Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

libodem

(19,288 posts)

4. Now you're talkin'

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:49 AM

Feb 2013

Finally something that makes sense. That sounds about right.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, when will McCain be made to answer for arming the Benghazi rebels who attacked the US embassy? [View all] bigtree Feb 2013 OP

McCain's Benghazi obsession is that the US didn't fully follow-through and arm the Syrian rebels leveymg Feb 2013 #1

McCain is upset because we didn't arm Syrian rebels. Rand Paul is upset because he thinks we did. pampango Feb 2013 #14

She wouldn't make much of a poker player. Her response is pure "neither confirm nor deny." leveymg Feb 2013 #15

Or maybe that is what makes a good poker player. pampango Feb 2013 #17

What's your source for "opposed by Biden, Thomas Donilon and Susan Rice."? leveymg Feb 2013 #18

NY Times article last night on Obama reconsidering arming the rebels: TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #20

Thanks - please see my response, #22, immediately below. leveymg Feb 2013 #24

I read this to imply that Susan Rice wanted a direct US military intervention, leveymg Feb 2013 #22

Biden and Donilon 'advised against it' and Rice was 'skeptical'. The article does not indicate that pampango Feb 2013 #28

Read these two sentences together, and that's what it says about Rice's position. leveymg Feb 2013 #30

No it does not. pampango Feb 2013 #31

Recall last May, Rice was pushing for Iraq-style US-NATO action outside a UNSC authorization. leveymg Feb 2013 #34

"Rice did not specify what 'actions' she meant." "There are fears that her words could mean pampango Feb 2013 #35

What else could Rice mean other than "the threat of military action"? That's certainly how they leveymg Feb 2013 #36

A New York Times artcie in yesterday's paper. pampango Feb 2013 #23

Most of the GOP critique is a sort of red herring, and only one publicly addressed the real issue. leveymg Feb 2013 #25

Dream on. mccain will just swear at the panel and walk away. Javaman Feb 2013 #2

I sure as hell wish he'd be confronted by this. . .n/t annabanana Feb 2013 #3

Now you're talkin' libodem Feb 2013 #4

As usual, Republicans set the fires thesquanderer Feb 2013 #5

St. John McCain doth protest too much, Methinks formercia Feb 2013 #6

Note to St. John McCain: formercia Feb 2013 #7

it's a bit clearer to me why the President's held off arming Syrian resistance fighters bigtree Feb 2013 #8

The President sets Foreign Policy formercia Feb 2013 #12

To tell John2 Feb 2013 #9

You're implying that we have a media that will hold him accountable. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2013 #10

It sure looks like the Ambassador is saying to himself, sheshe2 Feb 2013 #11

. bigtree Feb 2013 #13

He Playes The Corporate Media Like A Violin... KharmaTrain Feb 2013 #16

k&r... spanone Feb 2013 #19

Amazing how involved he and the GOP were in Libya. TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #21

"Shut up with the damn facts. Grrrrrr." - Sen. Grumpy Grampy (R) Berlum Feb 2013 #26

I get what you're doing, but... Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #27

FOX news wouldn't report this bigtree Feb 2013 #29

McCain is in real life what Ned Beatty's ChisolmTrailDem Feb 2013 #32

Right after Lucifer borrows some propane from me Recursion Feb 2013 #33