Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
Notice how no liberal posters are on this thread. I wonder if they are okay with this because of Obama’s age and skin colour or some government check, or if they are hiding hoping this will just go away. 🤷

At least republicans will call out their own when they mess up.
Click to expand...
Though I am not a classic liberal by any stretch of the imagination I will answer your entirely ridiculous assertions (race, age, skin color) as I have answered all threads related to Benghazi…there have been so many scenarios put forward by those looking to make political capital from the deaths of four Americans that to answer each one is a tremendous waste of time and effort.
Personally, I’m willing to let the facts fall where they may…not constantly make a new assessment every time someone thinks that they have found a gotcha piece of information. Reading the article, I see nothing new…no revelations that were not known shortly after the attack. Just an attempt to repackage old information to make it sound as if Democrats are fleeing en masse.
So far as the whistle-blower…why don’t we all wait until he actually testifies? If I understand correctly that is scheduled for Wednesday.

I also predict as I have all along…this will end up being just another in a long line of deaths in our diplomatic corps. Tragic for the families, but hardly unprecedented and not likely to cause anyone in the higher ranks to lose their job, or a single vote that they had a chance at to begin with.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Notice how no liberal posters are on this thread. I wonder if they are okay with this because of Obama’s age and skin colour or some government check, or if they are hiding hoping this will just go away. 🤷

At least republicans will call out their own when they mess up.
Click to expand...
You see the same thing on the Gosnell thread
 
One thing this all proves, as if we needed any more proof, is the total lack of journalistic integrity in this country. Had this been a republican, I am convinced that the reporting would have been entirely different.
 
oldcelt said:
Though I am not a classic liberal by any stretch of the imagination I will answer your entirely ridiculous assertions (race, age, skin color) as I have answered all threads related to Benghazi…there have been so many scenarios put forward by those looking to make political capital from the deaths of four Americans that to answer each one is a tremendous waste of time and effort.
Personally, I’m willing to let the facts fall where they may…not constantly make a new assessment every time someone thinks that they have found a gotcha piece of information. Reading the article, I see nothing new…no revelations that were not known shortly after the attack. Just an attempt to repackage old information to make it sound as if Democrats are fleeing en masse.
So far as the whistle-blower…why don’t we all wait until he actually testifies? If I understand correctly that is scheduled for Wednesday.

I also predict as I have all along…this will end up being just another in a long line of deaths in our diplomatic corps. Tragic for the families, but hardly unprecedented and not likely to cause anyone in the higher ranks to lose their job, or a single vote that they had a chance at to begin with.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, this is a very dismissive post. Old information? Give me a break.
 
mary_bobo said:
With all due respect, this is a very dismissive post. Old information? Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Dismissive? I think that’s accurate. The only thing new in this article is the upcoming testimony…it hasn’t happened yet…Fox is reporting what they think they have learned through leaks. Plus, I think this man will find that the State Department will not just roll over because he says thus and such happened and Congressional Democrats will not just accept his testimony as fact.
He’d better be ready for a fun day. .

Other than that, the article is rehash. Rice did this…no military support, reduced security…heard it all before.
 
oldcelt said:
Dismissive? I think that’s accurate. The only thing new in this article is the upcoming testimony…it hasn’t happened yet…Fox is reporting what they think they have learned through leaks. Plus, I think this man will find that the State Department will not just roll over because he says thus and such happened and Congressional Democrats will not just accept his testimony as fact.
He’d better be ready for a fun day. .

Other than that, the article is rehash. Rice did this…no military support, reduced security…heard it all before.
Click to expand...
Actually democrats were singing a different tune on Sunday -
Well, it was scrubbed,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told “Fox News Sunday.” “It was totally inaccurate. There’s no excuse for that. It was false information. And what they try to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East.”

Lynch also acknowledged the talking points were likely revised to reflect President Obama’s decry – with his re-election bid in the balance – that “Al Qaeda is on the run.”

Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also acknowledged Sunday the facts as told by Rice were wrong.

“At the time, as it turns out” the information was incorrect, he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

Ruppersberger, who was briefed by the CIA about the attacks in immediate aftermath, asked agency officials what congressional leaders could tell the public, according to The Weekly Standard story.
Click to expand...
Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/democrats-now-critical-rice-benghazi-explanation-amid-more-damaging-evidence/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2SWaAbttT
Click to expand...
Obama and Clinton may have a “fun” week.
 
SamH said:
Actually democrats were singing a different tune on Sunday -

Obama and Clinton may have a “fun” week.
Click to expand...
Well, since Clinton is retired, and the President is not scheduled to testify…
 
oldcelt said:
Well, since Clinton is retired, and the President is not scheduled to testify…
Click to expand...
Neither can say “what difference does it make”.

Their own party members are ticked because they get to explain to their constituents why they spent some much time on gun control (that went no where) with millions out of work and the growing Obama Care catastrophe. More than a few democrats want to smear Clinton to keep her out of the 2016 race and others need a scrape goat for their health care vote and their lack of focus on the economy - the #1 priority of the American public. They want to distance themselves from Obama and it appears the press is finally doing their job instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the democrat party.
 
SamH said:
Neither can say “what difference does it make”.

Their own party members are ticked because they get to explain to their constituents why they spent some much time on gun control (that went no where) with millions out of work and the growing Obama Care catastrophe. More than a few democrats want to smear Clinton to keep her out of the 2016 race and others need a scrape goat for their health care vote and their lack of focus on the economy - the #1 priority of the American public. They want to distance themselves from Obama and it appears the press is finally doing their job instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the democrat party.
Click to expand...
I just watched the Fox noon report and I have to say, if these guys are the big bombshell, I don’t see much changing. The head for counter-terrorism has already come out refuting the notion that he was cut out of the loop by the former secretary. As I said, the Dept. of State and the rest of the administration are not going to just roll over…in fact, they are already attacking the credibility of one of the whistle-blowers who seems to be upset that he didn’t get a promotion.
Also, they are hanging a great deal on some people second guessing the military. You know as well as me that this will be hardball and the GOP better have their ducks in a row or they are going to look silly.

So far as Democrats turning, a few representatives does not a mass movement make.

Your reference to the 2016 race may be the most relevant point in all this.
 
_Abyssinia said:
UPDATED — BREAKING: US Special Forces were STOPPED from going to Benghazi to aid men on the ground

Who were the special forces stopped by?
Click to expand...
A more important question may be why? This was discussed in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The military did not feel that any help would arrive in time to save the people in the compound…another reasonable consideration was that they did not want to put boots on the ground and escalate an already bad situation into a full out war.
 
oldcelt said:
A more important question may be why? This was discussed in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The military did not feel that any help would arrive in time to save the people in the compound…another reasonable consideration was that they did not want to put boots on the ground and escalate an already bad situation into a full out war.
Click to expand...
I am not sure you get to the why, if you don’t know who gave the order.
 
Susan Rice told the story the way she did because she was instructed to tell it that way. Nothing more to that.

It is some interest to know who set her up for that, and why.

It is of some interest to me to know why in the world this government trusted a bunch of locals to protect our people. We knew they were a mixed bunch at best.

But of greater interest to me is to know why we went to war against Libya at all and in support of what we knew were a mixture of radical Islamists. So, Khaddafi (sp?) was going to clean out a bunch of jihadists. That was a compelling cause for us to go to war to protect them?

Of also greater interest is why we put a diplomat in Tripoli at all. That was the hotbed of Islamic radicalism. It’s not where the government of Libya was. Why was our ambassador there?
 
oldcelt said:
I just watched the Fox noon report and I have to say, if these guys are the big bombshell, I don’t see much changing. The head for counter-terrorism has already come out refuting the notion that he was cut out of the loop by the former secretary. As I said, the Dept. of State and the rest of the administration are not going to just roll over…in fact, they are already attacking the credibility of one of the whistle-blowers who seems to be upset that he didn’t get a promotion.
Also, they are hanging a great deal on some people second guessing the military. You know as well as me that this will be hardball and the GOP better have their ducks in a row or they are going to look silly.

So far as Democrats turning, a few representatives does not a mass movement make.

Your reference to the 2016 race may be the most relevant point in all this.
Click to expand...
Actually Bob Schieffer acted like it was a big story on Sunday. As if “This just in - we have learned Susan Rice and Obama lied to America with their account of Benghazi”.
 
SamH said:
Actually Bob Schieffer acted like it was a big story on Sunday. As if “This just in - we have learned Susan Rice and Obama lied to America with their account of Benghazi”.
Click to expand...
Will this be Obama’s Walter Cronkite moment? (Recall that when Walter Cronkite decided that the Vietnam war was unwinnable the tide of public opinion changed). Of course the media is different now. Not nearly as many people listen to Bob Schiffer as they did Walter Cronkite 45 years ago.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Will this be Obama’s Walter Cronkite moment? (Recall that when Walter Cronkite decided that the Vietnam war was unwinnable the tide of public opinion changed). Of course the media is different now. Not nearly as many people listen to Bob Schiffer as they did Walter Cronkite 45 years ago.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I think it’s more a case that Schieffer is an old school liberal journalist. Even though he’s in Obama’s camp he tries to *act *impartial (old school journalism) by pointing out the obvious. Most media outlet talking heads won’t even do that.
 
oldcelt said:
A more important question may be why? This was discussed in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The military did not feel that any help would arrive in time to save the people in the compound…another reasonable consideration was that they did not want to put boots on the ground and escalate an already bad situation into a full out war.
Click to expand...
oldcelt do you have any understanding of the military or their code? If all military abdicated rushing into battle because they thought the effort might fail, we’d long since be speaking German or Japanese. Or how about the first responders? How many firefighters or police or EMT rush to the scene and attempt to provide assistance, even if their efforts might be futile. I will truly never forget the scenes after the Twin Towers were hit. A stampede of the public and the firefighters ran UP THE STAIRS. These are the heroes of our world and they live and sometimes they die by this code of honor.

Fear of failure is NOT A REASON TO STAND DOWN. Never has been, never will be. They were told to stand down or believe me, someone would have responded. As it was, the two former SEALs did their best to save others and as they were marking targets when killed, must have thought that help was on the way.

The cowards who sat safely behind their desks in Washington deserve our disdain. They left people to die a horrible, painful and terrifying death. Someone gave the order, or avoided giving it. Hillary and Obama seemed to be far more concerned about their political future at the time of the attack, than about bringing the terrorists to justice or even investigating what went wrong. Much as I disdain former President Carter, I appreciate that after the failed attempt to rescue the hostages, he stood up and took responsibility. He knew as did many, this would make winning the presidency much more difficult. But at least he had the integrity to say that the buck stops with him as CoC.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
oldcelt do you have any understanding of the military or their code? If all military abdicated rushing into battle because they thought the effort might fail, we’d long since be speaking German or Japanese. Or how about the first responders? How many firefighters or police or EMT rush to the scene and attempt to provide assistance, even if their efforts might be futile. I will truly never forget the scenes after the Twin Towers were hit. A stampede of the public and the firefighters ran UP THE STAIRS. These are the heroes of our world and they live and sometimes they die by this code of honor.

Fear of failure is NOT A REASON TO STAND DOWN. Never has been, never will be. They were told to stand down or believe me, someone would have responded. As it was, the two former SEALs did their best to save others and as they were marking targets when killed, must have thought that help was on the way.

The cowards who sat safely behind their desks in Washington deserve our disdain. They left people to die a horrible, painful and terrifying death. Someone gave the order, or avoided giving it. Hillary and Obama seemed to be far more concerned about their political future at the time of the attack, than about bringing the terrorists to justice or even investigating what went wrong. Much as I disdain former President Carter, I appreciate that after the failed attempt to rescue the hostages, he stood up and took responsibility. He knew as did many, this would make winning the presidency much more difficult. But at least he had the integrity to say that the buck stops with him as CoC.

Lisa
Click to expand...
I can’t think of a single time that Obama has ever had to be accountable for anything that has gone wrong. I lost count of how many times he did something that was impeachable, and the media either down-played or ignored it. Obama could do anything that any other president got in trouble for in the past and do something that’s a hundred times worse, and it would be excused or blamed on someone else. The only other world leaders that have it like that are the ones in Communist countries. 🙂
 
livingwordunity said:
I can’t think of a single time that Obama has ever had to be accountable for anything that has gone wrong. I lost count of how many times he did something that was impeachable, and the media either down-played or ignored it. Obama could do anything that any other president got in trouble for in the past and do something that’s a hundred times worse, and it would be excused or blamed on someone else. The only other world leaders that have it like that are the ones in Communist countries. 🙂
Click to expand...
Truly the mindless devotion to Obama is almost cultlike. The Media, the Democrats (at least those not standing for election soon), the Left are the poster children for see no evil, hear no evil and thus speak no evil even if it thumps them on the head. Despite his many supporters being tossed aside like used tissues if they are no longer of help or are useful idiots for Obama Blame Game, they still slaver and slobber at his feet. It’s truly mind boggling.

Years ago in this state, an Indian guru attracted followers who gave up everything to live in tiny, uninsulated A frames in the middle of a desert…just for the possibility of seeing him driving in circles in one of his many Rolls Royces. The cult members engaged in attempted murder, voter fraud, and child abuse at the behest of the Baghwan and his inner circle. Some of the parents who rescued their children from this horror (before we jailed some of them and sent Bag packing) said it was if their children were subject to mind control. There seems to be no other reason for the devotion to this man. It’s scary :eek:

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top