CNN Host Exposes GOP’s Hypocrisy On Benghazi

[Synthaholic]

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.​

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

. 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.

Do you think the Republicans in the House know they have no say in who is appointed U.N. Ambassador?

 

[Stephanie]

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

 

[Sallow]

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 has 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 uneducated cnn host over common sense

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

 

[Sallow]

. 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.

Do you think the Republicans in the House know they have no say in who is appointed U.N. Ambassador?

Probably because they appoint people like Bachmann to sit on the intelligence committee.

 

[Stephanie]

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 has 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 uneducated cnn host over common sense

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

I saw your thread this morning, didn't quite get it but I was half awake...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush didn't doctor the Intel, Obama did.

See the difference?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Bush didn't doctor the Intel, Obama did.

See the difference?

Link?

 

[Stephanie]

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

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.

Nope, not in this matter where it came to Representing us..That was the JOB of OUR Secratasry of state..DUMBASS

 

[Sallow]

Bush didn't doctor the Intel, Obama did.

See the difference?

Obama isn't Petraeus.

Catch up.

 

[blastoff]

This is laughable although thoroughly expected from the likes of CNN.

Condi as well as every single prominent dimocrat believed there were WMD in part because our intel along with the intel of every major country in the world was in agreement about them. There was no lying on Condi's part because no one at the time knew anything different. That's a far cry from our UN ambassador lying about the video five days later and Barry doing the same in front of the entire world at the UN two whole weeks later.

 

[Avatar4321]

hypocrisy? When did the Republicans initiate a huge cover up of a terrorist attack?

 

[Dot Com]

Bush didn't doctor the Intel, Obama did.

See the difference?

Link?

yeah Frankie. where are the goods to back up that assertion Bu$h II lied more than he told the truth inre: Vietraq

 

[Trajan]

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.​

rice was wrong and rice was wrong, I don't know what condi knew, we now know that susan rice related to those sunday shows what she was told and saw via the talking points she was given.

AFIAK, susan rice is a now non issue (personally, as to what she said) unless someone surfaces proof she knew what is the Original report. *shrugs*

 

[Dot Com]

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

ummmm..... steph..... hate to break the news to you but you're one of the zaniest rw posters on this board. You always try to backpedal by saying "oh, I just got up" or "oh, I just got off work" or "oh, I'm getting sleepy"

Face it, you are in NO position to criticize ANYONE much less Soledad O'Brien.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

For the umpteenth time, where is the effing EVIDENCE for this BOGUS claim!?!?

 

[Dot Com]

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?

For the umpteenth time, where is the effing EVIDENCE for this BOGUS claim!?!?

"link"? From Katzndogs?

 

[MarcATL]

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

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.

You got her pegged dead to rights my friend.

As that is one retarded broad.