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

[Sallow]

But rice didn't lie....but continue the talking point

What do you call it when someone says something that isn't 100 percent true?

It wasn't even 5% true. It simply wasn't true.

What about it wasn't true?

The New York Times did their own investigation into Benghazi and found that, yes indeed, many of the attackers were pissed about the video made by that Criminal, Nakoula.

Basically, history will remember the despicable thing Romney did when he was criticizing the President as the attack was ongoing.

Please do...keep this alive.

It shows how traitorous the GOP has become.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Someday Benghazi will be fully explored, and we will understand how devious; criminal this administration is! Rice is guilty of misleading the people; coverup!

Hogwash. She is guilty of flawlessly delivering the public message, a.k.a. talking points developed by the various departments of the Federal Government. Not even a hint of a cover up.

ill agree with that....thats what most of the "spokes holes" do anyways....

 

[Sallow]

Yup. Its called deflect, deflect and deflect again.

Anytime someone on this board says something negative about Barry and his pack of boobs the next thing you get is 9-11, the Iraq war and Bush.

Of course its kinda hard to defend the current jackass in chief, Hilbat and the pack of boobs that Barry surrounds himself with. Its much easier to blame Bush.

Barry is a failure as POTUS but what can one expect from a law professor/part time senator/community organizer? He was no more fit to be POTUS than my dog. Oh wait. My dog would have done a better job.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I]Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

You guys blame Americans for terrorist attacks.

have lunch with Dean again Sallow?....have you read his book yet?....."if one Conservative says it.....they all believe it"....by Rdean.....

Eyah Harry.

Did any conservative rebuke Falwell? Did they even stop talking to him?

Did Pat Robertson suddenly lose favor in the Conservative community?

Did George W. Bush instantly fire all those Regents lawyers he hired?

Oh yeah.

None of that happened.

Tell you what did happen.

Romney criticized Obama for Benghazi while it was ongoing.

That was unprecedented and bodes badly for a functioning executive branch during elections.

But instead of saying that? Conservatives went apeshit on Benghazi.

It was a totally partisan attack.

Multiple diplomatic outposts were attacked during the Bush administration.

They lied about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.

And there were plenty of Security Contractors killed during the Iraq war.

None of that even came into the radar of conservatives.

 

[BlindBoo]

Someday Benghazi will be fully explored, and we will understand how devious; criminal this administration is! Rice is guilty of misleading the people; coverup!

Hogwash. She is guilty of flawlessly delivering the public message, a.k.a. talking points developed by the various departments of the Federal Government. Not even a hint of a cover up.

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

 

[Brn2bfree]

Liberals are liars. Now.. and for ever.

 

[Jarhead]

Hogwash. She is guilty of flawlessly delivering the public message, a.k.a. talking points developed by the various departments of the Federal Government. Not even a hint of a cover up.

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

She was not covering up a crime.

She was protecting the campaign mantra of Obama....you know...."al quaeda is on the run"

In other words, she was instructed to mislead the American people to ensure President Obama's re-election.

It is not rocket science.

And if she wanted to protect the integrity of the investigation, then she would have said "it is an ongoing investigation and I don't want to comment and compromise its integrity"

Again, not rocket science.

 

[BlindBoo]

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

Let's work through the chain of evidence here. You know, by all the evidence you have gathered, that there was a terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. You know, by all the evidence you have gathered, that Susan Rice was not telling the truth on the talk shows on that given Sunday. Now where exactly do you say the truth became a lie and on what evidence do you base that conclusion?

When did the truth become a lie? How can I possible know when the then SOS shrieks "what difference does it make at this point?"

What we know is that the truth did become a lie.

My question all along has not been whether what Rice told was true because we now know it was not. My question is why was she told to not tell what was 100 percent true. Or do you really want our government coming out and with assuredness telling us things that are not true?

We know that lie is out there now we need to question why the lie.

Obviously you choose to be disingenuous. Does the reason (We hate you for a movie or we hate you because you're an American) a group of men decide to attack a building matter to the tactical defense of that building?

How could you think they were coming out with assuredness about the event when they qualified their statements every time with something like:

"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."

 

[The Rabbi]

Hogwash. She is guilty of flawlessly delivering the public message, a.k.a. talking points developed by the various departments of the Federal Government. Not even a hint of a cover up.

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

 

[BlindBoo]

actually you're right

libs not caring that they lied to the country isn't news. guess it's ok they ruined that video directors life with their lies, but it was just him, just one man.

But rice didn't lie....but continue the talking point

It was an absolute lie. She knew at the time it was a lie. The administration knew it was a lie. And yet she repeated it over and over. IT does not get any more lying than that.
But you've already admitted to being a stupid fuckwad, so what can I expect?

No lie. The Muslim Mullahs were whipping the masses to riot all over the ME over that dumb video weren't they? I'm sure someone in the chain believed there was some kind of protest at the Consulate before the extremist attacked.

 

[Jarhead]

Let's work through the chain of evidence here. You know, by all the evidence you have gathered, that there was a terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. You know, by all the evidence you have gathered, that Susan Rice was not telling the truth on the talk shows on that given Sunday. Now where exactly do you say the truth became a lie and on what evidence do you base that conclusion?

When did the truth become a lie? How can I possible know when the then SOS shrieks "what difference does it make at this point?"

What we know is that the truth did become a lie.

My question all along has not been whether what Rice told was true because we now know it was not. My question is why was she told to not tell what was 100 percent true. Or do you really want our government coming out and with assuredness telling us things that are not true?

We know that lie is out there now we need to question why the lie.

Obviously you choose to be disingenuous. Does the reason (We hate you for a movie or we hate you because you're an American) a group of men decide to attack a building matter to the tactical defense of that building?

How could you think they were coming out with assuredness about the event when they qualified their statements every time with something like:

"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."

Lets just say it WAS the video...

Then commenting by saying "we believe it was the video" as they did, would have compromised the investigation.

Now, seeing as the WH was informed within minutes that it was a terrorist attack, it seems illogical that they would say it "may have been the video"....

This was intentional misleading of the American people during the final days of an election campaign.

The fact that you refuse to see that simply shows us one of two things...

1) You refuse to admit was is obvious for it will make your party of choice look bad
2) you are easily fooled by spin and rhetoric.

 

[Jarhead]

But rice didn't lie....but continue the talking point

It was an absolute lie. She knew at the time it was a lie. The administration knew it was a lie. And yet she repeated it over and over. IT does not get any more lying than that.
But you've already admitted to being a stupid fuckwad, so what can I expect?

No lie. The Muslim Mullahs were whipping the masses to riot all over the ME over that dumb video weren't they? I'm sure someone in the chain believed there was some kind of protest at the Consulate before the extremist attacked.

Sure. Someone did...maybe..

However, the head of the CIA and the head of the defense department knew otherwise and informed the President of such minutes after the attack happened.

So who cares what "someone in the chain" thought?

 

[RandomVariable]

Let's try this: Using a top down approach I will try to determine that answer to this riddle. First I must state my assumptions. I am assuming that there was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. I am also assuming that Susan Rice said there was a riot in Benghazi because of a video. If anyone want to dispute those assumptions please tell me and I will redo my analysis. So now we have two "truths." Truth A, terrorist attack, does not match truth B, video riot. Using our top down approach we divide the problem into the fewest number of pieces, 3: 1) the intelligence community (IC), 2) the Obama administration (Obama), 3) UN Ambassador Susan Rice (Rice). What must be determined before any other conclusions can be drawn is who lied first. The definition of a lie for Obama and Rice is if they were told to say A and instead said B, this is why determining who lied first is so paramount. I believe most people here are not claiming Rice lied first. She was told to say B and she said B. (anyone who would like to jump on that, please don't). So now we need to determine if Obama lied first. Was he told to say A and said B? We don't actually know that do we. Why? Because we don't know what the IC told Obama. There were some closed door hearings to tell members of Congress some of that. You remember, the hearings that went on while McCain held a press briefing in the hallways about how there was no information being given out. So since the IC has not published any statement on what they did or did not recommend the President say in the interest of national security, no one from the closed door hearings has stated on the record what was said, and Obama has not said what the IC told him during those days we must go with the only reliable source of information we have FOX News!

 

[BlindBoo]

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

She was not covering up a crime.

She was protecting the campaign mantra of Obama....you know...."al quaeda is on the run"

In other words, she was instructed to mislead the American people to ensure President Obama's re-election.

It is not rocket science.

And if she wanted to protect the integrity of the investigation, then she would have said "it is an ongoing investigation and I don't want to comment and compromise its integrity"

Again, not rocket science.

Doesn't the fact that extremist attacked us again on 9-11 defeat that premise regardless if there was a protest before the attack or not?

I mean that's as foolish as thinking Obama was running guns to the Cartels in order to increase violence so he can enact gun control measures in this country!

Can you imagine the hooting an hollering the Reactionary Right would have done had the administrations gave a no comment. That's funny. You know it was Congress that asked the WH for talking point about the incident right?

 

[BlindBoo]

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

Bull-looney. It's always been Faux attack designed to denigrate President Obama and deflect attention away from the GOP Candidates despicable action during the attack.

 

[Jarhead]

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

She was not covering up a crime.

She was protecting the campaign mantra of Obama....you know...."al quaeda is on the run"

In other words, she was instructed to mislead the American people to ensure President Obama's re-election.

It is not rocket science.

And if she wanted to protect the integrity of the investigation, then she would have said "it is an ongoing investigation and I don't want to comment and compromise its integrity"

Again, not rocket science.

Doesn't the fact that extremist attacked us again on 9-11 defeat that premise regardless if there was a protest before the attack or not?

I mean that's as foolish as thinking Obama was running guns to the Cartels in order to increase violence so he can enact gun control measures in this country!

Can you imagine the hooting an hollering the Reactionary Right would have done had the administrations gave a no comment. That's funny. You know it was Congress that asked the WH for talking point about the incident right?

SO then why a comment that:

1) Directly contradicts what Obama was told
2) Directly contradicts what the Libyan President said
3) Put blame on an American Citizenfor using his free speech, albeit irresponsibly
4) Put blame on one of the things radicals in that region hate about us...our right to free speech.

Why not say "it was an attack and we are looking into what caused it"....

 

[Jarhead]

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

Bull-looney. It's always been Faux attack designed to denigrate President Obama and deflect attention away from the GOP Candidates despicable action during the attack.

That is a silly, childish assumption

 

[RandomVariable]

Was the message delivered 100 percent true?

If not then that is more then a hint.

"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."

Here's the difference. Nixon covered up crimes committed by a special unit called the plumbers. Crime, then cover up. Rice was a spokesmen sent out to explain an tragic event. What crime was Ms. Rice covering up when she claimed they thought there was a copy cat protest like the ones in Cairo outside the consulate before the extremist launched their attack on the building?

The administration knew it was a terrorist attack immediately. They sent Rice with a cover story because Obama was running on the meme that the terrorists were on the run on his watch. The issue of crime is a red herring. The act was a callous cynical lie designed to further Obama's political ambitions.

What was one of the main themes Bush ran on in 2004? "don't change horses in midstream"? Bush's claim that with an ongoing war he should be reelected. Would it not make more sense for Obama to claim it was a terrorist attack and there was more to be done than to say otherwise? If it worked for Bush it must be good. The concept that Obama was trying to make this into some sort of political play is ludicrous.

Oh wait I think the slogan was actually, "Don't Change Horsemen mid-apocalypse."

 

[kaz]

No lie, hater dupes, just more evidence that after 25 years of fox and rush, you have no idea what a lie is anymore...

Yep. If people just watched MS-NBC and repeated everything they say then they would know the truth, like you do...

 

[kaz]

To call her a ****, and insinuate that the spouses "have a nice warm tombstone to snuggle with" is somehow Rice's fault, makes you quite a despicable individual.

Actually, if she hadn't lied to the American people then that would have changed things. The American people would not have been lied to.

And thank you for demonstrating my point that leftists get all stick up your ass when people make feminine related points about leftist women, then you all are even worse with Sara Palin, Ann Coulter and conservative women. Whether you participate in it or not, I have never seen you object to a leftist doing it.

The hypocrisy, it REEKS....

 

[BlindBoo]

When did the truth become a lie? How can I possible know when the then SOS shrieks "what difference does it make at this point?"

What we know is that the truth did become a lie.

My question all along has not been whether what Rice told was true because we now know it was not. My question is why was she told to not tell what was 100 percent true. Or do you really want our government coming out and with assuredness telling us things that are not true?

We know that lie is out there now we need to question why the lie.

Obviously you choose to be disingenuous. Does the reason (We hate you for a movie or we hate you because you're an American) a group of men decide to attack a building matter to the tactical defense of that building?

How could you think they were coming out with assuredness about the event when they qualified their statements every time with something like:

"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."

Lets just say it WAS the video...

Then commenting by saying "we believe it was the video" as they did, would have compromised the investigation.

Now, seeing as the WH was informed within minutes that it was a terrorist attack, it seems illogical that they would say it "may have been the video"....

This was intentional misleading of the American people during the final days of an election campaign.

The fact that you refuse to see that simply shows us one of two things...

1) You refuse to admit was is obvious for it will make your party of choice look bad
2) you are easily fooled by spin and rhetoric.

It's a Fauxrageous scandal.

They were informed that a militia in Libya had claimed responsibility for it.

They claimed that they thought there was a protests caused by the reaction to the video like the one in Cairo.

"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."

Of course they briefed Congress with the Classified version of events which we, John Q Public, are not privy to.

The election was over 6 weeks away.

It was all to cover the despicable action of the GOP nominee that night.

It didn't work. Except on those dedicated to the cause.