16
   

Why are the republicans picking on Susan Rice?

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2012 08:43 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

It's a death by a thousand cuts thing. A preemptive strike against Rice does one of two things: If he doesn't nominate her (even if it is because he never intended to) it makes the President look like he was scared of confrontation. If he does, they can fight tooth and nail against her nominati0n and say the President was warned but clearly wasn't interested in finding a compromise with Republicans.


I've always said if he's damned if he does damned if he doesn't... then **** 'em up
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2012 08:55 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad.


Yup, once again, it was all about helping the poor people of Iraq.

First, the US commits the ultimate crime against humanity by invading a sovereign nation. It murders, what hundreds of thousands. It leaves WMDs all over the place. It then proceeds to steal the wealth of the Iraqi people.

And y'all spend your time whining about the most inane things. Really, have you ever, ever, seen anyone as self absorbed as Americans?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2012 10:37 pm
@engineer,
Pretty clever.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 02:40 am
@djjd62,
So it's our stuff repackaged. Thanks. We don't have an ecompassing brand for American TV, probably because there's so much of it.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 10:56 am
Quote:
The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday

The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.

Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.

"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.

The September 11 attack resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Some Republican members of Congress suggested the change came from within the Obama administration - from the White House, the Justice Department, or another government agency.

Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.

"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback," Turner said, referring to the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and FBI. "There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community," he said.

The House Intelligence Committee was not satisfied with Turner's statement.

"The statement released this evening by the DNI's spokesman regarding how the Intelligence Community's talking points were changed gives a new explanation that differs significantly from information provided in testimony to the Committee last week," said committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen. "Chairman Rogers looks forward to discussing this new explanation with Director Clapper as soon as possible to understand how the DNI reached this conclusion and why leaders of the Intelligence Community testified late last week that they were unaware of who changed the talking points."

The White House on Friday said it made only one change, substituting the word "mission" for "consulate."

The FBI requested a change in language which originally stated the U.S. "knew" Islamic extremists participated in the attack. According to a U.S. intelligence official the wording was changed to "there are indications" Islamic extremists participated.

Obama administration continues explanations on Benghazi decision-making

The drumbeat of criticism began early on with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration for publicly saying the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest against an anti Muslim video on the web even though the Republicans claim the administration knew it was a planned terrorist attack.

The harshest criticism has focused on Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who used the talking points as the basis for comments she made on Sunday talk shows five days after the attack. During her appearances, Rice said a small number of people came to the mission in reaction to demonstrations occurring in Cairo over the anti-Muslim film, but the Benghazi protest was hijacked by armed extremists. She never mentioned terrorists.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said this isn't about parsing words. "There was some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had. That's my concern," Rogers said last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Former CIA Director Petraeus told lawmakers last Friday there were multiple streams of intelligence, some that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. But other intelligence indicated the violence at the Benghazi mission was inspired by protests in Egypt over the anti Muslim video.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 11:38 am
@revelette,
Even with this knowledge, McCain as demanding that Susan Rice apologize.

There's no.....
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:02 pm
I hope Obama nominates her anyway.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:03 pm
@RABEL222,
He should. Obama can't let the idiotic GOP who doesn't even have their story straight influence his pick for SOS.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:09 pm
@RABEL222,
Even if he wasn't going to beforehand?


It's almost like he has to now, whether he had intended to or not.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:12 pm
@JPB,
he shoukd mind **** everybody and offer the job back to condoleeza rice
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:15 pm
@djjd62,
She's on the short list to run for national office in 2016. Otherwise, I'd agree with you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:21 pm
@JPB,
I think it should depend on her ability to handle the job.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 01:46 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
It sounds like she's been pretty loose with the gasoline as she burns bridges. Some of this may be payback for past deeds and comments. From the article I linked earlier

Quote:
Particularly in comparison to the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her.



I can't really understand why she wasn't put into a back office with no public dealings some time ago. She doesn't appear to have behaved in a way suggesting diplomatic aspirations.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 04:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain now wants Susan Rice to apologize. What gall, what chutzpah what stupdity!


Quote:
Rice’s putdown of Clinton was tame compared to her portrayal of McCain during 2008, which no doubt contributes to McCain’s hostility toward her today. She mocked McCain’s trip to Iraq (“strolling around the market in a flak jacket”), called his policies “reckless” and said “his tendency is to shoot first and ask questions later. It’s dangerous.”


It's become clear as to why McCain demands an act of public contrition from Rice before he’ll consider her possible nomination to head the State Department (at about 16:00).

His insistence for it had seemed particularly personal.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 04:38 pm
@InfraBlue,
That's called immaturity. Anybody who acts like McCain to revenge someone needs to have more common sense. Attacking someone without full knowledge can backfire, and that's exactly what has happened.

He's now acting like a mad man without any sense of right or wrong.

I miss the old John.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 04:55 pm
He can not consider it all he wants. Unless he's going to "actually" filibuster it (vs just saying he's opposed) then he should go right ahead. What a stupid thing to filibuster. In the meantime he, Graham, and Ayotte are only three people. Rice might not have 60 yeses, but if McCain keeps up his vindictive crap she might get them.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 06:23 pm
@JPB,
Quite a few GOP members of congress signed a petition against Rice.
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yeah, but they were House members (97 of them) who don't get to vote on her confirmation. So far the only names I've heard that have said they'd vote against her are McCain, Graham, and Ayotte.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:29 pm
@JPB,
Isn't it interesting how the GOP congress works in tandem without any sense of common sense or fairness? They'd rather be 100% wrong than agree with anything Obama does.

How does the American voter continue to reelect these idiots? Is it because they are of the same mind? Idiots.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Lots of reasons. Incumbents tend to be able to avoid primary races and districts tend to vote for the same folks year after year, particularly if they think seniority will help them when it comes to pork. Apathy is another reason. The incumbent has a lot of name recognition and folks will choose that name simply because they've heard it in the media. And, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of idealogical voters who vote along party lines
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 09:05:03