Magox Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Two of the biggest military hawks seem to approve of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I don't see it playing out that way... at all 100% agreed. The one, and only, thing this administration does well is play successfully devisive politics in order to deflect blame and maintain power. Two of the biggest military hawks seem to approve of her. The establishment defending the establishment. Who ever would have thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I don't see it playing out that way... at all She'll justify the sanitization of the "talking points" on some national security grounds, which will give the opportunity for the Democrats in the Senate to support her and look rational on national security, and the Republicans a chance to slam her and Obama, and look rational on government openness. And then she'll be confirmed. Because everyone involved knows how Washington works and that her contribution to this issue is a complete sideshow, But it gives everyone a chance to bloviate for the cameras, while ignoring the real and difficult issue of: what the hell was that load of bull **** Rice was selling the UN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 She'll justify the sanitization of the "talking points" on some national security grounds, which will give the opportunity for the Democrats in the Senate to support her and look rational on national security, and the Republicans a chance to slam her and Obama, and look rational on government openness. And then she'll be confirmed. Because everyone involved knows how Washington works and that her contribution to this issue is a complete sideshow, But it gives everyone a chance to bloviate for the cameras, while ignoring the real and difficult issue of: what the hell was that load of bull **** Rice was selling the UN? Remember, the original talking points were made up by Petraeus. Any claim of national security could be shot down rather easily. You guys might be right, and I might just be hoping she's forced to tell the truth, but it sure seems like a good way to find out just how Rice came about with her fairy tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Nuland could always plead the 5th.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Nuland could always plead the 5th.... Before or after reading a prepared statement giving testimony that she's completely innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Instead of "game-planning" how about maybe just saying what happened ? Dems prepare game plan for Benghazi Democrats vow they won't be caught flat-footed when the co-author of the State Department's independent audit on Benghazi appears for a closed-door interview with congressional investigators next month. . Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering has agreed to be deposed by Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) Oversight panel on June 3 after being threatened with a subpoena. Democrats say they're wary of a trap, and want to be able to counter what they say is Issa's habit of leaking “cherry-picked” portions of witnesses' testimonies to the press. Read more: http://thehill.com/b...-#ixzz2UVFwxpu7 Washington Post blames Benghazigate on Petraeus Washington Post reporters Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson (prompted, undoubtedly, by Team Obama) find that David Petraeus is to blame for the trouble in which the administration finds itself over the Benghazi talking points. It’s not exactly a case of “blame the dead guy” — more like blame the unfaithful guy, even if he is an American hero. In the Post’s telling, Petraeus drafted talking points that exceeded the scope of what the House Intelligence Committee asked for. Thus, the talking points had to be changed, and that led to Benghazigate. Team Obama’s defense has thus come full circle. As “Totus Porcus” at Ricochet notes, originally David Petraeus was to blame for the administration’s misstatements about Benghazi because the administration relied on information the intelligence community provided. Now that this story has fallen apart — Susan Rice and company didn’t use what Petraeus provided — Petraeus is to blame for not writing the kind of talking points he was asked to. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/washington-post-blames-benghazigate-on-petraeus.php Edited May 27, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) Wait! What? Dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi? As many as 21 were injured...some seriously? JakeTapper...making it rain....wow. Silly phony scandals. Edited August 1, 2013 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Wait! What? Dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi? As many as 21 were injured...some seriously? JakeTapper...making it rain....wow. Silly phony scandals. "CIA operatives," or "people working for the CIA?" Because some pencil-neck from DS&T or DS is pretty meaningless in the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 "CIA operatives," or "people working for the CIA?" Because some pencil-neck from DS&T or DS is pretty meaningless in the context. We'll probably never find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 "CIA operatives," or "people working for the CIA?" Because some pencil-neck from DS&T or DS is pretty meaningless in the context. Well, if the reports on injuries are correct, they at least they tried to ingage. Hmmm, a lot of them had no diplomatic cover obviously and could have been classified as "spies". I'm sorta convinced that there was a major arms operation going on that didn't please all of the parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Well, if the reports on injuries are correct, they at least they tried to ingage. Hmmm, a lot of them had no diplomatic cover obviously and could have been classified as "spies". I'm sorta convinced that there was a major arms operation going on that didn't please all of the parties. Or they didn't duck quickly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 (edited) Wait! What? Dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi? As many as 21 were injured...some seriously? JakeTapper...making it rain....wow. Silly phony scandals. So....instead of "no WMD"...it's "moving weapons of moderate destruction"? At least the speculation fits. It make all the sense in the world for us to pull found weapons out of Libya and give them to the rebels in Syria. But, do it as a secret operation. And yeah, we'd need to cover our involvement in that up. We aren't formally moving things in there, and, its scope is limited to whatever we find in Libya, so there's all kinds of deniable elements to it. It's like Iran-Contra, but with an much simpler set of transactions. However, none of that excuses going to bed during a firefight, or, telling Susan Rice blatantly lie on 5 Sunday talk shows, or, having the only phone call you make all night be about the plan to minimize the poltiical damange. So, the ball hasn't moved at all for Obama/Hillary. If anything, they've lost yards here. More people on the ground means: major operation. No way in hell Obama AND Hillary didn't know about it in detail, so there goes that excuse. Edited August 2, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 You really think Obama is going to make a big effort to find and punish those responsible for the attack when Obama put out the hit,- it's Brzezinski-ites vs neocons and Stevens was practicing foreign policy without a license. The speculation I've heard for a long time is that Stevens was working for Stevens or at best for elements in the CIA but he wasn't doing what Obama wanted which is how he ended up less than living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 The speculation I've heard for a long time is that Stevens was working for Stevens or at best for elements in the CIA but he wasn't doing what Obama wanted which is how he ended up less than living. Wait a minute...now you are quoting yourself ...lybob? Look at the post above. WTF is that? And not only that, you are saying, honestly, that the reason the President left this guy to die...was insubordination? And implying that we shoul therefore be Ok with it? A commander, leaving his troops to die...because he is pissed at them? Anyone else want to know why I say we should never let the far left be in charge of of something, without the commensurate adult supervision? I am pretty sure any reason anyone had to be critical of me making fun of you...just went out the window with this post, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Wait a minute...now you are quoting yourself ...lybob? Look at the post above. WTF is that? And not only that, you are saying, honestly, that the reason the President left this guy to die...was insubordination? And implying that we shoul therefore be Ok with it? A commander, leaving his troops to die...because he is pissed at them? Anyone else want to know why I say we should never let the far left be in charge of of something, without the commensurate adult supervision? I am pretty sure any reason anyone had to be critical of me making fun of you...just went out the window with this post, as well. I'm not implying we should be all right with Obama leaving his troops to die putting a hit out for Stevens- what I'm implying is you and your ilk have no clue as why you should hate Obama, you hate an imaginary Obama you made up in your head you should hate the real Obama instead. The quote is just to say this stuff has been out for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 (edited) I'm not implying we should be all right with Obama leaving his troops to die putting a hit out for Stevens- what I'm implying is you and your ilk have no clue as why you should hate Obama, you hate an imaginary Obama you made up in your head you should hate the real Obama instead. The quote is just to say this stuff has been out for a long time. Fascinating. Do you really believe this helped your case? That I, of all posters here, have made up an Obama, in my head? And, that I hate anybody, never mind Obama?* And that "this stuff", specifically, that Stevens was conducting his own unsanctioned operations, or, not conducting the ones he'd been ordered to conduct, as ordered, has been "out"? Fascinating. Do you even know the difference between the State Department and the CIA? Do you know which one Stevens belonged to? Yes, a career diplomat...conducting covert intelligence operations, on foreign soil, that are unsanctioned by Obama, and displease him. All this with no reference to the CIA at all? And not just this, but that: Obama put a "hit" out on his own diplomat? And this has all been "out for a long time"? This is a new low for you ...lybob. Imagine my surprise at saying that. You know, I've really tried to avoid turning you into my conner. Frankly, I never wanted the responsibility that Tom had taken on with that guy. You are making it difficult. *You know who I really hate? My gifted and talented teacher in 8th grade. She is the only person I truly hate in the entire world, because she was a disgusting ugly pig who kept finding reasons to rub her nasty breasts on me. That is the only person I hate. Edit: the more I think about it, it's more like pity than hate, anyway. Obama is an annoyance, but, he is a relatively decent human being, and there is no call for anyone to hate the man. He is simply out of his depth, and is only where he is due to media malpractice, and the decline of the Democratic party, as a party. The man is in office based on a big lie. The big lie is only functional because so many people want to believe it. IF there's anything to hate, it is the lie, not the man. Edited August 2, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Obama is an annoyance, but, he is a relatively decent human being, and there is no call for anyone to hate the man. He is simply out of his depth, and is only where he is due to media malpractice, and the decline of the Democratic party, as a party. The man is in office based on a big lie. The big lie is only functional because so many people want to believe it. IF there's anything to hate, it is the lie, not the man. Imagine that, you can make a cogent point in less than 1000 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I don't understand why people always use the term "hate" to describe people they dislike or disagree with. Hate implies a personal relationship. I don't approve of the job the President is doing, but I would never say I hate him, because I don't know him. I think people confuse the idea that you can disagree with or dislike the job someone is doing and still assume thy are a decent person. I am quite sure Obama is probably an ok guy who lives his kids, I just don't like him as President. Hang on, someone's at the door... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 (edited) Hang on, someone's at the door... That is so 1960's. These days you'd get droned. Edited August 2, 2013 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts