Blame the UN

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Flanders, Nov 16, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Pat Buchanan asks:

    Has anyone considered that the answer might be Ban Ki-moon? Maybe not Ban personally, but certainly the UN’s propaganda machinery. After all she is US Ambassador to the United Nations.

    As a matter of course, I always assume the United Nations is behind every foul deed that harms the US. In the case of Susan Rice’s whirlwind tour of 5 TV shows my suspicions have staying power because of something Charles Krauthammer said:


    Laying the blame on the United Nations begs the question: Why would Ban authorize it?

    My first thought is that the UN wanted the basement-made video that nobody saw to get the blame in order to bury the fact that the attack was a preplanned, coordinated, military strike. For the American people to hear the truth flies in the face of everything the UN and the Administration want Americans to believe; i.e., there is no war. Hell, Hussein & Company used to deny the existence of terrorists. Even now they use the word terrorist grudgingly.

    Serendipitously, blaming the attack on an unseen video lets those UN member states funding the war off the hook.

    If I’m correct about the UN’s involvement there is good chance Ban and Rice did not clear her talk show tour with the White House. Let’s face it, the United Nations does not have to clear anything with Washington; less so with a UN-loving president like Hussein irrespective of what he says about Rice in this video:


    Hussein putting himself in front a firing squad is ludicrous. Rice did not hit the talk shows until September 16th. That means it took 5 days for the White House to come up with the stupidest piece of damage control since Clinton said:

    If Hussein is lying about sending Rice out there, I’d sure like to hear the choices that were rejected. At least Clinton thanked everybody for listening to the lies. Hussein should be so thoughtful.

    The odd thing is that Clinton threw Monica under the bus, while Hussein, the scourge of buses everywhere, is defending that woman, Susan Rice. The only thing that explains his sudden burst of chivalry is that it deflects attention away from the UN’s hand in the coverup. Even denying Rice the secretary of state job does not harm the United Nations —— which got her in trouble in the first place if you ask me.
     
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    This bit of info puts a different shading on my OP:

    Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says
    Published November 16, 2012FoxNews.com

    Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says | Fox News

    Everybody told in advance that Rice was going on talk shows only means that the UN and the White House collated coverup talking points. It all comes back to Charles Krauthammer’s question:

     

Share This Page