Best
106 Comments
Post
  • #23
    !
    No, they're not being unfair at all. It was a cover up, she along with Hillary and Mr. Obama
    were all involved in it, they know they were. The truth may come out some day, but this
    administration is very good, pro's , actually, at cover ups. One has only to look at the
    politics of the 'Chicago Political Machine', to know that Mr.Obama brought it with him,his
    "Community Organizing" taught him well...the White House administration is just as corrupt as the Daley's who ran Chicago, and had mob dealings for decades...same thing
    only now playing at the White House... Interesting.
  • #35
    !
    Are R's unfairly targeting Susan Rice? No, they are not targeting her at all, they have questions about her performance on those 5 Sunday shows when the exact opposite was known by all. This "Targeting" meme is just more of Obama's spin, trying to continue his phony war on women. HE said she had nothing to do with Benghazie, so why send her around? HE said she said what he told her to say, that's a direct quote from his presser when he got faux angry that she was questioned at all. So if she was the Sargent Schultz of the Obama administration and simply said what he told her to say, why did he tell her to repeat a lie? He knew the truth within 24 hours, Gen. Petraous new it, the SD knew it and yet the only person in DC who could go on FIVE Sunday shows was the one person who had no working knowledge of it? That alone is strange, to say the least. He could just as well have sent the WH gardener at that point. The newest, same old DNC talking point, is that to oppose her is to be sexist or racist. Gotta hand it to the progressives, they sure know how to stop a conversation. In this case call the questioners sexist (explain that to me if you can) or even better call them racist OR better and better call them SEXIST RACISTS!!! That will stop them cold. Just once it would be pleasant for the left to hold a rational conversation without their usual conversation stoppers of playing the race card and now their new one, designed to put the other on the defensive {as in, I'm not a racist, sexist or whatever, totally running any conversation off the rail}, and have them talk truthfully without lies and spin and their usual "gotcha" type of bullet points. Just once, a fair and honest conversation on the facts.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #25
    !
    All the Administration has to do is tell us which "White House appointee" decided that it was better to blame and attack the 1st Amendment instead of the terrorist group that preplanned this 9/11 anniversary attack.

    When that happens, attention will be drawn away from Susan Rice's apparent willingness to go along with attacking the 1st Amendment. She would still have to explain her willingness to go along with attacking the Constitution if she wants to be Secretary of State but at least she would share the target with whoever the genius is who thinks the death of an ambassador and 3 others is a good opportunity to attack Free Speech.
  • #28
    !
    Speaking of Free Speech. I found this article this morning. Apparently, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy has done a switcheroo from wanting to protect the privacy of Americans from prying government eyes and now is sponsoring a bill that removes protections from prying government eyes... Like the need for a warrant to read our email.

    Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants
    Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans' e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38...
  • #33
    !
    When did hte WH attack te 1st amendment? You'd think something like tat would have made the papers or the news...

    did you hear somebody say this and repeat it without checking its veracity?
  • #38
    !
    @woodtick57 The WH violated the 1st Amendment when the arrested and threw in jail an idiot who made a stupid film. They perp-walked him for the cameras and the Islamists rioting and burning our flag and our president in effigy in about 4 other countries, NOT Libya BTW. Not only that but he's now in jail of a flimsy and very minor parole violation. Anyone else would be out and walking the streets. That was an abridgement of his 1st. Amendment right to free speech. And by words, along with these deeds, both Hillary and Barry in various speeches bemoaned that America has free speech and the government could do nothing about it. If nothing more, that was a total diss of the 1st. Amendment. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57521939/...
  • #42
    !
    @Tralee the White House cannot arrest anybody ever. They do not have that power.

    The maker of the film was arrested on parole violation. He is a felon, and part of his parole was the he couldn't use te internet unsupervised...ooops, kinda did that, didn't he? he also broke several other of his parole restrictions and THAT is why he was arrested.

    If you bothered to read any articles about his arrest, you would have inown this.
  • #44
    !
    @woodtick57
    If tralee would have read the article in her own link she would have learned that. Lol.
  • R Load more replies

  • #65
    !
    She is not qualified to be Secretary of State. I'm not too sure about her qualifications for anything. I guess all she has to do is read or repeat what Barack Husssein Obama's cronies want her to say.
  • #54
    !
    The real question is, Why did Obama and his cronies send a, basically, unknown out in front of the world to regurgitate "talking points" that everyone, by that time, knew were inaccurate.
    Official statements from the White House do not come out without the President being aware. If he was unaware, then we would have to question his ability to lead his own staff, let alone America.
  • #62
    !
    "then we would have to question his ability to lead his own staff, let alone America."

    ........ We? I appreciate the suggestion that I should question his leadership, but I prefer to put forward my own questions. But since you seem to be ready and willing to suggest questions "we" all should ask, might I suggest that "we" ask McCain and Graham why is it their focus is on the scapegoat and not what actually went down. Maybe "we" should be questioning their leadership.
  • #72
    !
    @MRMacrum i disagree, the reason to question the "scapegoat", interesting choice of a word, by the way, is because, well she said it. Also, she is who Obama chose to send out and speak. Great, put Obama's butt in the seat, lets call him to the carpet, I would love to hear his emanation for Benghazi and much more.
  • #73
    !
    @Thegrif - He already told both of them that if they had a problem with the initial report, to take it up with him. Yet, they still insisted and still are insisting on dragging her through the mud.
  • #76
    !
    @MRMacrum Well I believe it is just following the trail, she said it, knowing the info was old, and bad info. Now they want to hear her say why she would give misinformation to America, and obviously she was directed to do so, by who? Then question them, and so on, and so on. Till they get to where the buck stops. I imagine the plan here is to get as many statements as possible pointing in one direction.
  • R Load more replies

  • #37
    !
    S.Rice was acting upon information she was provided by CIA and it was in error. Bush, Cheney and C.Rice lied on the basis of bad info in order to achieve an ulterior purpose. Which is worse, Republican lies or Democratic mistakes? Rice would make a great SoS just as Clinton did and undoubtedly upgrade the quality of info she acts upon.
  • #31
    !
    The GOP has been politicizing this tragedy since before the bodies were even cold. The facts don't matter to the GOP. Only the talking points do. Susan Rice is just the latest victim of GOP swiftboating.
  • #87
    !
    This is what politicians do. It is the game they play. Reps/ Dems who cares...really who cares? We all see these tactics used over and over, by both parties. What gets me is, we keep taking sides against each other in favor of one party or the other. When what we need to do is band together against the parties. The parties offer no solutions to the problems, they themselves, have created.
  • #22
    !
    The answer is no. There should be every expectation from our elected and appointed officials to tell the truth, no matter who provide the talking points. If the points are not true or spun in a fashion to try and deceive the populace, the official has an obligation to correct the statements and be truthful.
  • #36
    !
    @woodtick57
    Thank you I thought I had The wrong word. Spell check only tells me when the word is spelled wrong.
  • #58
    !
    @jamie91 That’s all required no need to look further. But what is her vast knowledge of foreign affairs and diplomacy that makes her qualified.
  • #10
    !
    No, the last time we had a Secretary of State that blindly followed the Administration's line, we got the war in Iraq. We need people that can think for themselves. There is a reason, Ms. Clinton did not appear on those Sunday shows. She is smarter than that. Ms. Rice is just not quaified for State.
  • #8
    !
    Because republicans are always help responsible for what drops out of their mouths.
    Give me a break, all they do is target people.
    Maybe republicans should target the fools within their own party..
  • #5
    !
    no it's not unfair to target Susan Rice she's a known liar. and I can hear the left right now "that's the information that was available to her at the time".
    that's BS. she allowed herself to be a tool used to do see the American people and the world in order to further the agenda that Obama has in his heart and to completely disregard the United States Constitution in the process. we need less people like her in our government not more.
  • #16
    !
    @blue_yahoo Facts of any cover-up or anything to actually cover up in the first place...those kind of things.
  • #57
    !
    @woodtick57 ask the mothers of those killed what 9 or 10 weeks ago now..". what was the cause of death of your loved 1?"

    and they won't have an answer because our government , which is the most corrupt government we've ever had, is still formulating a story they can sell to the American people.
  • #63
    !
    @bsking you mean the cover up of the total ineptness of some of our governments highest officials to secure the safety of our ambassador and others that they knew were in extreme danger and failed to respond to requests for more security and help in the weeks prior?
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    Seems the hyper-partisans are finally realizing they've got nothing on the benghazi issue, now they're grasping at straws...
  • #7
    !
    To the contrary, the gun is STILL smoking on this one.

    This Iranian chick seems to have no problem lying to the American people. Why else would she be paraded out to make Barry's case about the Benghazi attack being just a few kids throwing rocks?

    Hillary knew it was a lie and wanted no part of it. For that alone I give Hills a thumb up.
  • #15
    !
    @Jeff_Woehrle Susan Rice is Iranian? Since when?

    All you would need for that smoking un theory would be a gun...and some smoke. innuendo doesn't cut it....
  • #30
    !
    @woodtick57 Iranian, Black...like Barry, it appears liberals use whatever connection is convenient at the time.

    The facts are becoming more and more clear by the day: This president changed the description to avoid dispelling the perception that he had 'solved' the terror problem. The CIA TPM in its original form would have harmed that perception.

    The lies come swift and steady from this administration! And I'm loving every minute of it.
  • #32
    !
    @Jeff_Woehrle "Iranian, black..." you do realize Iranians are Aryan, don't you?

    facts don't really seem to matter to you much.

    if you were aware of the facts, you would know that Obama himself had said previously that Al queada was still alive and well.

    if you repeat media soundbytes, you should check to see if they are accurate first.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    As the UN ambassador has no say over US embassy operation, one has to wonder why Hillary wasn't trotted out to make the case. Could it be that she didn't want to say things that were not true?
  • #2
    !
    No. I still want to see April Glaspie in front of a committee answering questions about how she lied to Saddam's face about the US allowing an invasion of Kuwait, baby's throw out of incubators that never happens and so forth. Susan Rice might be a tool, but she knows things. If this were hundred years ago, Rice would be in a jail cell answering questions.
  • #100
    !
    Rice is not so nave as portrayed, while serving in the Clinton State Department, she was one of the main figures responsible for scuttling a deal in which Sudan would turn over Osama Bin Laden to the U.S.(she also pointedly refused to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda).
  • #93
    !
    There are really two questions here. First, is John McCain still able to fulfill his role as a national leader, or should he retire gracefully. Second, why be holding hearings when nobody knows what happened yet, so there is zero chance of actually accomplishing anything useful. Useful I said, blowing smoke and blustering don't count.
  • R Load more comments...
Post