HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » I wonder why the Republic...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:42 PM

I wonder why the Republicans are attacking Dr Susan Rice so much?

Could it be that she is smarter than the top 20 intelligent Republican Senators combined?

66 replies, 5589 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 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply I wonder why the Republicans are attacking Dr Susan Rice so much? (Original post)
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 OP
courseofhistory Nov 2012 #1
grasswire Nov 2012 #2
NightOwwl Nov 2012 #11
silhouete2 Nov 2012 #3
liberalmuse Nov 2012 #4
iemitsu Nov 2012 #5
genna Nov 2012 #60
iemitsu Nov 2012 #64
boingboinh Nov 2012 #6
Beacool Nov 2012 #7
moobu2 Nov 2012 #8
Beacool Nov 2012 #13
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #35
CreekDog Nov 2012 #44
CreekDog Nov 2012 #51
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #10
Beacool Nov 2012 #14
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #27
Beacool Nov 2012 #28
Aerows Nov 2012 #59
cheapdate Nov 2012 #12
Beacool Nov 2012 #15
Cali_Democrat Nov 2012 #17
Beacool Nov 2012 #18
Cali_Democrat Nov 2012 #19
Beacool Nov 2012 #20
Cali_Democrat Nov 2012 #22
Beacool Nov 2012 #29
Cali_Democrat Nov 2012 #34
Beacool Nov 2012 #36
Cali_Democrat Nov 2012 #37
dkf Nov 2012 #53
CreekDog Nov 2012 #49
Beacool Nov 2012 #50
CreekDog Nov 2012 #55
cheapdate Nov 2012 #21
Wellstone ruled Nov 2012 #9
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #16
CANDO Nov 2012 #23
marlakay Nov 2012 #24
applegrove Nov 2012 #25
lillypaddle Nov 2012 #26
DFW Nov 2012 #30
quaker bill Nov 2012 #31
lunatica Nov 2012 #32
truebrit71 Nov 2012 #33
Beacool Nov 2012 #42
CreekDog Nov 2012 #45
Beacool Nov 2012 #47
genna Nov 2012 #61
truebrit71 Nov 2012 #46
Beacool Nov 2012 #48
truebrit71 Nov 2012 #54
genna Nov 2012 #62
Beacool Nov 2012 #63
NewJeffCT Nov 2012 #38
workinclasszero Nov 2012 #39
politicaljunkie41910 Nov 2012 #40
Gargoyle22 Nov 2012 #41
november3rd Nov 2012 #43
Iggo Nov 2012 #52
rock Nov 2012 #56
pnwmom Nov 2012 #57
Kablooie Nov 2012 #58
Zoeisright Nov 2012 #65
karynnj Nov 2012 #66

Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:44 PM

1. Also, she's a woman. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:45 PM

2. because John McCain is losing his chairmanship of Senate committee...

....in January and he needs to form a special new committee on this in order to keep the perks and the power he currently holds. Rice is his only hope of doing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:05 PM

11. This needs to be shouted off the rooftops.

His histrionics have nothing to do with concern about national security or justice for the Americans who were killed.

This is all about McCain losing his position of power. Not only would he become irrelevant, it would also free up time for self-reflection. That would mean facing his own shadows, but he is too much of a coward to look at the monster in the mirror.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:46 PM

3. I think she epitomizes the trifecta:

She is smart, a woman AND a minority. The GOP hate that combo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:46 PM

4. They're still pissed about the election...

and it appears Susan Rice fits many of the demographics that soundly rejected them, so they're using her as a scapegoat for their white male rage because they know they'll soon be obsolete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:46 PM

5. They sure don't like it when a woman or a minority is smarter.

So it could be the reason republicans are on the attack but I personally think this is just the beginning of their new strategy to derail anything Obama tries to do.
I fully expect republicans to push for impeachment hearings and to continue, to the best of their ability, the gridlock in congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:26 AM

60. Ditto.

Through his appointments and judicial nominations especially

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genna (Reply #60)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:47 PM

64. Yep, it is really absurd.

I doubt many view this strategy as defensible yet republicans are like pit-bulls, once they bite they don't let go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:53 PM

6. 1. Obama May Pick Her (He wont since Repubs reject), 2. Woman, 3. Benghazi is the excuse

 

Although i strongly doubt Obama will pick her because history shows he runs fast if Repubs scream fake foul. But republicans are obsessed with denying Obama any victory and so this is just their latest new shiny object. Bengazi gave them the necessary fire to use. I'd love to see her in the position but Obama never will, not anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:06 PM

7. Maybe it's because the WH sent her out to misinform the public?

Everybody involved at that point knew that a spontaneous demonstration that turned violent was not the cause of the death of the ambassador and the other three people. There had been demonstrations in other countries, but not outside the US mission in Benghazi. They knew that it was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack. The attack lasted 7 hours, why weren't they helped? There are so many questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:15 PM

8. It's like you read that off the GOP

Benghazi attack talking points. In other words very little of what you said has any basis in truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:51 PM

13. Please, it is the truth.

If mistakes were made, then admit them and move on. Why persist with the video nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:48 PM

35. No. It's a distortion of the truth. Jeezus! It's been debunked on the DU Home page, for chrissakes!

Source: ThinkProgress


By Hamed Aleaziz on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:51 am

Intelligence officials told CNN that the intelligence community, not the White House, changed the now infamous Benghazi talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her appearance on several morning news shows in September. CNN quoted both the spokesperson for the Director of National Intelligence and an anonymous official “familiar with the drafting of the talking points.” The DNI spokesperson said that the only “substantive changes” came from the intelligence community and not the White House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312284

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:24 AM

44. no it's not, not even John McCain has the guts to repeat the lie that you are repeating

wow, just wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:19 PM

51. you're delivering Republican talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:57 PM

10. Sheesh - you didn't read where Gen Petraeus himself debunked that particular fiction?

What on earth are you doing at DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:53 PM

14. So, we should always accept bunk because it comes from our side?

When did Petraeus say that the attack was due to an spontaneous demonstration that turned violent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:33 PM

27. Well, the "bunk" as you call it was the official intelligence that was

relayed to Ms Rice from the CIA.

This link is from another DU thread, but if you are truly interested in doing something other than to push the GOP agenda, i.e., to make an unwarranted scapegoat of Susan Rice, you might at least glance through it.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/mccains_obscene_hypocrisy/

While you never specifically answered my question about why you are here at DU, your response to my post speaks volumes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

28. Oh, I see.

As per the article that you attached, it seems that they are of the opinion that she's being criticized because she's an AA female. Do you think that if the WH had sent a white man they wouldn't be attacking him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:16 AM

59. There are some things you are missing here

First of all, she can only repeat what she is CLEARED to repeat. Second of all, due to the CIA annex being involved in this mess, it would put many of our intelligence personnel in danger to run off half-cocked and say everything you think happened when a CIA annex is involved. Third of all, you, nor I, nor anyone else on this forum know what they knew or when they knew it.

It would be sheer lunacy to get on national television and start discussing a CIA annex without getting cleared by the CIA, and you may not be aware of this, but sometimes they lie for reasons of national security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:39 PM

12. Sounds like you've got most of it figured out.

"They knew that it was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack" No. The truth is much cloudier. There are various Islamist groups in Libya. The biggest is Ansar Al Sharia -- which certainly played a big role in the attacks. There are also various militia brigades that operate in Libya and Benghazi. Some are Islamists and others are tied to the former government and military of Mohammar Ghadaffi. Some of the brigades operate under the consolidated heading of Libya Shield. Al-Qaeda has ties and affiliations with any and all of the above. The FBI is still investigating who was responsible for the attack -- we don't have all the answers now and we sure as hell didn't have all the answers in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

"The attack lasted 7 hours, why weren't they helped?" The initial assault started at 9:42 pm local time. The U.S. government began mobilizing assets and positioning them for a possible intervention immediately. An armed team from the Benghazi CIA office was enroute to the consulate within 24 minutes. By 11:30 p.m. all surviving U.S. personnel were evacuated from the consulate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:56 PM

15. It was Petraeus who said so.

That was the line that was edited later on form the report. Regardless of the finer points, the WH knew that demonstrators had not been responsible for the attack and still sent Rice with that story to all the networks. I don't get why they did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

17. You think the WH sent her out to misinform?

Horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:34 PM

18. I'm not blaming her for it.

She was told what to say and she followed direction. If by then they knew that a spontaneous demonstration did not result in the attack, why send her out to repeat that story on all the networks? I just don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:43 PM

19. OK then it's not Susan Rice's fault.

why attack her? Like Obama said, go after him. He essentially taunted the GOP, daring them to...do...what we all know they want to do. They want to impeach.

Too bad they won't get anywhere with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:00 PM

20. They are attacking her because she was the face of the administration that Sunday.

If the WH had sent someone else, they would be attacking that person. The question still remains, why blame the attack on a video? I'm trying to understand the logic behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:13 PM

22. Um....perhaps you missed the fact that there was unrest throughout the middle east

because of the video. The unrest due to the video occurred the same day. It's entirely plausible that this could have been the spark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:47 PM

29. I know that there was unrest in the ME and demonstrations in several countries.

But by that Sunday it was 5 days later and the WH knew that the attack was not caused by a demonstration gone bad. Therefore, why send Rice to repeat that story on every major network?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #29)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:29 PM

34. Looks like the DNI cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:59 PM

36. Thanks for the information.

Although, it does state that as a member of Obama's cabinet Rice would have gotten the information.

"However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.


"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:21 PM

37. Correct. The links were too tenuous to make public

Which is why you don't go on national TV and talk about classified information because conservatives will be angry with you if you don't.

Fuck 'em.

They got nothin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:27 PM

53. Just because you aren't sure which terrorist group is responsible doesn't mean you say it was a

 

Spontaneous demonstration caused by a video. That was misleading.

That is why she can't be trusted to tell the truth but will mislead if told to do so. She has used up her credibility. Not only that but when Obama went all "protective male" he undermined her and made her look weak like she couldn't fight her own battles. I can't imagine Obama ever having to play that role for Hillary because Hillary doesn't need it.

Hillary is the smart one here. This should have been her area, to explain what happened to her ambassador. But she is too smart for that.

Colin Powell sunk his credibility doing this for George Bush. Susan Rice just did the same for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:00 PM

49. You're saying Rice should have disclosed classified information?

whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:19 PM

50. No, I'm saying that the administration sent Rice with a specific story.

That story (that the attack on Benghazi was caused by a spontaneous demonstration gone bad) was not accurate. The Republicans of course went ape $hit over it, but the fact remains that 5 days after the attack the WH knew that the attack was not caused by that video. There were several demonstrations in other countries, some of them violent, that were caused by the video; but not the attack on Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:46 PM

55. she didn't say it was caused by the video or even by the initial protestors --stop lying

seriously. if you can't tell the truth about what is said, just leave it.

the statement is nuanced, your description of the statement is false and not nuanced.

if you spread a lie about the statement, then either you dont' know what you're talking about (and nobody should listen to you)
OR
you are lying about the statement, in which case you are telling us that you don't believe the truth is convincing.




RICE: ur current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:02 PM

21. "Everyone" didn't know "it was Al-Qaeda".

As I've already explained, there were any number of groups in Libya with motivation to attack the U.S. The crude, anti-Muslim film trailer that was aired on Egyptian television sparked riots and protests in Cairo and many other cities across the region on the same day. It is completely plausible to believe that regardless of who planned the Benghazi attack, that the timing was directly influenced by the riots and chaos that the video caused in other cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:51 PM

9. It's all about Ms Rice's

serving as U.N. Ambassador. The Reich Wing is still looking for a Bolton-Cheney type person. We Dem's are getting payback for our criticism of Bolton,same shit just a new day. Repukes are ruthless when it comes to wedge issues and it will continue until we put a stake in their heartless bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:58 PM

16. They want attention. So they want a controversy. So they make a lot of pointless accusations

in the hopes that somebody will argue with them, creating controversy, so they get attention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:19 PM

23. They are trying to steer it toward John Kerry

And then they think Brown has a shot at Kerry's seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:27 PM

24. Because Obama likes her….nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:41 PM

25. It is a Rovian play to attack Obama

on his strengths and Rice is a strength.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:26 PM

26. Because they're assholes?

That's my assumption, FWIW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:47 PM

30. I think they were tired of attacking the usual suspects

They were probably grateful from some new blood (to suck).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:43 AM

31. Because someone must pay for their defeat

I think it is pretty much that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:30 AM

32. It's because they're fighting to be relevant after a sound defeat to their party

You don't fight for your life by playing nice. It's all self-interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:59 PM

33. Female. Black. Smart.

'Nuff said..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:41 PM

42. So was Condi Rice and our side did our best to discredit her.

'Nuff said..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:26 AM

45. and you think that's the same thing?

whatever.

maybe you still aren't over that Obama issue from 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:49 AM

47. Do I still think that Hillary would have been a more effective president than Obama?

Of course I do, I wouldn't have supported her otherwise. Although, what does this have to do with 2008? This is about the PC police finding "code words" where none existed before (incompetent is not a code word for anything) when the other side attacks someone on our side. There is plenty of legitimate racism, criticizing a public official on statements made on behalf of the WH is not racism. We would be doing the same thing if Bush had been in office when the Benghazi diplomatic mission was attacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:37 AM

61. Tenacious on the point, smart about the subject, and factually grounded.

Impressive.

If I need to argue about something, I hope I can be this credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:20 AM

46. Condi wasn't/isn't smart....so not the same issue

Condi was/is a confirmed liar...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:52 AM

48. You don't think that Condi is smart?

A Republican could accuse you of using "code words" and call you a racist. I do think that she's plenty smart. That doesn't mean that I agree with her political positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:36 PM

54. Nope.

Smart people don't tarnish their images by being proven liars..or acting stupid whilst testifying to congress..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:44 AM

62. A day late and a dollar short, but code words

usually are used to mask intent. If Condi acted without any intellectual curiosity about the matter at hand even in the rearview mirror, you can't call that smart. No one is masking intent here.

Condi Rice like Colin Powell should have resigned in protest early on when they found out how badly they were lied to and subsequently acted to spread those lies.

They were both under extreme amount of pressure to make their place in the Bush administration work. Powell eventually left office in disgrace; he had no power to make a difference. He talked about his time at State and the depth of his mistakes.

Who really knows about Condi Rice when she is still using debunked arguments to CYA.

Who said you can criticize a woman, a black woman, or a smart black woman? Code words suggest a smart black woman is an oxymoronic view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genna (Reply #62)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:41 PM

63. I see your point.

I just think that Republicans would have criticized anyone the administration had sent that Sunday with that same story. I don't think that the criticism of Rice over Benghazi was due to her gender and race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

38. because, they're hoping against hope to tie something

that has even the slightest hint of wrongdoing to Obama, no matter how far-fetched it is. And, if that happens, they'll immediately open impeachment hearings. They know most of the media will lap up impeachment hearings like a kitten lapping up some spilled milk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:30 PM

39. They don't like the color of her skin..

shes a woman and she has more education and intellect than ten thousand Sarah Palins!

That's more than enough for the entire repig party, hate radio and Faux news to hate and slander her for life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:31 PM

40. The GOP will always be in search of a conspiracy as long as President Obama is in office.

Someone has to be the devil they are fighting against; and if the perpetrator is black, they can't be that intelligent because they are all affirmative action candidates; which makes them an easy target for these bigots. This time it's Rice, last time it was Eric Holder even though he ended the program started under Bush that they were trying to use to drive him out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:37 PM

41. They need to "win" on something and it might as well be this*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:26 AM

43. One Thing Is For Sure

They hate Obama so much because he makes them look like such prehistoric idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:21 PM

52. Minority. Woman. Democrat.

Pick one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:07 PM

56. They got nothing better to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:22 AM

57. That's it. It's called "Much ado about nothing."

That's all they've got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:13 AM

58. They think the name rice should be reserved for black Republican women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:54 PM

65. Smart. Powerful. Black. Woman.

'Nuff said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:30 AM

66. My guess - their fp issue that they are inflamed on is Bengahzi and Rice was a prominent face

in the response. McCain in a recent comment actually said Obama was the problem and accused him of distorting what he said (that it was terrorism). Ignore that McCain is wrong on Obama and that there really was not enough time to call anything a coverup. The point is they have a vested interest - even after losing the election - in saying there is a scandal rather than a tragedy here.

I think they would be saying the same if Rice were white and male and would have been sent on all the same shows and done the same professional job responding to the questions - lessening the pressure on putting either Clinton or Obama out there.

McCain already disliked her because of her brutal characterizations of his fp in the 2008 election. Joe Biden and John Kerry also countered McCain's ideas, but their attacks avoided personal attacks and both of them had long standing past histories with him.

However, the norm is that Presidents should get the cabinet they want provided they do not lie to Congress or do something outside the pale. There is nothing that should preclude Rice's confirmation. It is true that it would help if the nominee had good ties with the Senate which has to approve treaties. That she doesn't matters less as the Democratic chair of the SFRC does and can and will make solid cases for administration policy - even if Obama passes over him for SOS. The comments that she is not sufficiently diplomatic are part of the ugly media fight and the ONLY person who really has to judge them is President Obama.

The Senate role is advise and consent - not designating who they want or think best for the position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread