Rice acknowledges some of her Benghazi info was incorrect but has no regrets

[skye]

Libs I'm waiting for you to try to explain to me why Susan Rice was sent out there.

She was sent out there to show the world how to lie.... and to show the world that the better you lie ... with a straight face like Rice did , the higher you will get in this Administration.
The rest, that Americans died in Benghazi is inconsequential and it "doesn't make any difference at this point".


What else do you expect from the most lying President and Administration in the history of the U.S.A?

Do you really feel that way, deep down, in your gut?

Of course I do, otherwise I would have not post that.

 

[francoHFW]

401- Then you're a brainwashed functional idiot, CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

 

[skye]

401- Then you're a brainwashed functional idiot, CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

I am not.

On the other hand.... Rice is a freaking, stinking liar.

 

[francoHFW]

bs

Feb 23, 2014- ''RICE: First of all, there's an FBI investigation, which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's-- that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation.''

Susan Rice Calls Out Conservative Media: It's "Patently False" That Administration Misled On Benghazi | Blog | Media Matters for America

Everyone in the world beside Pub dupes know who the liars are...

 

[BlindBoo]

She was sent out there to show the world how to lie.... and to show the world that the better you lie ... with a straight face like Rice did , the higher you will get in this Administration.
The rest, that Americans died in Benghazi is inconsequential and it "doesn't make any difference at this point".


What else do you expect from the most lying President and Administration in the history of the U.S.A?

Do you really feel that way, deep down, in your gut?

Of course I do, otherwise I would have not post that.

The Word - Truthiness - The Colbert Report - 2005-17-10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[The Rabbi]

Being overly dramatic don't you think, trying to elevate the targets of the phony Benghazi scandal to Nazi war criminals?

I did no such thing. Not that such a comparison has never been made by leftists here.
But it is true that "only following orders" is not a valid excuse for doing something knowing it was wrong.

Well yeah sure, but carefully crafted but speculative talking points given after a verbal disclaimer during Sunday morning talk shows would hardly be brought up during a Nuremburg type trial. So the reason for bringing up Nuremburg "I was only killing Jews because I was ordered too" non defense was what?

Want to talk about the points, and the differences between them and the facts. Okay, fine

The GOP chose instead to shoot the messenger. It was a cheap shot. Walked up right behind her and shot her in the back.

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

 

[skye]

Do you really feel that way, deep down, in your gut?

Of course I do, otherwise I would have not post that.

The Word - Truthiness - The Colbert Report - 2005-17-10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[BlindBoo]

I did no such thing. Not that such a comparison has never been made by leftists here.
But it is true that "only following orders" is not a valid excuse for doing something knowing it was wrong.

Well yeah sure, but carefully crafted but speculative talking points given after a verbal disclaimer during Sunday morning talk shows would hardly be brought up during a Nuremburg type trial. So the reason for bringing up Nuremburg "I was only killing Jews because I was ordered too" non defense was what?

Want to talk about the points, and the differences between them and the facts. Okay, fine

The GOP chose instead to shoot the messenger. It was a cheap shot. Walked up right behind her and shot her in the back.

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course I do, otherwise I would have not post that.

The Word - Truthiness - The Colbert Report - 2005-17-10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Stephen's going to be mad at you if your burning his denims!!!!!

 

[skye]

The Word - Truthiness - The Colbert Report - 2005-17-10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Stephen's going to be mad at you if your burning his denims!!!!!

those are Rice's denims..... you know, Susan Rice!!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Well yeah sure, but carefully crafted but speculative talking points given after a verbal disclaimer during Sunday morning talk shows would hardly be brought up during a Nuremburg type trial. So the reason for bringing up Nuremburg "I was only killing Jews because I was ordered too" non defense was what?

Want to talk about the points, and the differences between them and the facts. Okay, fine

The GOP chose instead to shoot the messenger. It was a cheap shot. Walked up right behind her and shot her in the back.

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

 

[BlindBoo]

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

Wow if that's all al Qaeda can effectively do maybe Obama really has got them on the run. Maybe they just didn't plan it very well or for very long. Don't they usually hit soft targets, where lots of civilians get killed, with multiple suicide bombers?

Have you forgotten the Mullahs who can inflame Muslims on his word alone? No one needed to see the video to be whipped up into an anti-American frenzy.

You guy need a new stick. The phony one is broken.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

Wow if that's all al Qaeda can effectively do maybe Obama really has got them on the run. Maybe they just didn't plan it very well or for very long. Don't they usually hit soft targets, where lots of civilians get killed, with multiple suicide bombers?

Have you forgotten the Mullahs who can inflame Muslims on his word alone? No one needed to see the video to be whipped up into an anti-American frenzy.

You guy need a new stick. The phony one is broken.

Seriously? That's lame. Even for you.
Nothing phony except Obama &Co's response. Shame no one will call them on it. In past years liberals would have been outraged.

 

[Mustang]

No, I wont let you get away with that. She lied, flat out. The lawyerly language and all was a cover. She told a falsehood, which Obama repeated weeks later. They knew it was false when they said it. That is the very definition of lie.
The message was a lie. The messenger was lying. Whom would you want to shoot?
Do you dispute that she lied? ANd that Obama lied weeks later when he repeated the same story? And that Hillary also lied when she told the same story?

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

Terrorism is never going to be vanquished, and nobody believes it will be. It's a tactic which is employed by people who don't have countries and armies.

But al Qaeda has been on the run for the last dozen years. They're mostly an empty threat (unless they get a nuke) that can and will continue to be a nuisance to anyone and everyone when someone cobbles together an explosive and goes to a public place to detonate it either in person or after planting it somewhere. That's no reason for Americans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the terrorism as if it's an existential threat because it isn't.

But do you know what? ANYONE with a bomb or guns can show up just about anytime anywhere there isn't a steel curtain of security. It could happen tomorrow at a McD somewhere in Europe, or at an American-owned business like an Apple Store anywhere in the world.

The point is that ANYONE can call themselves al Qaeda if they want to and then set off an explosion at a place that seems vulnerable. But how often has that happened in the last decade? It's been extremely infrequent. If al Qaeda was more of a threat, it would be happening all the time.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only thing they got wrong in their initial assessment was that there was no copy-cat protests at the consulate that extremist element took advantage of, or joined. An Extremist militia came armed and ready to blow some American shit up. Then a mob riot ensued and set the place on fire, likely killing the Ambassador.

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

Terrorism is never going to be vanquished, and nobody believes it will be. It's a tactic which is employed by people who don't have countries and armies.

But al Qaeda has been on the run for the last dozen years. They're mostly an empty threat (unless they get a nuke) who can and will continue to be a nuisance to anyone and everyone when someone cobbles together an explosive and goes to a public place to detonate it either in person or after planting it somewhere. That's no reason for Americans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the terrorism as if it's an existential threat because it isn't.

But do you know what, ANYONE with a bomb or guns can show up just about anytime anywhere there isn't a steel curtain of security. It could happen tomorrow at a McD somewhere in Europe, or at an American-owned business like an Apple Store anywhere in the world.

The point is that ANYONE can call themselves al Qaeda if they want to and then set off an explosion at a place that seems vulnerable. But how often has that happened in the last decade? It's been extremely infrequent. If al Qaeda was more of a threat, it would be happening all the time.

Yeah, that was the line that Obama was pushing. Fools like you fell for it. That's why he needed to lie and say it was a spontaneous demonstration, even though he knew the truth.

 

[Mustang]

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

Terrorism is never going to be vanquished, and nobody believes it will be. It's a tactic which is employed by people who don't have countries and armies.

But al Qaeda has been on the run for the last dozen years. They're mostly an empty threat (unless they get a nuke) who can and will continue to be a nuisance to anyone and everyone when someone cobbles together an explosive and goes to a public place to detonate it either in person or after planting it somewhere. That's no reason for Americans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the terrorism as if it's an existential threat because it isn't.

But do you know what, ANYONE with a bomb or guns can show up just about anytime anywhere there isn't a steel curtain of security. It could happen tomorrow at a McD somewhere in Europe, or at an American-owned business like an Apple Store anywhere in the world.

The point is that ANYONE can call themselves al Qaeda if they want to and then set off an explosion at a place that seems vulnerable. But how often has that happened in the last decade? It's been extremely infrequent. If al Qaeda was more of a threat, it would be happening all the time.

Yeah, that was the line that Obama was pushing. Fools like you fell for it. That's why he needed to lie and say it was a spontaneous demonstration, even though he knew the truth.

What line?

Terrorism IS a tactic. And aside from concerns that I have that ANY terrorist group might get a Nuke, groups like al Qaeda are more of a threat in our minds than in actuality.

Unless or until al Qaeda starts killing WAY more people and destroying WAY more property than have been for about a decade, than the US would be foolish to expend massive resources to fight them compared to preparing for far larger potential threats like Chinese expansionism because they DO have armies and a navy, and they could pose a real threat to American interests abroad.

But it's like I've said before, conservatives are less concerned with protecting America from REAL threats than they are with tearing down Obama (or ANY president who happens to be a Democrat for that matter).

Four Americans died in Benghazi which was awash in weapons and had little in the way of any real gov't control. Was it a tragedy for the families? Of course. Could our gov't have done more to protect the compound and the personnel? Absolutely. But the staff there understood the risks of being in that country just as the staffs of ALL embassies and diplomatic compounds in foreign countries with separatist movements understand that they might be targets. That's a constant risk. My guess is that the State Dept deals with those threats all the time, and we never hear a word about it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Terrorism is never going to be vanquished, and nobody believes it will be. It's a tactic which is employed by people who don't have countries and armies.

But al Qaeda has been on the run for the last dozen years. They're mostly an empty threat (unless they get a nuke) who can and will continue to be a nuisance to anyone and everyone when someone cobbles together an explosive and goes to a public place to detonate it either in person or after planting it somewhere. That's no reason for Americans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the terrorism as if it's an existential threat because it isn't.

But do you know what, ANYONE with a bomb or guns can show up just about anytime anywhere there isn't a steel curtain of security. It could happen tomorrow at a McD somewhere in Europe, or at an American-owned business like an Apple Store anywhere in the world.

The point is that ANYONE can call themselves al Qaeda if they want to and then set off an explosion at a place that seems vulnerable. But how often has that happened in the last decade? It's been extremely infrequent. If al Qaeda was more of a threat, it would be happening all the time.

Yeah, that was the line that Obama was pushing. Fools like you fell for it. That's why he needed to lie and say it was a spontaneous demonstration, even though he knew the truth.

What line?

Terrorism IS a tactic. And aside from concerns that I have that ANY terrorist group might get a Nuke, groups like al Qaeda are more of a threat in our minds than in actuality.

.

Six Americans and their families would disagree with you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Uh no. Have you not paid attention? It was a planned al Qaeda attack. The only thing they got wrong was that for weeks they announced it was a spontaneous protest against an internet video that no one in Libya saw. They did that because the facts did not accord with the administration's line that Obama had vanquished terrorism and al Qaeda was on the run.
Or did you miss the facts here. Again?

Wow if that's all al Qaeda can effectively do maybe Obama really has got them on the run. Maybe they just didn't plan it very well or for very long. Don't they usually hit soft targets, where lots of civilians get killed, with multiple suicide bombers?

Have you forgotten the Mullahs who can inflame Muslims on his word alone? No one needed to see the video to be whipped up into an anti-American frenzy.

You guy need a new stick. The phony one is broken.

Seriously? That's lame. Even for you.
Nothing phony except Obama &Co's response. Shame no one will call them on it. In past years liberals would have been outraged.

It's as phony as they get. In fact it's one of many of the pillars of Bull Shit Mountain.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT5fzEL8Vrc]bullshit mountain - o reilly vs john stewart - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow if that's all al Qaeda can effectively do maybe Obama really has got them on the run. Maybe they just didn't plan it very well or for very long. Don't they usually hit soft targets, where lots of civilians get killed, with multiple suicide bombers?

Have you forgotten the Mullahs who can inflame Muslims on his word alone? No one needed to see the video to be whipped up into an anti-American frenzy.

You guy need a new stick. The phony one is broken.

Seriously? That's lame. Even for you.
Nothing phony except Obama &Co's response. Shame no one will call them on it. In past years liberals would have been outraged.

It's as phony as they get. In fact it's one of many of the pillars of Bull Shit Mountain.
]

Neg rep for doubling down on stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

Seriously? That's lame. Even for you.
Nothing phony except Obama &Co's response. Shame no one will call them on it. In past years liberals would have been outraged.

It's as phony as they get. In fact it's one of many of the pillars of Bull Shit Mountain.
]

Neg rep for doubling down on stupid.