CNN Host Exposes GOP’s Hypocrisy On Benghazi

Discussion in 'Media' started by Synthaholic, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. Synthaholic
    Offline

    Synthaholic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    35,601
    Thanks Received:
    5,033
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
    Ratings:
    +8,878
    CNN Host Exposes GOP’s Hypocrisy On Benghazi

    Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to press his case against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the target of Republican criticism for initially claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi were inspired by spontaneous protests to an anti-Islamic video. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rice’s potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.

    Host Soledad O’Brien challenged Burgess’ opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administration’s role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bush’s intelligence failures than Obama, but when O’Brien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan:



    O’BRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue, to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security adviser, right? … Fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be secretary of state, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Sen John mccain who were furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?

    BURGESS: The difference is the scrutiny provided by our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I don’t see that happening now. Maybe I’ve missed something in the talking points, but I don’t see that happening. ….

    O’BRIEN: So you’re confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press — are you saying five days after comments of weapons of mass destruction, you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I don’t think that’s true, Sir. Most people say that’s not the case. It took a long time. …. Hey, I’m all about scrutiny. I guess I like consistency, too. You were not calling for more scrutiny and you weren’t saying that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her credibility as secretary of state. Again, McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems contradictory to me.

    BURGESS: You’ll have to take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham.​
     
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    The difference between Susan Rice and Condoleeza Rice is Susan Rice already knew what happened and the white house watched the attack as it went down. Susan Rice knew, or should have known, that the consulate personnel had begged for help for months. The Red Cross and the British had already gotten their people out. Only the US insisted that the personnel stay because the US intended at all times that thirty people be murdered. Not four. Those are the ones that actually died. The intent was that all 30 be killed. Why? What propaganda purpose would such a slaughter serve this royal regime?
     
  3. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Do you think the Republicans in the House know they have no say in who is appointed U.N. Ambassador?
     
  4. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    oh brother, some ditz Cnn Host is going to show us hypocrisy

    there is NO comparison between the two..

    Condoleezza Rice was SEC. of state

    Suzzy Rice was some ambassador to the UN that had no business in this matter to begin with as we HAVE a Sec. of State...where the hell was she?

    this is what's wrong with you people, you will the the word of some cnn host over common sense
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2012
  5. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    :lol:

    You can't be serious.

    In any case..I have another take on the scandal, I was sorta floating for awhile but waited till after Petraeus spoke to fully flesh it out.

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...here-may-have-been-a-scandal-in-benghazi.html
     
  6. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Probably because they appoint people like Bachmann to sit on the intelligence committee.
     
  7. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    I saw your thread this morning, didn't quite get it but I was half awake...:eusa_angel:
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,268
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,074
    Bush didn't doctor the Intel, Obama did.

    See the difference?
     
  9. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a U.N. Treaty you dumb ass. To say that the U.N. Ambassador has no business to comment on the violation of a U.S. diplomatic mission is the height of retardation.
     
  10. OohPooPahDoo
    Offline

    OohPooPahDoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    15,342
    Thanks Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    N'Awlins Mid-City
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Link?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page