HitsRus;1582771 wrote:What are you laughing at? It is precisely that this administration was/has not been held to the same standard following Benghazi that Bush/Rice were held to following 9/11....investigations that spanned years. I'll have more to say about this....later.

Yes. You're exactly right. The loons currently occupying today's Republican Party in the House of Representatives have not done enough investigation of BEnGHaZI!!!

I shudder to think at how bad the conservative movement would have lost their minds if Al Gore would have been President when 9/11 happened.

We can rest assured that HitsRus would not promote the Democrat National Security Adviser as a Presidential candidate lol.


And I'll say again, I actually think Condi Rice is very competent and would be a refreshing option over above absolute turds like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that the GOP is going to trot out in two years. But you would have nothing but derision for a Democrat that made the mistakes she made.

^^Haha...and this coming from the guy who said...."nothing to see here....move along." All I expect is that this administration be held to the same standard that Bush was. Instead we were treated to obfuscation, half truths, and 'fog'.

I shudder to think at how bad the conservative movement would have lost their minds if Al Gore would have been President when 9/11 happened.

about the same amount as the democrats after 9/11?

,
The Bush administration was not the first to suffer an attack.... even your hero FDR was caught with his pants down. Bush, like FDR, was not technically at war with anyone...there were threats but not specific information. Not so much with your hero, BHO. Still there is little he could do to prevent the attack....but plenty of questions of the management during and after especially given the circumstances of the situation. Why do you give him a free pass?

HitsRus;1582925 wrote:^^Haha...and this coming from the guy who said...."nothing to see here....move along." All I expect is that this administration be held to the same standard that Bush was. Instead we were treated to obfuscation, half truths, and 'fog'.



about the same amount as the democrats after 9/11?

,
The Bush administration was not the first to suffer an attack.... even your hero FDR was caught with his pants down. Bush, like FDR, was not technically at war with anyone...there were threats but not specific information. Not so much with your hero, BHO. Still there is little he could do to prevent the attack....but plenty of questions of the management during and after especially given the circumstances of the situation. Why do you give him a free pass?

there sure were all kinds of question of the management during and after especially given the circumstances of the situation. Why do you give him a free pass? Right how could you give Bush and Rice a free pass on how incompetently they handled the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

HitsRus;1582925 wrote: All I expect is that this administration be held to the same standard that Bush was.

But what about the soft bigotry of low expectations?

Right how could you give Bush and Rice a free pass on how incompetently they handled the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So you want to hold Condi Rice responsible for post Sadaam reconstruction? ...Al Qaida is back in Iraq with a vengenance.... Hillary is responsible?


Gosh a ruddies....so much hate for the first Africa- American woman Secretary of State!

HitsRus;1582999 wrote:So you want to hold Condi Rice responsible for post Sadaam reconstruction? ...Al Qaida is back in Iraq with a vengenance.... Hillary is responsible?


Gosh a ruddies....so much hate for the first Africa- American woman Secretary of State!

gosh a ruddies secretaries of state have very little say in that, but national security advisers do.

isadore;1583041 wrote:gosh a ruddies secretaries of state have very little say in that, but national security advisers do.

secretaries of state have very little say in that, but national security advisers do.

...??? really, Just the National security advisor?...They both do.

You can hold Rice accountable, just as long as you hold HRC accountable.

Manhattan Buckeye;1582752 wrote:Yes she did, repeatedly. Lying about the situation doesn't make it correct.

No she didn't. We examined the actual replays of what she actually said on this very site but you're anti-Obummer hard-on is preventing you from relinquishing the Right Wing Derp Fantasy. The Obama Adminstration blew it in Benghazi but Susan Rice never blamed the Benghazi Terrorist attack on the video. Jake Tapper asked her about the Protests in the whole middle east and put up a graphic showing all the countries were protests were happening and she responded that the protests were over the video and included Benghazi in the name of countries that she lists. But the right wing circle of derp has managed to turn that somehow into this hilarious conspiracy while the rest of the world laughs as the Republican Party is dragged into the abyss by this kind of thing even as the Democrats and the Obama Administration blow it.

HitsRus;1583148 wrote:...??? really, Just the National security advisor?...They both do.

You can hold Rice accountable, just as long as you hold HRC accountable.

no
Secretary of State's responsibility have to do with diplomatic relations with other nations. National Security advisor serves chief advisor to the President of the United States on national security issues, diplomatic and military. Someone with a direct role in the ineptitude of Bush's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/state-department-to-assume-massive-mission-in-iraq-as-troops-leave/

Was Hillary SOS in 2011?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.plan/index.html?eref=rss_politics

SOS Rice heavily involved in the decision to change Iraq policy..."the surge"......a policy that finally stabilized Iraq and led them out of their civil war.....well, that is, until recently.

Incidentally, both HRC and BHO opposed "The Surge"....oops i guess they were on the wrong side of that one.


Still waiting for your nomination.

fish82;1583054 wrote:

EXACTLY

HitsRus;1583230 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/state-department-to-assume-massive-mission-in-iraq-as-troops-leave/

Was Hillary SOS in 2011?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.plan/index.html?eref=rss_politics

SOS Rice heavily involved in the decision to change Iraq policy..."the surge"......a policy that finally stabilized Iraq and led them out of their civil war.....well, that is, until recently.

Incidentally, both HRC and BHO opposed "The Surge"....oops i guess they were on the wrong side of that one.


Still waiting for your nomination.

Rice lied about weapons of WMD. As National Security Advisor she was directly involved in making inept military decisions that cost thousands of Americans their lives because in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have no doubt you feel that way.
Rice has on many occasions laid out the rationale for the war...the high suspicion of WMD being only a part of it. The decision to go to war was not made lightly, but was made within the context of 9/11 barely a year removed. No chances were to be taken with a man who was gaining strength, non compliant and in flagrant disregard with multiple U.N. resolutions. shooting at our aircraft, and uncooperative with inspectors for over a 12 year period dating all the way back into the Clinton administration. Of course, we all rue the deaths of American servicemen, but there is no way that we can know what the result of inaction would have been. The chances of Sadaam becoming a model citizen were really not too good.

And people seem to forget that Bill Clinton support invading Iraq (if and only if regime change was part of the plan). I think in 2002 Bill Clinton makes the exact same decision as GW did.

The prosecution/execution of that war is a different story.

HitsRus;1583285 wrote:I have no doubt you feel that way.
Rice has on many occasions laid out the rationale for the war...the high suspicion of WMD being only a part of it. The decision to go to war was not made lightly, but was made within the context of 9/11 barely a year removed. No chances were to be taken with a man who was gaining strength, non compliant and in flagrant disregard with multiple U.N. resolutions. shooting at our aircraft, and uncooperative with inspectors for over a 12 year period dating all the way back into the Clinton administration. Of course, we all rue the deaths of American servicemen, but there is no way that we can know what the result of inaction would have been. The chances of Sadaam becoming a model citizen were really not too good.

1. The overthrow of Saddam was a worthy goal.
2. Using the overstated threat of WMDs as the major argument for action proved to seriously undermine long term efforts in Iraq and future trust in US actions. The National Security establishment and the National Security adviser would bare great responsibility for the failure. A great many more stories and lies over a much longer period of time at much greater cost than anything that happened at Benghazi.
She would have access to information not available to any Senator.
3. The national security advisor with her role in military and administrative decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan has great responsibility for the ineptitude and needless cost of American lives in those campaigns. As was written

gut wrote: The prosecution/execution of that war is a different story.

Even he is occasionally right.

The prosecution/execution of that war is a different story

Even he is occasionally right

1)He is EXACTLY right. This was that administration's "Obamacare"....a worthy goal that is/was completely F***** up. As I said earlier... everyone makes mistakes...it is their actions that follow that determines their character. Let us keep in mind when judging Rice, that she was only part of this. She did not have control of all decisions....the buck stops on the desk of GWB. (as opposed to NEVER stopping on the desk of BHO). To be fair, she had no say in the military operation of the war, nor in the first 6 months of the 'reconstruction'...that is on Defense. She was left to clean up the mess.

2)"Lies".....really you just have to cut through the politics to realize that she was not lying, if you define lying as a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I'm not going to waste my time attempting to change your closed mind.

3)Benghazi....not really comparable here except in maybe comparing Rice "ignoring" reports of terrorist plots prior to 9/11 to Hillary failing to provide requested security. While Benghazi was "not as big" as the attack, the was a huge difference is the specificity of the threats, the fact that we are on a 'war footing' with terrorists for 12 years now so we should have expected and been prepared especially on the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat of an attack on that specific day was high.
The real story on Benghazi is not whether Hillary or Susan Rice "lied"( actually I feel they were just spinning very badly)...it was why were they attempting to spin this.

I'm done talking about Condi Rice. This thread is not about her.

I put her name out there as someone who I think fits the bill as outlined by the OP, knowing full well all this would come up.

Time to move on.

HitsRus;1583334 wrote:1)He is EXACTLY right. This was that administration's "Obamacare"....a worthy goal that is/was completely F***** up. As I said earlier... everyone makes mistakes...it is their actions that follow that determines their character. Let us keep in mind when judging Rice, that she was only part of this. She did not have control of all decisions....the buck stops on the desk of GWB. (as opposed to NEVER stopping on the desk of BHO). To be fair, she had no say in the military operation of the war, nor in the first 6 months of the 'reconstruction'...that is on Defense. She was left to clean up the mess.

2)"Lies".....really you just have to cut through the politics to realize that she was not lying, if you define lying as a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I'm not going to waste my time attempting to change your closed mind.

3)Benghazi....not really comparable here except in maybe comparing Rice "ignoring" reports of terrorist plots prior to 9/11 to Hillary failing to provide requested security. While Benghazi was "not as big" as the attack, the was a huge difference is the specificity of the threats, the fact that we are on a 'war footing' with terrorists for 12 years now so we should have expected and been prepared especially on the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat of an attack on that specific day was high.
The real story on Benghazi is not whether Hillary or Susan Rice "lied"( actually I feel they were just spinning very badly)...it was why were they attempting to spin this.

I'm done talking about Condi Rice. This thread is not about her.

I put her name out there as someone who I think fits the bill as outlined by the OP, knowing full well all this would come up.

Time to move on.

1. Gosh now there is an interesting equivalency, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq =Obamacare. I am sure the families of the American casualties would appreciate that. Ms. Rice was national security advisor, President Bush’s number one adviser on military and diplomatic affairs. Her continuing service in the Bush Administration shows her assent to their inept decisions on the course of the war.
2. If you prefer spin to lie, well she pushed the limits of spinning in her efforts to defend the Bush policies.
3.
“July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, to inform her about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.”
”
On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike: FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.[6] Rice responded to the claims about the briefing in a statement before the 9/11 Commission stating the brief was "not prompted by any specific threat information" and "did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles."“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks#August_6.2C_2001

^^^Since I'm just killing some time....and just for your own educational purposes...you cited Wikpedia, and in doing so you need to pay attention to your sources...the little footnoted numbers at the end of what is written.
Most of what you posted is journalistic interpretations of declassified documents, moreover, in an article looking in retrospective hindsight....for clues that might suggest an attack was about to happen. There are 2 substantiated accounts during intelligence briefings, that someone might have seized on....2 ...in all briefings that occur at least daily.....and contained no specific useful information. That's it...just two cherry picked accounts. Nor is the context of those accounts included against the backdrop of whatever other intellligence and other matters that was being discussed during that particular briefing.

I know nothing will change your mind....I realize that your agenda does not allow you to be thoughtful with this...and I realize that your hatred for the first black woman National Security Advisor and Secretary of State will not allow you to be fair.

HitsRus;1583413 wrote:^^^Since I'm just killing some time....and just for your own educational purposes...you cited Wikpedia, and in doing so you need to pay attention to your sources...the little footnoted numbers at the end of what is written.
Most of what you posted is journalistic interpretations of declassified documents, moreover, in an article looking in retrospective hindsight....for clues that might suggest an attack was about to happen. There are 2 substantiated accounts during intelligence briefings, that someone might have seized on....2 ...in all briefings that occur at least daily.....and contained no specific useful information. That's it...just two cherry picked accounts. Nor is the context of those accounts included against the backdrop of whatever other intellligence and other matters that was being discussed during that particular briefing.

I know nothing will change your mind....I realize that your agenda does not allow you to be thoughtful with this...and I realize that your hatred for the first black woman National Security Advisor and Secretary of State will not allow you to be fair.

Gosh a ruddies Condi is dismissive of what she is told by J. Cofer Colby, CIA counterterrorism chief and George Tenet, head of the CIA. And later a White House briefing on the threat, from the man responsible for bombings Khobar towers, US embassies in Africa and attacking the US Cole. Wow, that is incompetent.

incompetent?...LOL..... but Condi is a genius by these standards.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140115-senate-panel-says-benghazi-warning-signs-obvious-many-at-fault.ece

Zombaypirate;1582463 wrote:For the uneducated on here look (though you probably will disagree because you fail to qualify) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

I think it is time to end the stupidity and begin meritocracy. Lets allow the best to run the country rather than the rhetoric masters. For those that disagree I am sure you HATE capitalism an economic system basically the same.

I would ask for serious discussion but, that is probably a waste of time with those already polarized and frozen.

We don't have a meritocracy in this country? Lemme me know when you awaken from your coma.

gut;1583296 wrote:And people seem to forget that Bill Clinton support invading Iraq (if and only if regime change was part of the plan). I think in 2002 Bill Clinton makes the exact same decision as GW did.

The prosecution/execution of that war is a different story.

So Bill Clinton would have manufactured bogus intelligence and lied us into the Iraq war. Rich.

Footwedge;1583525 wrote:So Bill Clinton would have manufactured bogus intelligence and lied us into the Iraq war. Rich.

I think he knew plenty....and he's on record as supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Not rich, just not ignorant.

Footwedge;1583525 wrote:So Bill Clinton would have manufactured bogus intelligence and lied us into the Iraq war. Rich.

I think he knew plenty....and he's on record as supporting the invasion of Iraq. Not rich, just not ignorant. Without even going into the Wolfowitz doctrine.


Oh no's......worldview BLOWNT!!!!