicans, they were competent enough to screw the poor and middle class intentionally.

Well if it was unintentional, then it reflects on his competency.

HitsRus;1321975 wrote:You'd think that if they really cared about Susan Rice and her reputation they'd be demanding to know who fed her false information and made her go out and try to sell it. Gen. Petraeus tells congress that they knew within 2 hours it was an Alqaida affiliate....and Rice is on talk shows 5 days later peddling a lie. You have to have blinders on or be high on kool-aid not to think that something that something is not quite right here.

Yeah you must not be following the story...the CIA changed the language in the intelligence that Ambassador Rice relied on so that it wouldn't tip off the terrorist groups that the CIA had been tracking them.


At least we can count on Republicans/conservatives to be very diligent when overseeing President's and their intelligence to the point we can be confident that we won't be lied into war or anything....oh wait....:huh:

I've never seen grand standing so bad :laugh:

Yeah you must not be following the story...the CIA changed the language in the intelligence that Ambassador Rice relied on so that it wouldn't tip off the terrorist groups that the CIA had been tracking them.

I admit that I do need to sleep. But actually I've been following the story pretty well since the beginning.
This was filed 1 hour ago by mainstream USA TODAY.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/16/petraeus-benghazi-hearing/1708373/

They've had two months to come clean on this and all we get is duck and dodge and obfuscation?
You are going to buy 'well, we didn't want AlQaida to know we were onto them?'...as an excuse to outright lie to the people?
You can accept that? Did you accept that from Bush? Did Democrats use the WMD issue to hammer the Bush Administration
So this is another thing we can 'blame Bush' for

I stand by the remark about blinders and kool aid...and your post, boatshoes, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

The American people deserve answers...and they are entitled to them (same as Iraq).
This is a sitting administration...one that will be in place for 4 more years. I think we need to know whether what we get from them and their media mouthpieces is 'altered' (this goes beyond 'spin')for political convienience. Susan Rice delivered deliberately false information, which she may or may not have been aware of.....but someone gave her those talking points. Who and why?
Keep in mind, that all this only relates to how the admnistration handled the aftermath...and doesn't even speak to the issue of preparedness, ignoring requests for security, etc.

This was this adminstration's first real attempt at handling an acute crisis...and this speaks volumes not only to us, but our allies and enemies as well.

You voted for it...You own it....and rather grudgingly by extension...so do I.

McCain is left speechless.


http://www.nationalmemo.com/benghazi-testimony-by-petraeus-shreds-gop-attack-on-rice/

c'mon molin...I even gave you reps on some of your other links you provided...and then you post a leftist op-ed. I'm disappointed.


So now talikng points can be lies? Is that what this guy is saying.

Somebody put the "talking points"(lies) together and the CIA approved them. That essentially means that there was no information in those "talking points" that might compromise their investigation. That's not the same thing as being responsible for the content and truthfulness of the dessemination of information. ....Who is in charge here?

....and none of this bothers you?

HitsRus;1322054 wrote:I admit that I do need to sleep. But actually I've been following the story pretty well since the beginning.
This was filed 1 hour ago by mainstream USA TODAY.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/16/petraeus-benghazi-hearing/1708373/

They've had two months to come clean on this and all we get is duck and dodge and obfuscation?
You are going to buy 'well, we didn't want AlQaida to know we were onto them?'...as an excuse to outright lie to the people?
You can accept that? Did you accept that from Bush? Did Democrats use the WMD issue to hammer the Bush Administration
So this is another thing we can 'blame Bush' for

I stand by the remark about blinders and kool aid...and your post, boatshoes, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

The American people deserve answers...and they are entitled to them (same as Iraq).
This is a sitting administration...one that will be in place for 4 more years. I think we need to know whether what we get from them and their media mouthpieces is 'altered' (this goes beyond 'spin')for political convienience. Susan Rice delivered deliberately false information, which she may or may not have been aware of.....but someone gave her those talking points. Who and why?
Keep in mind, that all this only relates to how the admnistration handled the aftermath...and doesn't even speak to the issue of preparedness, ignoring requests for security, etc.

This was this adminstration's first real attempt at handling an acute crisis...and this speaks volumes not only to us, but our allies and enemies as well.

You voted for it...You own it....and rather grudgingly by extension...so do I.

What I've always said that this was a pretty bad bungle but that there was no evidence of deliberate lies or cover-ups. The new information provided to Congress largely confirms this with the exception of the CIA being deceptive towards the American people with the redacted talking points they provided to Ambassador Rice. I mean my gosh...maybe Romney didn't "hammer Obama on Benghazi" because he was getting the same intelligence reports at the time and it's much ado about nothing.

It's not koolaid it's just accepting this for what it was...a terrorist attack in a strange foreign land with the response being mostly shameful political grand standing and the CIA being deceptive in the immediate aftermath for alleged security reasons. It didn't turn into 1979 Iran to swing the election for Romney so we ought to give it up and re-appropriate more funds for embassy security in these volatile areas (and the state department generally) and mourn the loss of the four murdered men.

HitsRus;1322061 wrote:c'mon molin...I even gave you reps on some of your other links you provided...and then you post a leftist op-ed. I'm disappointed.


So now talikng points can be lies? Is that what this guy is saying. Somebody put the "talking points"(lies) together and the CIA approved them. Who is in charge here?

....and none of this bothers you?

So now what this ultimately amounts to is being upset that the CIA...the Central Intelligence Agency....wasn't wholly transparent with the American people immediately following a terrorist attack?

I don't think this is a matter of the CIA being deceptive. They approved "talking points"...they didn't write them.

I mean my gosh...maybe Romney didn't "hammer Obama on Benghazi" because he was getting the same intelligence reports at the time and it's much ado about nothing.

A plausible story (I'd expect no less to be trotted out).
...and then again Romney might have to work with some of those people in a few months if he had had won, and might not have wanted to compromise that relationship by throwing someone under the bus. Maybe he or his strategists didn't want to inadvertently divulge some piece of information that might give Obama a chance to make Benghazi about "Romney said" instead of letting Obama stew in his own juices.

Lots of different explanations are possible. I think the thing here is answers....not obfuscation, not duck and dodge.
...and it's NOT about the CIA. Let's keep our eye on the ball and focused on the people in charge.



This entire thing could have been avoided with simply being straightforward at the beginning.

Stop just stop......The Republicans are just looking like idiots on this issue. The American people do not need to know specific intellence points while any operation is going on. Lets focus on working together to get the economy to recover faster.