Manhattan Buckeye;1328238 wrote:Perhaps you aren't an NBA fan. Aside from Gatz' post which made no sense, there was no reason to have a gorilla in the picture - it didn't add anything. But to the point you probably missed how some NBA players (most notably Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Patrick Ewing and Oliver Miller) have complained about the Phoenix Suns' gorilla mascot as being "racist."

I don't think it is, but I still don't understand the picture, or anything else Gatz posts. Fitzgerald needs to take back his character.

I have no idea as per the origins but it wasn't just some random picture he used. It's a thing.

HitsRus;1328449 wrote:SMH. While they were both reading 'notes' someone else had prepared, Bush, Powell and Condi Rice were talking to points that they thought were true, or probably true. Such was not the case here. I don't know how you could be a credible Sec of State with what has transpired here.

Let me try to figure out your misguided analogy. Bush, Condi and Powell thought their talking points were true so they get a pass. Regardless of what she may have thought, Susan Rice gets pilloried for her talking points. Gee, maybe we have been too harsh on Donald Trump all this time. I'm sure he believes all of those bat-shit crazy things he's said about the President for the last couple of years.

If, by your rationale, Susan Rice cannot be a credible Sec of State then what does it say about the aforementioned Bush, Condi and Powell?

There is a difference between knowing something is not true and simply going on wrong information. Is it that hard to see the difference?

and she spoke based on wrong information provided her.

isadore;1330479 wrote:and she spoke based on wrong information provided her.

Why of course; has it ever been any other way with the obama regime.




Tooooooooooooooooo funny.

Does anyone ever wonder, or has anyone heard a convincing explanation, why, of all the people in the administration who were qualified to talk about Benghazi on all those Sunday shows, the ambassador to the UN- Susan Rice- was chosen?

Do you think they had the race card/gender card locked and loaded, just in case rational people might look at the whole debacle and say "Something doesn't add up here"?

I think I just answered my own question.

jhay78;1330890 wrote: Do you think they had the race card/gender card locked and loaded, just in case rational people might look at the whole debacle and say "Something doesn't add up here"?

That, and maybe they pegged her as someone they could easily manipulate.

But actually I think it was priming her for the Sec State position. Remember, in Obama's world he probably expected this BS to be swallowed without question. How dare you suggest this was a cover-up. Obama is offended.

...and don't forget...don't want Hillary to get sullied telling a lie.

For all the Republicans' (and Fox News') bluster on this issue, it won't change a thing. Rice will not only be nominated for SOS, she will be confirmed. Any attempts by McCain, Graham and Ayotte to block her nomination will be seen as the obvious political move it is. When everyone is expecting our elected representatives to be avoiding the fiscal cliff, these three have nothing better to do than to play political "gotcha".

Of course, all three have an axe to grind with Obama. McCain still hasn't gotten over losing to Obama in 2008 and the other two, especially Ayotte, wound up with major-league egg on their faces for being such blatant shills for Romney this year. I guess losing two in a row must really bring out the worst in people.

stlouiedipalma;1330988 wrote:For all the Republicans' (and Fox News') bluster on this issue, it won't change a thing. Rice will not only be nominated for SOS, she will be confirmed. Any attempts by McCain, Graham and Ayotte to block her nomination will be seen as the obvious political move it is. When everyone is expecting our elected representatives to be avoiding the fiscal cliff, these three have nothing better to do than to play political "gotcha".

Of course, all three have an axe to grind with Obama. McCain still hasn't gotten over losing to Obama in 2008 and the other two, especially Ayotte, wound up with major-league egg on their faces for being such blatant shills for Romney this year. I guess losing two in a row must really bring out the worst in people.

There may indeed be a hint of "political gotcha" in it, but it doesn't negate the fact that Rice has ZERO business being SOS. But to your point, Obama has no business being POTUS yet the sheeple thought otherwise so I digress. Talk about bringing out the worst in people.

It's not about as much about 'gotcha' as it is about competence. They continue to blame the 'intelligence community', but who is in charge here? The 'intelligence community' did not send her out to the press....and the WH already knew it was a terrorist attack. C'mon....keep your eye on the ball here!

This unfortunately is what we as a country re-upped for.

believer;1331017 wrote:There may indeed be a hint of "political gotcha" in it, but it doesn't negate the fact that Rice has ZERO business being SOS. But to your point, Obama has no business being POTUS yet the sheeple thought otherwise so I digress. Talk about bringing out the worst in people.

Or....Maybe.....you're the one who's got it all wrong, eh?

gut;1330906 wrote:But actually I think it was priming her for the Sec State position. Remember, in Obama's world he probably erroneously expected Republicans to act reasonably and not ridiculously suggest there was a was a cover-up with no evidence to that effect. Obama is justifiably offended.

FIFY

HitsRus;1331037 wrote:It's not about as much about 'gotcha' as it is about competence. They continue to blame the 'intelligence community', but who is in charge here? The 'intelligence community' did not send her out to the press....and the WH already knew it was a terrorist attack. C'mon....keep your eye on the ball here!

This unfortunately is what we as a country re-upped for.

They sent her out there priming her for the SOS job with her justifiably relying on CIA intelligence. Move along. Nothing to see here. These language games are a joke. There was no lie nor willful misrepresentation. It didn't swing the election for Romney...Embassies and Consulates were attacked several times during the Bush administration and nobody cared....it's not going to move John Kerry into first in line and give Scott Brown another shot at the Senate but it is going to reflect poorly on people whining and moaning about competence when these same people hold people like Condoleeza Rice in high regard. I respect her and consider her competent, but is she nevertheless guilty of much more gross incompetence than anything exhibited in this affair if you consider what happened here to be incompetence.

It is apparent that you folks have learned nothing from the election about the follies of living in your own bubble.

HitsRus;1331037 wrote:It's not about as much about 'gotcha' as it is about competence. They continue to blame the 'intelligence community', but who is in charge here? The 'intelligence community' did not send her out to the press....and the WH already knew it was a terrorist attack. C'mon....keep your eye on the ball here!

This unfortunately is what we as a country re-upped for.

You know why they removed references to terrorists? As to not tip the dudes off and let them know the CIA is after them. That is why the CIA removed the language.
The situation was still in flux when she went on.
Pretty much sums up my feelings on this, a huge waste of time:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/bergen-gop-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

So, we are going after someone for something that was said on a Sunday talk show? Really, is that the metric now we are gauging people? Geesh. What a joke.
Look, is it a PR mess for the administration, yes.
But, at the end of the day, the whole situation was a massive intelligence and bureaucratic blunder. No one lied or failed to inform the public. This is just a wild goose chase.

All that said, I still think Rice would not be a good choice as SECSTATE, she has done an alright job as UN Amb, but Kerry would be the better choice in my view.

ptown_trojans_1;1331260 wrote:You know why they removed references to terrorists? As to not tip the dudes off and let them know the CIA is after them. That is why the CIA removed the language.
The situation was still in flux when she went on.

Yeah, I'm sure the terrorists expected zero reaction after killing four Americans, including the ambassador. :rolleyes:

jhay78;1331274 wrote:Yeah, I'm sure the terrorists expected zero reaction after killing four Americans, including the ambassador. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes at the decision, but it was the CIA's rational, not Rice's.

BoatShoes;1331169 wrote:FIFY

No, Obama leads from behind and then when Repubs get tired of the gridlock and actually propose something, Obama jumps all over it in a way only his ignorance and incompetence can allow.

For crying out loud the guy is still campaigning. IT'S TIME TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB, YOU MORON!

ptown_trojans_1;1331260 wrote:You know why they removed references to terrorists? As to not tip the dudes off and let them know the CIA is after them. That is why the CIA removed the language.
The situation was still in flux when she went on.
Pretty much sums up my feelings on this, a huge waste of time:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/bergen-gop-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

So, we are going after someone for something that was said on a Sunday talk show? Really, is that the metric now we are gauging people? Geesh. What a joke.
Look, is it a PR mess for the administration, yes.
But, at the end of the day, the whole situation was a massive intelligence and bureaucratic blunder. No one lied or failed to inform the public. This is just a wild goose chase.

All that said, I still think Rice would not be a good choice as SECSTATE, she has done an alright job as UN Amb, but Kerry would be the better choice in my view.

I can buy all of that except one thing. Don't go spreading false information, just say nothing at all. Talk about it being an ongoing investigation and whoever is responsible to pay dearly or something like that.

Don't go out spreading false information, especially on national TV.

^^^ding ding ding.....we have a winner! If you can't tell the truth, then say nothing at all.
Which again begs the question of whose steering the ship?

Move along. Nothing to see here

Certainly an interesting comment considering the context that phrase is usually used in.

HitsRus;1331569 wrote: Certainly an interesting comment considering the context that phrase is usually used in.

The audacity of cover-up.

Wow, I just can't imagine the lengths some of you are willing to go to salvage something from this year of political defeat.

gut;1331572 wrote:The audacity of cover-up.

Yes, it is a cover-up!
Got them. It is Watergate level.
Impeach them all now!

You all are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

ptown_trojans_1;1332348 wrote: You all are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

No, the administration did that. Simply under investigation or "we screwed up, and we're going to fix it". Done. Instead they blatantly lied to the American people motivated by what would appear to be irrational political fear. Transparent administration my ass.

Obama can't admit failure even with numerous opportunities to choose from.

Instead they blatantly lied to the American people motivated by what would appear to be irrational political fear. Transparent administration my ass.

I think that is it ...at best. This administration continually creates side issues designed to distract and get people to take their eyes off the ball. they used it efeectively during the campaign for president, and I'm not so sure this cover story isn't another one to keep us from the deeper issues of what happened at Benghazi.