HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Isn't Hillary Clinton sti...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:16 PM

Isn't Hillary Clinton still the Secretary Of State

Just asking because the rethugs like Lindsey Graham and John OLD FART McCain are continuing to attack Susan Rice about this Libya shit.Why are they not asking Hillary about it.OH I FORGOT you got to blame the sister instead

31 replies, 3794 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Isn't Hillary Clinton still the Secretary Of State (Original post)
bigdarryl Nov 2012 OP
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #1
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #2
Lucinda Nov 2012 #3
Lil Missy Nov 2012 #6
Whisp Nov 2012 #8
wisteria Nov 2012 #9
Lucinda Nov 2012 #17
wisteria Nov 2012 #22
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #4
wisteria Nov 2012 #10
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #14
John2 Nov 2012 #5
Lil Missy Nov 2012 #7
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #11
wisteria Nov 2012 #13
magical thyme Nov 2012 #16
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #18
magical thyme Nov 2012 #20
Whisp Nov 2012 #21
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #23
magical thyme Nov 2012 #25
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #27
magical thyme Nov 2012 #29
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #30
magical thyme Nov 2012 #31
former9thward Nov 2012 #12
WI_DEM Nov 2012 #15
Beacool Nov 2012 #19
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #24
politicaljunkie41910 Nov 2012 #26
MrSlayer Nov 2012 #28

Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:19 PM

1. republicans just love to hate ........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:21 PM

2. Did you notice that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:26 PM

3. They are blaming her to destroy her credibility...they want Kerry to be the new SOS

not Rice, so his seat in the senate will be in play

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:49 PM

6. Bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:45 PM

8. I think you are exactly right.

I was wondering why Clinton wasn't getting more heat over this, thought it was odd. But you explained it perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:14 PM

9. Senator Kerry is not the reason they are doing this.

Don't make him the enemy. McCain may have a personal grudge against Rice dating back to his run for the Presidency and Graham is trying to impress the Tea Party because he is up for reelection in NC.
I want to see Sen. Kerry become SOS, but only because he is the more experienced and qualified of the two, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:02 PM

17. No one is making Kerry the enemy.

The point is THEY want his Senate seat open.
I'm quite sure our POTUS will make his choice based on what he feels will be best for the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:44 PM

22. One motive might be the Senate seat,

but it is a long shot for a Republican to get it. And, as for Scott, he lost, and it would be very difficult for him to run again and win. I really do not see him or Kerry's possible vacated seat as the main motivation here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:42 PM

4. Nobody messes with a Clinton. They know better. SoS Clinton knows where the skeletons

are hidden, and she ain't afraid to use them if necessary.

The Republicans believe Susan Rice is, what President Obama was suggesting, "an easy target". That told me all I needed to know.

Also, it helps that if they can preemptively strike and besmirch Ambassador Rice's reputation, they have hope to force the president to choose John Kerry for SoS, which would open his seat to Scott Brown again. They're keeping their greedy fingers crossed. Hey, it worked once, right? This time, though, I hope that should President Obama choose Senator Kerry for SoS, he'll put his ground game in place in MA to ensure another Democrat takes Senator Kerry's vacated seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:15 PM

10. I don't think their motives are to have Sen. Kerry as SOS. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:28 PM

14. Then what do you believe their motives are for this witch hunt? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:12 PM

5. Well

 

they and their allies are going to destroy themselves trying to pin something on president Obama. The man is clean. I can't say too much about the attackers. Especially John McCain and the Keating Five. Lindsey Graham will be exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:51 PM

7. Because it's common knowledge that HRC is resigning as SOS. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:26 PM

11. Hillary should testify. Rice should explain why she said what she said.

And who told her to say it.

There should be transparency.

That video, which at the time was called a "film," took center-stage as the reason for the attacks in Benghazi, when those inside the admin evidently knew otherwise. It seems the American people were misled in the process.

I'm a big fan of Hillary.

I'm a bigger fan of the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:40 PM

13. I also want to get to the bottom of what happened exactly.

Four good people were killed and we were told it all had to do with a anti-Muslim video. If things are terrible in Lybia then the American people shoud be told the truth. And, yes, it does seem as though we were mislead about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:17 PM

16. Oh puleeze. Susan Rice correctly used the approved talking points she was provided by the CIA.

She need do no such thing. She was doing her job and doing it properly.

If anybody "misled" the American People, it is the CIA who provided the talking points. They have already stated that in their supposedly closed session.

Furthermore, all this about "misleading" the American People is bullshit.

1. Like it or not, there is some information that Americans do NOT have a right to know or a need to know. Classified information is available on a "need to know" basis and only to people with security clearance. The general public does not have security clearance and did not have a need to know the details of the investigation at that point.

2. The investigation was ongoing. Releasing information at that time would have hampered the investigation, and possibly undermined it.

3. What was to be gained by prematurely outing the results of the investigation? Nothing but a ruined investigation and, still worse, inability to get the perpetrators.

Seriously, how many fucking covert CIA operations and operatives does the GOP have to destroy before people tell them to stfu?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:49 PM

18. I guess you were with the GOP after 9/11/01?



on edit:

The government answers to the people. That was true when bush/condi/rummy/powell etc dropped the ball on and before 9/11, blaming intel, and when they parlayed that failure into the needless Iraq war, the "Patriot" Act, etc. And it is true now.

The government is accountable to the people they serve. That didn't change just because a Democrat is running the show.

Btw, there surely isn't anything missing from your talking points. However, if the Senate, the House, and the media are still unclear on what happened, and why the administration falsely placed blame on a bad youtube video when it seems clear it was known from the beginning that that was not the case, you'll forgive me for not just taking your word for how and why things happened the way they did.

Another question that needs to be answered is if requests for military backup were made and subsequently denied.

Rice and Hillary should both testify. The people deserve to know the truth, from those responsible for the safety of those serving the country, and those who called the shots and made false statements afterwards. The issue is far larger than partisan posturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:03 PM

20. Wrong guess.

There is a huge difference between an SOS stating "How could we have known" while reading headline to intel report that states unequivocally "al Qaeda planning attack" with details inside and a UN Ambassador stating intelligence that says "It started with the video" and that "it's still under investigation.

Not to mention the huge difference between lying to start a war and stating that what the intelligence shows so far and that it is *still under investigation.*

The hearings are *still underway.* There is no reason to smear Susan Rice when the hearings are *still underway.* And so far the hearings have shown that the statements she made were aligned with what was believed at the time. There is nothing incongruous between her statements on record and the talking points the CIA gave her.

Susan Rice's public statements are on record and the talking points she was provided are also on record. She is an Ambassador, not SOS or CIA Director or National Security Advisor or Vice President. She has a different role and different access to information than any of the people you are comparing her to.

Her job as Ambassador does not include speculating, predicting, changing the intel she is handed, gathering the intel, interpreting the intel or even decided how much of the intel is appropriate to release. Her job is as a DIPLOMAT, which means it is primarily to defuse potentially dangerous situations, not throw fuel onto fires or undermine investigations.

What part of that do you not understand? Rhetorical question only, because I honestly don't give a shit what you do or don't understand.

As far as the senators and media not having all the information they demand in the time frame they demand, I'm sorry Sen. John McCain hasn't got all the information he demands when he can't even be bothered to show up at the hearings because he's too busy giving press announcements bitching about how he hasn't been given all the information he demands.

SHEESH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:06 PM

21. +++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:53 PM

23. It wasn't just Rice hyping a demonstration against the "film" as cause.

Hillary did it. Hell, Obama did it.

But we can't talk about it because "it's under investigation," eh?

Where have I heard that before?

Somebody gave Rice info that it now seems clear was known to be false.

As I said originally, she and Hillary should both testify on why that is, just as other relevant players should testify on other aspects of how and why this tragedy happened, why there was no effort to help, despite requests, as the events unfolded, and why the spin from the admin for two weeks afterwards was bs.

The fact that the concepts of accountability and transparency in government and the people's right to know are apparently too much for you to grasp doesn't change anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:32 PM

25. Rice should testify as to why she did her job?

That's just plain stupid. Rice did her job. Her statements are fully congruent with the information she was provided.

I didn't say Hillary shouldn't testify regarding security at the consulate, nor did I say that others involved shouldn't testify, nor did I say that there shouldn't be hearings. What I said is there is no basis for smearing Rice.

Rice is not involved in maintaining security, nor is she involved in intelligence gathering or interpretation.

I grasp the concept of accountability and transparency. I also grasp the concept of security and "need to know" information, having many decades ago had security clearance and access to secret information as part of my job as an admin at a defense contractor.

The investigation and hearings are underway. It appears so far to be an intelligence failure. At least according to General Patreaus. Furthermore, 2 CIA officials have testified that the administration made no significant changes to the "talking points." The changes were made by the CIA.

But of course, what the fuck would they know, compared to Ambassador Rice, who clearly is hiding something?

Give it up already. Your attempt to pin this on Ambassador Rice or make it somehow her failure is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:40 PM

27. Why are you afraid for her to answer a few questions?

Lotta bluster on your part in that respect.

Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:16 PM

29. You and the GOP are the ones full of bluster...

Exactly what questions are needed of Rice? We know what she said. We know what her talking points were. What is left? I don't think a witch hunt against the messenger is useful. I think it was just bluster are the part of the GOP and now that the Director of National Intelligence says he changed the talking points, not the administration, McCain's having conniptions about that.

You're falling behind the times. The hearings and investigation have been ongoing. Rice appears to have been dropped as the GOP's target since it has been demonstrated that she did her job, repeated the CIA's talking points, and the CIA and DNI wrote and did the major edits to the talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #29)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:56 PM

30. Answering questions is not a wtich hunt. Your view that


government officials of a certain party should be above questioning is truly frightening. History is full of examples of where that kind of subservience and blind loyalty leads.

You seem to have great insight into the situation a far as Rice is concerned. That you continually try to build some wall around her, remove her from the picture, and slam anyone who says she should answer the people's questions makes me wonder why she needs such a wall.

In any event, you're wasting your time with me. My view is that the government is accountable to the people. You're not going to change that view, no matter how much you huff and puff.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:26 PM

31. The GOP wasn't just trying to ask questions.

They leveled direct accusations at Susan Rice with zero facts to back them up. They most certainly were leading a witch hunt. There was no cover up, but they didn't wait for the hearings to accuse Susan Rice of covering up. They thought that President Obama would throw her under the bus, the way he did the last time they started a witch hunt over an edited video. But he learned from that experience that they will deliberately smear and destroy the careers very competent people in order to obstruct.

You apparently have not been following the news since the beginning. They started with a direct attack on Susan Rice, accusing her of a cover up, calling her incompetent and unqualified, and that if she was nominated, they would block any attempt to make her SOS. President Obama came out and said that she did exactly as she was supposed to do, and that if they want to go after anybody, it should be him. That is what a *good* boss does when an employee follows orders and is subsequently accused of wrongdoing.

It is not that I don't believe in transparency. But I also don't believe in witch hunts and what they tried to pull on Susan Rice was a witch hunt.

The hearings are done. McCain has conceded. There wasn't any "there" there. There was no "cover up" by Susan Rice or anybody else in the administration.

The CIA and INS made all the substantive changes to the talking points, and signed off on them.

As to why this matters to me, partly it's because that is how my abusive mother would behave -- come out punching innocents hard with zero facts -- and how my teaparty nutcase sister behaves now. So I'm particularly sensitive to that kind of abuse...and it is abuse.

And partly it goes back to the good boss/bad boss thing. I recently rejected a very sick baby's hemolyzed specimen. My supervisor overruled me and ordered me to test it. We ended up with an ED doctor in our faces yelling at me for "wasting a test" on a hemolyzed spec instead of getting a new spec. A *good* supervisor would have stepped up and admitted to giving me a bad order, and maybe explained why. Sadly (for me) she is not a good supervisor, and not only allowed the ED doctor to continue to berate me, but continued to pretend she had never intervened leaving me with the doctor's complaint in my file. Which is, btw, just another reason I am leaving this job as soon as I am able.

But you are right about one thing. Trying to communicate with you is a colossal waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:32 PM

12. Hillary is and has been out of the country.

Hard to testify from 10,000 miles away.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:15 AM

15. McCain has a very good relationship with Hillary Clinton--that is why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:05 AM

19. Please, not the race card.

They would have gone after anyone the WH had sent 5 days after the attack to flog the video story on all the networks. Do you really think that if the administration had sent a white man with that same story that he wouldn't be criticized by the Republicans?

I forgot to add, Hillary has agreed to testify in December.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

24. +100. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:36 PM

26. Also, they were so far up Patraeus's behind that they don't want to blame the CIA.

Therefore, let's blame the UN Ambassador. After all, she's not that bright says John McCain who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

28. Not everything they do is motivated by racism.

 

They're attacking Rice because she happened to be the spokesperson. Anyone that held her position would be attacked. Secondly, they want to discredit her so the President nominates John Kerry to State and they can put Brown back in the Senate. And thirdly, McCain is an attention whore and an idiot.

Not everything is about race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread