Rice: We didn't intend to mislead on Benghazi

[emptystep]

Senators more worried after meeting with Rice.

McCain: 'Troubled' by Benghazi reports

I wonder if McCain and the others are holding Rice hostage in an effort to get information they are not privileged to get.

 

[emptystep]

Petreaus said that

That is what came out of the first briefing as what he said. Seems someone has an ax to grind.

Who said he said that, we have a direct quote from ......?

Rep. King for one.

 

[Sallow]

Senators more worried after meeting with Rice.

McCain: 'Troubled' by Benghazi reports

I wonder if McCain and the others are holding Rice hostage in an effort to get information they are not privileged to get.

Naw.

They really aren't focusing at all on the "information".

The meme keeps going back to the administration "lying" or "misrepresenting".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rice: We didn't intend to mislead on Benghazi - POLITICO.com

"Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved," Rice said.

Seems to me that a plain reading of what she is saying is that the DID mislead the country just like the right has been saying.

She got on TV, knowingly stated something that contradicted the briefings she personally received, but it was an accident.

Got it.

you mean the briefings where the CIA told her to say what on tv?
Ok keep lying fuckstain.

Haven't been watching the news today, have you? She actually admitted that she knew there was no protest and that the attack was both preplanned and terrorism.

By the way, the claim that the CIA told her this stuff was busted last week. Have you been living under a rock?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

what part of intended baffles you?

What part of AQ Terrorist attack on 9/11 do you not understand?

i understand it just fine, frankie

now go try to make political points on a different set of cadavers

"It was a video!" is making political points, TM Clone

 

[skye]

 

[mudwhistle]

No, that's a twisted reading. The right said they intentionally misled the public and Rice was saying in a diplomatic way "it was all in their head".

No.....this is what a child says when it is caught doing something wrong.

"I didn't really mean to lie about it!!!!"

What everyone is ignoring is Obama lied several times later after he already knew the truth........so this doesn't even pass as plausible deniability.

I am ignoring nothing. Obama went in front of the UN general Assebly and told them it was over the video.....Lie?

Yes......lie.

Next stupid question.

 

[Stephanie]

Come on people, Obama and Rice didn't have a hand in ANY of this

but they did kill Bin laden

 

[Claudette]

To bad the CIA doesn't back up her story.

They lied and kept on lying about Benghazi.

 

[BlindBoo]

They did not intend to mislead. Let me give you an example of intending to mislead. When John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denied any link to the Watergate burglars. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

Or like when Susan Rice denied that the Benghazi attack was the work of Al Qaeda. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

The talking points for the media, prepared by the CIA called them extremist. Which is not a lie. Of course if you have a quote or a link to a quote where she specifically denied that it was al Queda.....

 

[Jarhead]

They did not intend to mislead. Let me give you an example of intending to mislead. When John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denied any link to the Watergate burglars. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

Or like when Susan Rice denied that the Benghazi attack was the work of Al Qaeda. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

The talking points for the media, prepared by the CIA called them extremist. Which is not a lie. Of course if you have a quote or a link to a quote where she specifically denied that it was al Queda.....

your debate style is disingenuous

 

[Two Thumbs]

what part of intended baffles you?

Are you that fucking dumb or that damn naive?

I'll let you ponder that for a while, since I'm thinking the multiple choices could take you a while

 

[BlindBoo]

DID NOT MEAN TO MISLEAD.......CAN NOT MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THEN THEY DID. It is just a matter of whom set them up.

They did not intend to mislead. Let me give you an example of intending to mislead. When John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denied any link to the Watergate burglars. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

And yet the effects both are the same.

Not even close to the same. Nixon was heading for a bipartisan impeachment because the investigation uncovered massive corruption and illegal activity. Get back to me when the President resigns over the controversy of who changed the wording of the unclassified meda talking points and when they changed them......

 

[Two Thumbs]

Rice: We didn't intend to mislead on Benghazi - POLITICO.com

"Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved," Rice said.

Seems to me that a plain reading of what she is saying is that the DID mislead the country just like the right has been saying.

The more and more that comes out, the more and more I'm convinced of a cover up.

Her reward? Secretary of State.

Highest level diplomat seat as payment for her cover up.

 

[LeftofLeft]

what part of intended baffles you?

...that with all of these elite Ivy Leaguers running the country and receiving warnings and pleas from those eventually killed, the best immediate "explanation" they can come up with is a You Tube Video.

 

[Freewill]

Obama's defense of Rice was that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. Which obviously raises some questions. If she didn't have nothing to do with Benghazi then why in the hell was she out in front? Why did she obviously tell us what was not true, five times? The very, very obvious answer is that Hillary wouldn't do it. At least she has that much integrity. Was she promised Hillary's job if she did the dirty work of the administration? The point of defending her has long pasted. It is obvious she was told to mislead the American people as Obama did to the world when he addressed the UN general assembly.

 

[Freewill]

They did not intend to mislead. Let me give you an example of intending to mislead. When John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denied any link to the Watergate burglars. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

And yet the effects both are the same.

Not even close to the same. Nixon was heading for a bipartisan impeachment because the investigation uncovered massive corruption and illegal activity. Get back to me when the President resigns over the controversy of who changed the wording of the unclassified meda talking points and when they changed them......

Obama did not tell the truth over Benghazi. Why do people not tell the truth? Because the truth is what they are hiding, just as did Nixon. Watergate played out over a whole election cycle, the MSM would not let it go. As they should not let this go. People died and Obama obviously lied. Your key words are "the investigation" yet the left wants this to drop. Maybe an investigation will just reveal that Obama and company are incompetent, which is what i think, more then criminal. But the actions of this administration lead to the deaths of 4 Americans, they deserve an investigation if nothing else.

 

[Jarhead]

what part of intended baffles you?

...that with all of these elite Ivy Leaguers running the country and receiving warnings and pleas from those eventually killed, the best immediate "explanation" they can come up with is a You Tube Video.

which happened to be the ONLY explanation that did not have actual evidence to support it.

LOL...they didnt want to pin an explanation on anything until the investigation was completed....so they opted to pin it on an American irresponsibly exercising his first ammendmen right..

Sure...that is a way to get the rest of the world to like our way of life.

Smart move.

 

[Freewill]

what part of intended baffles you?

Let me ask you this. Her latest statement, is she intentionally misleading America or unintentionally? Could be telling the truth but since she admits to feeding the American people lies who can believe a word she now says?

I mean, she admits to not telling the truth, intentionally or not, how can she be trusted?

 

[BlindBoo]

Or like when Susan Rice denied that the Benghazi attack was the work of Al Qaeda. Now no one can argue that that was an unintentional mislead!

The talking points for the media, prepared by the CIA called them extremist. Which is not a lie. Of course if you have a quote or a link to a quote where she specifically denied that it was al Queda.....

your debate style is disingenuous

Can you provide a quote or something that will back up the claim that she denied that it was al Queda? Was she ever asked "Was this the work of al Queda?" How about the term extremist? You do believe that al Queda is an extremist group right? Did she ever not qualify her statments by saying we will wait until the investigation is complete?