Not all that complicated, really ….

Obama wants to nominate her for Sec State. Putting her out there on behalf of the Administration was all about raising her profile as a mouthpiece … er, spokesman … person … whatever.

BD57 on November 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM

But that strategy probably backfired. Republican Senators know she lied on national TV, and will filibuster her nomination if they have the cojones. Susan Rice will never be Secretary of State, and Obama will be stuck with Hillary Clinton for four more years, if Hillary still wants the job.

The real purpose of Obama sending Rice on the talk shows was so that We the People are stuck with Obama for four more years.

The big question that still needs to be answered is why our United Nations Ambassador was deliberately and repeatedly paraded about as the mouthpiece of our State Dept. after an attack on U.S. soil where 4 Americans were murdered.

locomotivebreath1901

Not all that complicated, really ….

Obama wants to nominate her for Sec State. Putting her out there on behalf of the Administration was all about raising her profile as a mouthpiece … er, spokesman … person … whatever.

There you have it. The last living person still arguing that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11

plewis on November 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Are you really stupid enough to claim that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Al Qaeda’s charter mission was to expel the US military from Saudi Arabia. The US military was only in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no-fly zones and blockades of Iraq. Thus, Iraq was actually a direct cause of 9/11.

Please try to deny this.

(But I have a feeling that you’ll simply try to ignore this comment.)

blink on November 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM

My feeling was correct. You ignored this comment. You’d rather continue stupidly claiming that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Senators McCain, Ayotte, et.al… The American people don’t care. They don’t care about dead ambassadors, or brave navy seals, they don’t care about black flags over our burning embassies. They don’t care about transparently bogus “film” rationales, or an administration that lies through its teeth.

And that’s just Benghazi. I could go on about Fast & Furious, a racially politicized DoJ, an unpopular takeover of healthcare, the nationalization of our auto industry, etc. The American people looked at all of this and more on 11/6 and said “y’know… four more years of this sounds pretty good.”

The reason is because they care about their union jobs, their “free” phones, “free” birth control, pensions, food stamps, EBT payments, “free” healthcare, & so forth.

We could always ask the fine people of this once-great nation to dig in and think critically, but that would mean they’d have to take time out from the petty & trivial banalities that entertain & distract them.

So I say again: can we just stop this nonsense? At this point the GOP is just posturing. It would be more useful to simply say that Obama & his advisors left our embassy unprotected despite warnings, and then did nothing while they watched four Americans die at the hands of 7th-Century Death Cultists, and then lied to the American people about it. Conclude your press conference by pointing out that this will come to nothing because Americans care more about their “free shit” than they do about national security. Then go home for Christmas.

She couldn’t have been more wrong if she had tried to tell America some crazy story like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons to get us to invade. Now she wants to be Secretary of State. That’s wacky talk!

plewis on November 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I hate to break this to you, dimwit, but WMDs were found in Iraq. See wikileaks.

Say hello to John “Winter Soldier” Kerry.

GOP is wasting it’s ammo, here, to mix metaphors. But it’s not like they’ve ever been outplayed by the Dems before…

But never shallow.

verbaluce on November 27, 2012

…you swallow?

plewis on November 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM

You are aware that the quote button is for quoting someone else, right?

RFOL.

kingsjester on November 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Hey, don’t crush his ego!

Pay no attention to the mean commenter, plewis. Good job, little buddy.

Yep, there was clear, historical evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used WMDs in war against Iranians and his own Iraqi people. That was incontrovertible. Basing the invasion of Iraq upon WMDs, and little else, was a shaky foundation. Rice based her story upon nothing except that there was a demonstration in a neighboring country.

ted c on November 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

It was shaky and it perturbed others in the administration.

Powell had been given the full range of intel on Saddam, WMD was a piece of that range of intel and it was never sold as a done deal. Yet he got up in front of the UN and made 95% of the case for the war base on WMD.

Tony Blair went one step further and said the WMD was as close to fact as it gets. Then he made up some bogus BS about missles-borne WMD being able to hit the UK with 45 minutes notice…

So in their way, they both gave the Lefitsts and the Ronulans the ammunition to collude with the anti-war folks who suddenly went very quiet after the coronation of the Dog Dining Dauphin.

There you have it. The last living person still arguing that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11

plewis on November 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Are you really stupid enough to claim that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Al Qaeda’s charter mission was to expel the US military from Saudi Arabia. The US military was only in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no-fly zones and blockades of Iraq. Thus, Iraq was actually a direct cause of 9/11.

Please try to deny this.

(But I have a feeling that you’ll simply try to ignore this comment.)

Why was that story crazy. Every intel agency on the planet believed this.

blink on November 27, 2012 at 2:10 PM

So you want to excuse her statements to the American public because she parroted false intelligence? Seems fair.

plewis on November 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Her statements were in direct contradiction to the intelligence that we had at the time.

You need new talking points – one’s without embedded logic errors.

Our focus should be on current Secretary of State HILLARY CLINTON.

What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

And why has Hillary Clinton been hiding from the American people since the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

Which was believed by multiple US administrations, intelligence bodies across Europe and even UNSCOM before the war. No one tried to cover up the absence of WMDs after the fact.

Certainly not the case here.

Chuck Schick on November 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Yep, there was clear, historical evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used WMDs in war against Iranians and his own Iraqi people. That was incontrovertible. Basing the invasion of Iraq upon WMDs, and little else, was a shaky foundation. Rice based her story upon nothing except that there was a demonstration in a neighboring country.

Why not just say, ‘We don’t have enough information to be sure, here are the possibilities, and we’ll keep you updated’?

Because that might have created some doubt in the minds of the electorate about the claim President Rambo, Bin Laden Slayer, had very publicly and very loudly made just the week before that he had practically destroyed Al Qaeda, and about the success of his failed Libyan policy, and about the perception that his admin knows what the hell they are doing in the ME.

Better to blame it all on “spontaneous protests” incited by some obscure independent low budget film maker, ignoring the fact it all happened on the anniversary of 9/11. Because Dear Leader’s admin and his buddies in the MSM clearly think enough of the electorate is stupid enough to buy it and trust an admin and MSM that obviously thinks they are gullible morons. Hey, it looks like they were right. They got away with and are still getting away with it.

Those are fairly easy points of reference. Everyone made decisions. What did the President do? Did he change, or provide direction to those making changes to the talking points?

Did the President decide not to use force?

The press in this country has become nothing but a bunch of traitorous, dimwitted propagandists.

She couldn’t have been more wrong if she had tried to tell America some crazy story like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

plewis on November 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Which was believed by multiple US administrations, intelligence bodies across Europe and even UNSCOM before the war. No one tried to cover up the absence of WMDs after the fact.

Certainly not the case here.