Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

As usual, House women call criticism of Rice racist & sexist

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by TheAngryFarm
 


For starters, McCain and Graham are going to regret making the statements they've made regarding Susan Rice. They have no evidence to indicate that she lied about anything. All indications are, that she relayed the information as it was given to her and nothing more.

McCain and Graham are a perfect example of "The Problem" facing american politics today. They are both incompetent cowards who choose to make false & inflammatory statements to the press instead of attending the intelligence hearings designed to disclose the facts surrounding the incident. Cowards because of the fact that they have chosen to attack the messenger, (namely Susan Rice) and make her the scapegoat for their lack of knowledge, when it is they who choose not to be properly informed.


The fact is if you will look close with an open mind.....it is Obama that is using her to defect shots from himself. He gets the added miles out of trying to look like a hard guy defending his lady against attack.

And on que, the gaggle of trumpet swans start up with the bustle when the shooting starts.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
they are calling out Rice because she lied.


No they are calling out Rice to exploit Americans being murdered to political advantage.

And despite all the fuss I remain unconvinced that she lied...she qualified every single one of her statements and was operating on talking points that were unclassified at the time.

PS...having...examined...similair scenarios before, it is common for the CIA not to immediately share who they think is to blame and even sometimes to discount the possibility that it was a pre-planned attack. The idea is to encourage terrorists to get frustrated and claim credit...which helps them chase down leads and those responsible.

Either way...Rices statements....

ABC’s “This Week”:

MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

CBS’s “Face the Nation”

MS. RICE: So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is

I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine

Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”

MS. RICE: Well, let us– let me tell you the– the best information we have at present. 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


“Fox News Sunday”

MS. RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today

blogs.wsj.com...

I mean ...Ef...How many ways does she have to say...we are not sure yet?????????????

Did the CIA know? Well they were pretty sure, but not sure enough to go public immediately and going public with what they know doesn't serve the mission of finding those that are hiding.

Now back to spin and BS.....



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


For someone that runs 2 businesses, you sure have a lot of time to respond to things.

She lied. By any definition she lied.
Whether she was aware of the lie, or was in the dark, she lied. What she stated was a lie.

How do you spin this?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
No one is picking on women and minorities, they are calling out Rice because she lied.

Is it considered lying when your stating what the information you have says?

The question here is, why was she given old and inaccurate information in the first place to give statements on.



They are trying to flush the bird out of the thicket so to say. They can prove Obama was lying by nailing her offical story. POTUS get fired up, not because he cares for her so much, but he knows she is a weak link.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
No one is picking on women and minorities, they are calling out Rice because she lied.

Is it considered lying when your stating what the information you have says?

Are politicians and diplomats meant to be psychics?



LOL. Whoa, whoa, back up the truck there. Did you guys say the same thing when everyone voted for the invasion of Iraq based on information on WMD in Iraq? Or does that rule only apply to the people on the side of the aisle you like?
edit on 16-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


For someone that runs 2 businesses, you sure have a lot of time to respond to things.


Yah...I actually think the same thing sometimes. I hit my revenue goals for the year back in late March. It's been a good year. I should be working more though.


Originally posted by macman
She lied. By any definition she lied.
Whether she was aware of the lie, or was in the dark, she lied. What she stated was a lie.


No she didn't. She qualified every statement explaining they didn't have solid conclusions, investigations ongoing etc. If the listener wants to disregard that...that is the listeners problem, not the speakers.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Well if Obama had been going to his briefings things might have been different wouldn't they? Am I now a racist for pointing out our black president has been neglecting his duties? For spitting out ignorance for the president she warrants the criticism. The deflection needs to stop and the potus needs to man up.


If you ask me, the reason for the presscon was to toss a bolt into this very thing. Now he has set the tone that anyone messing with his people like this will get heat.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


Yah...I actually think the same thing sometimes. I hit my revenue goals for the year back in late March. It's been a good year. I should be working more though.

So, since you hit your sales goals, do you allow your employees to surf the net and do other things not work related?





Originally posted by Indigo5
No she didn't. She qualified every statement explaining they didn't have solid conclusions, investigations ongoing etc. If the listener wants to disregard that...that is the listeners problem, not the speakers.


If she did not know what had happened, then she should have stated "I don't know what happened".
Malfeasance and misfeasance.
Withholding info and just not providing anything.
What she stated is a lie. By definition, she told a lie.

This is all too common in Govt. People like her gab their mouth on and on on things they have no clue about, only so they look important and because they really should know.
Then when she is called out for telling an untruth, regardless if she knew it or not, it is automatically an issue of race or sex.

What a sad group of people that 0bama has surrounded himself with.
edit on 16-11-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
No one is picking on women and minorities, they are calling out Rice because she lied.

Is it considered lying when your stating what the information you have says?

Are politicians and diplomats meant to be psychics?



LOL. Whoa, whoa, back up the truck there. Did you guys say the same thing when everyone voted for the invasion of Iraq based on information on WMD in Iraq? Or does that rule only apply to the people on the side of the aisle you like?
edit on 16-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What did 4000 gased Kurds care about the fine details of a WMD definition?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   





No no nothing to see here move right along racists and sexists



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
If you think there isn't sexism in politics, I got a red hot bridge to sell you.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Now do I think their comments are racist? No.

But do I think they are trying everything they can to block Obama's Nomination? Yes. And it is getting so old with them.

If that is all they can come up with, then her record must be pretty solid.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5


Yah...I actually think the same thing sometimes. I hit my revenue goals for the year back in late March. It's been a good year. I should be working more though.

So, since you hit your sales goals, do you allow your employees to surf the net and do other things not work related?



My employees can surf the net as much as they like as long as they deliver on agreed upon goals. It's not an hourly thing...it's about getting the job done. Sometimes there are late nights...sometimes employees take days off to get things done at home...it's goal and milestone driven, not punching a clock. But honestly...Personal and off topic much? I am trying to be charitable here, but given your usual tone...I'll ask nice to cease with the personal attacks/snark.




Originally posted by macman
If she did not know what had happened, then she should have stated "I don't know what happened".


That is hilarious...Mitt Romney was "Demanding answers!!!" before the attack was even over. The GOP was frothing at the mouth to exploit American deaths.

So in response to an apparently insincere call for immediate transparency...she says...

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

...our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present,....

...We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present. ....

She qualified the statement at every turn...Sure they could have waited until they had confirmed answers...but the GOP wouldn't.


Originally posted by macman
What a sad group of people that 0bama has surrounded himself with.


You mean the majority of the country and the Administration that just handed the GOPs ass to them to thier shock and dismay?
edit on 16-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
No one is picking on women and minorities, they are calling out Rice because she lied.

Is it considered lying when your stating what the information you have says?

Are politicians and diplomats meant to be psychics?



LOL. Whoa, whoa, back up the truck there. Did you guys say the same thing when everyone voted for the invasion of Iraq based on information on WMD in Iraq? Or does that rule only apply to the people on the side of the aisle you like?
edit on 16-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What did 4000 gased Kurds care about the fine details of a WMD definition?


Good point. Discoveries of sarin gas, mustard gas shells, mobile bioweapon labs had nothing to do with it either. "No, no, no we don't mean thoseWMD's"



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
No one is picking on women and minorities, they are calling out Rice because she lied.

Is it considered lying when your stating what the information you have says?

Are politicians and diplomats meant to be psychics?



LOL. Whoa, whoa, back up the truck there. Did you guys say the same thing when everyone voted for the invasion of Iraq based on information on WMD in Iraq? Or does that rule only apply to the people on the side of the aisle you like?
edit on 16-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


There was an intelligence failure in Iraq
There is an intelligence failure in this case.

I don't blame Colin Powell for his discussion based on the intelligence he had..he was giving bad intel, but it was intel he had.
There is a serious disconnect between the intelligence community and the people who give us the intel. in the Iraq days, we demanded the intelligence community back up their claims and show proof outside of what ifs and heresay...
Also seeking proof here..Personally I remain consistant between the two.

There is also a difference in premise. the intelligence communitys failure leading up to Iraq lead to a war..it was the pinnicle information given to justify a pre-emptive strike...
If facts later on show the intel was bad, you can't undo a bomb, you can't reset a war...
This case can take time..nobody is currently in harms way anymore, so a proper investigation and full evidence can be presented.

I am sure you appreciate the difference here.

and since when was it "sides" when discussing wars? pretty sure the enemy shoots both democrat and republican soldiers..flag pin or not.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Wikileaks proved there was no inteligence failure in Iraq Saddams WMD were moved to Syria that was reported early on that today still gets ignored.

So Benghazi and WMDS 2 different topics.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
How about just plain incompetent, or obstructive?
edit on 11/16/2012 by subjectzero because: Added the truth



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
No one is picking on women and minorities, they are calling out Rice because she lied.

Is it considered lying when your stating what the information you have says?

Are politicians and diplomats meant to be psychics?



LOL. Whoa, whoa, back up the truck there. Did you guys say the same thing when everyone voted for the invasion of Iraq based on information on WMD in Iraq? Or does that rule only apply to the people on the side of the aisle you like?
edit on 16-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


There was an intelligence failure in Iraq
There is an intelligence failure in this case.

I don't blame Colin Powell for his discussion based on the intelligence he had..he was giving bad intel, but it was intel he had.
There is a serious disconnect between the intelligence community and the people who give us the intel. in the Iraq days, we demanded the intelligence community back up their claims and show proof outside of what ifs and heresay...
Also seeking proof here..Personally I remain consistant between the two.

There is also a difference in premise. the intelligence communitys failure leading up to Iraq lead to a war..it was the pinnicle information given to justify a pre-emptive strike...
If facts later on show the intel was bad, you can't undo a bomb, you can't reset a war...
This case can take time..nobody is currently in harms way anymore, so a proper investigation and full evidence can be presented.

I am sure you appreciate the difference here.

and since when was it "sides" when discussing wars? pretty sure the enemy shoots both democrat and republican soldiers..flag pin or not.


"Bush lied people died" was something I have heard quite often from Democrats the last decade or so. It was a major part of the 2008 election. The hypocrisy from the left and silence from the media on Benghazi is quite obvious.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAngryFarm
 


if the president feels that this person will benefit the country the most

than i back him 100%

i backed him with the lamoid clinton...rice seems easier to like


BTW- mcain and the others are looking more pathetic and senile as the days pass
time for the ron pauls to ease these dinosaurs into the retirement home
edit on 16-11-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join