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.
LisaA said:
Sad you have nothing to say to defend your party or your leader or the former SoS so you make claims about President Bush who’s been out of office for years. It’s a well known tactic but not very effective…elicits a big yawn from most of us.

You might not be old enough to remember but after Chairman Mao died, his wife and some of her supporters were blamed for everything from a bad rice harvest to trains derailing. The term “Gang of Four” soon became a joke, even within China. We have the equivalent in “But Bush…” which is also becoming a joke.

Ishii said nice try but I don’t think your argument warrents that much praise.

Try again.

Lisa
Click to expand...
I don’t remember ever hearing Bush blame the guy before him for anything. He could have done that when 9/11 happened, but he had too much class. At least Bush held himself accountable for when things went wrong as well as when they went right. Bush was able to “man up” for his mistakes and accept ownership. That contrasts with the man-child we now have as our leader, someone who takes credit whenever things go good and points the finger and throws one of his friends under the bus every time things go bad.
 
livingwordunity said:
I don’t remember ever hearing Bush blame the guy before him for anything. He could have done that when 9/11 happened, but he had too much class. At least Bush held himself accountable for when things went wrong as well as when they went right. Bush was able to “man up” for his mistakes and accept ownership. That contrasts with the man-child we now have as our leader, someone who takes credit whenever things go good and points the finger and throws one of his friends under the bus every time things go bad.
Click to expand...
Man-child…good observation! I have always said one of the things I most detest in Obama is his weakness and petulance. Perhaps politically incorrect but Obama is representative of the feminizing of many facets of America. I find him to be rather effete in mannerisms and physicality. Ironically he is surrounded by She-Men in the form of Michelle, Hillary, Valerie Jarrett as if to make up for his own lack of cojones. I think it was this weakness that caused him to exit stage Left when reports of the attack came through…it was 'Hey you guys handle it, I’m going home to din din."

You would never imagine President Bush doing this do you?

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Man-child…good observation! I have always said one of the things I most detest in Obama is his weakness and petulance. Perhaps politically incorrect but Obama is representative of the feminizing of many facets of America. I find him to be rather effete in mannerisms and physicality. Ironically he is surrounded by She-Men in the form of Michelle, Hillary, Valerie Jarrett as if to make up for his own lack of cojones. I think it was this weakness that caused him to exit stage Left when reports of the attack came through…it was 'Hey you guys handle it, I’m going home to din din."

You would never imagine President Bush doing this do you?

Lisa
Click to expand...
That was the goal of the radical feminist movement, to try to make women into men while trying to emasculate and make effeminate the future generations of men. So, it makes perfect sense how “gay” activism sprouted out of radical feminism.
 
LisaA said:
Hillarious…the usual suspects. If a Democrat is caught with 100000 in his freezer or bribing officials or changing talking points, we start to refight the Iraq War.

Lying means knowingly stating something that is not true. It does not mean using faulty intelligence that was compelling enough to get bi partisan support as well as a large coalition of other countries getting involved.

Do you have any actual information or informed opinion or do you want to continue to pontificate and obfuscate hoping we won’t notice yet another in a long list of lies by Obama and his administration?

Lisa
Click to expand...
As you request:

rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/12/gates-benghazi-obsessed-republicans-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/18/selling-the-iraq-war-experts-knew-the-intel-was-faulty-why-didnt-they-blow-the-whistle/

Cheers.
 
ishii said:
I checked the link. I would hope that the Republicans would use Democrat/Obama lies & coverup of Benghazi scandal to raise funds to beat them in 2014 & 2016. I mean, we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever, do we? If Obama is corrupt (and he is) then of course it makes sense that the Republicans would point out that corruption to gain support for their campaigns. You have to remember that the GOP needs funds to offset the smear campaigns they will inevitably receive from the Democrat media machine. Fox news and a few talk radio shows aren’t enough - they need money for ads. I truly hope they use the $$$ they raise to pruduce ads that expose Democrats for what they are.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Are you basically saying here–and it surely sounds like it–that the primary, even if not the only, reason why Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton, is indeed political? Not that I wouldn’t expect that from either party; however, I thought the GOP is supposed to be more principled according to conservatives like yourself.

Maybe you’re right: “we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever.” We want a different lying group in power next time, the Republican group.
 
meltzerboy said:
Are you basically saying here–and it surely sounds like it–that the primary, even if not the only, reason why Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton, is indeed political? Not that I wouldn’t expect that from either party; however, I thought the GOP is supposed to be more principled according to conservatives like yourself.

Maybe you’re right: “we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever.” We want a different lying group in power next time, the Republican group.
Click to expand...
FWIW:

On Benghazi probe, GOP’s Issa says ‘Hillary Clinton’s not a target’
A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year’s Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Obama is not a target.”
Click to expand...
Foreign Affairs is difficult, you can almost find something on every President actually,

Iran and the Shah for Carter, the failed rescue mission, Iran Contra for Reagan. Etc.
 
Even now, on aiding the Syrian Rebels, I saw some Politician on TV, not sure who it was and he was asked if we know who the Rebels are and he said no.
Also, John McCain got all over Michelle Bachmann per her views considering the SOS’s assistant Huma.

So, though I don’t agree with a lot of McCain’s views, he seems to be a straight shooter, fair type of guy.
 
LisaA said:
Man-child…good observation! I have always said one of the things I most detest in Obama is his weakness and petulance. Perhaps politically incorrect but Obama is representative of the feminizing of many facets of America. I find him to be rather effete in mannerisms and physicality. Ironically he is surrounded by She-Men in the form of Michelle, Hillary, Valerie Jarrett as if to make up for his own lack of cojones. I think it was this weakness that caused him to exit stage Left when reports of the attack came through…it was 'Hey you guys handle it, I’m going home to din din."

You would never imagine President Bush doing this do you?

Lisa
Click to expand...
He’s sort of the ultimate metro-sexual. and there are other things about him that set him apart from his predecessors: he spent considerable time abroad during his youth (Indonesia). He never served in the military. His father wasn’t American. I never did watch the Dinesh D’Souza film, but I am sure that his past has shaped who he is, in a way that sets him apart from other American presidents. He is out of the mainstream.

Ishii
 
meltzerboy said:
Are you basically saying here–and it surely sounds like it–that the primary, even if not the only, reason why Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton, is indeed political? Not that I wouldn’t expect that from either party; however, I thought the GOP is supposed to be more principled according to conservatives like yourself.

Maybe you’re right: “we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever.” We want a different lying group in power next time, the Republican group.
Click to expand...
Actually, that wasn’t stated at all. What he said, is that he hopes that The GOP capitalizes on the mistakes Clinton and the Obama Adminstration made. The mistakes themselves stand on their own…you know…the mistakes Democrats are doing their best to excuse and cover up.
 
ishii said:
He’s sort of the ultimate metro-sexual. and there are other things about him that set him apart from his predecessors: he spent considerable time abroad during his youth (Indonesia). He never served in the military. His father wasn’t American. I never did watch the Dinesh D’Souza film, but I am sure that his past has shaped who he is, in a way that sets him apart from other American presidents. He is out of the mainstream.

Ishii
Click to expand...
As another ex-President would say, ishii: “Well, there you go again.” Obama is out of the mainstream, un-American, a foreigner, maybe even an immigrant. Horrors! What military experience did Bill Clinton have? Or VP Dick Cheney? And what military experience did candidate Mitt Romney have? Every President, every person, is shaped by the experiences of their childhood. Why is it necessarily a bad thing, and not a good thing, for a President to have spent time abroad in his youth if s/he can, by so doing, have gained some experience about how different cultures live outside of America? If you insist on demonizing Obama, at least try to make more of an effort to demonize him on the issues rather than his cultural background. This is exactly what I feel is wrong with many conservatives. It is they who are out of the mainstream of culturally and ethnically diverse America. They’re not going to win Presidential elections thinking like this.
 
The presidents of ABC News and CBS News have siblings who work in the Obama administration and are involved with Benghazi.
Click to expand...
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com newsmax.com/Newsfront/Network-News-Ties-Obama/2013/05/12/id/504036#ixzz2T8SPSAeq

I’m sorry, the Press got Nixon clearly, in my view what Nixon and Clinton did was wrong but I don’t know if they should have to pay such a severe price, especially Nixon, undone by the Press.

So it’s fair to say, the press, most of it, is biased and have not covered this story as they should have since it first happened. Only now are they touching on it.
 
meltzerboy said:
Are you basically saying here–and it surely sounds like it–that the primary, even if not the only, reason why Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton, is indeed political? Not that I wouldn’t expect that from either party; however, I thought the GOP is supposed to be more principled according to conservatives like yourself.

Maybe you’re right: “we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever.” We want a different lying group in power next time, the Republican group.
Click to expand...
You’re quite cynical. No, I wasn’t saying the only or even primary reason why the GOP is going after Hillary is to undermine her 2016 chances. But you seem to be saying that no matter what, the GOP can only go after the Democrats/Hillary on Benghazi for crass political reasons. So according to you, if a Democrat admin does something dishonest or shady, the GOP must sit on its hands and keep silent like good boys and girls and let the Dems run amok. Maybe if we had a press that did its job then the GOP could sit back and watch. Unfortunately that’s not the case: the press is not doing its job.

Can you honestly say that if this had happened under Bush or another Republican that the press- Washington Post, NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. would have an endless drumbeat of “what did he know and when did he know it” ?

Ishii
 
meltzerboy said:
As another ex-President would say, ishii: “Well, there you go again.” Obama is out of the mainstream, un-American, a foreigner, maybe even an immigrant. Horrors! What military experience did Bill Clinton have? Or VP Dick Cheney? And what military experience did candidate Mitt Romney have? Every President, every person, is shaped by the experiences of their childhood. Why is it necessarily a bad thing, and not a good thing, for a President to have spent time abroad in his youth if s/he can, by so doing, have gained some experience about how different cultures live outside of America? If you insist on demonizing Obama, at least try to make more of an effort to demonize him on the issues rather than his cultural background. This is exactly what I feel is wrong with many conservatives. It is they who are out of the mainstream of culturally and ethnically diverse America. They’re not going to win Presidential elections thinking like this.
Click to expand...
Say what you want, Meltzerboy - I stand by what I said about Obama. Obama doesn’t get America - and I think his background has something to do with it. Maybe that’s why he goes around the world apologizing for America’s misdeeds. His policies are leftist/secular. He tries to fundamentally change America according to his world view. All I am saying is that his background has shaped who he is and why he does what he does. I haven’t demonized anyone, btw. Romney, Clinton, et al atleast understand America - and what made it great. Obama doesn’t. And I think the reason why he doesn’t is because of his background, partly anyway. I hope this helps you understand more clearly where I’m coming from - i.e. not from a xenophobic, anti-immigrant “no-nothing” mentality.

Ishii
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Start a new thread.
Click to expand...
I was just curious to see how you would explain how there’s no connection between the man-hating militant feminist movement and lesbianism and the homosexual revolution we are now having. How do you explain how women who start out hating men can’t end up as lesbians who want to emasculate men, starting with their own sons? Because I see going from radical feminist man-hater to lesbian as taking militant feminism to its logical conclusion. 🙂
 
meltzerboy said:
As another ex-President would say, ishii: “Well, there you go again.” Obama is out of the mainstream, un-American, a foreigner, maybe even an immigrant. Horrors! What military experience did Bill Clinton have? Or VP Dick Cheney? And what military experience did candidate Mitt Romney have? Every President, every person, is shaped by the experiences of their childhood. Why is it necessarily a bad thing, and not a good thing, for a President to have spent time abroad in his youth if s/he can, by so doing, have gained some experience about how different cultures live outside of America? If you insist on demonizing Obama, at least try to make more of an effort to demonize him on the issues rather than his cultural background. This is exactly what I feel is wrong with many conservatives. It is they who are out of the mainstream of culturally and ethnically diverse America. They’re not going to win Presidential elections thinking like this.
Click to expand...
meltzerboy this adoration of “diversity” is not an American value…E PLUBUS UNUM not out of many, a bunch of fragmented identities based on where our forefathers originated.

The point about Obama is that he does not inculcate American values. I truly do not think he likes the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers…he speaks of that R#$&($&($&
Constitution and Congress getting hin his way. He talked about FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA…not about making it better, making it great, making it the Shining City on a Hill. NO, he wants to TRANSFORM America and IMO into some kind of quasi European social democracy, complete with crony capitalism, a huge social services network and Soma for all of those who raise an objection.

I don’t recall who wrote the article in the WSJ “An Alien in the White House” but it was spot on in my opinion. Obama is not American in his heart even if he is American by birth or by (half) of his heritage. He did not have a normal upbringing. His mother and his grandparents were very far to the Left. He was raised in a Leftist, radical stew of activism and anger against the man and the machine.

Obama may seem normal to those on the Upper East Side but he is not normal to a lot of us. He is a Leftist elite who would be better suited to the halls of academia than running the greatest “business” and military power in the world. Now I’m not one of those who thinks he is trying to destroy America but he’s doing a pretty good job of it intentionally or not.

Lisa
 
meltzerboy said:
Are you basically saying here–and it surely sounds like it–that the primary, even if not the only, reason why Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton, is indeed political? Not that I wouldn’t expect that from either party; however, I thought the GOP is supposed to be more principled according to conservatives like yourself.

Maybe you’re right: “we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever.” We want a different lying group in power next time, the Republican group.
Click to expand...
Greg Hicks is democrat who voted for Obama and Hillary Clinton and testified at the Benghazi hearing. Rep Stephen Lynch, democrat, has said the talking points were ‘false information’ and ‘scrubbed.’

Hillary Clinton is talking a lot of focus of questioning because she was head of the state department and she went out and blamed the anti Islam video when there were multiple sources saying that it was a terror attack and an Al Qaeda linked group were responsible. When there is a scandal in a department isn’t it usually the head of that department that is questioned the most, because as a Head in the department they had the most responsibility?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top