• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Faints and Sustains Concussion

Nothing personal, it was not just aimed at you, there are many people in the thread suggesting that sort of thing. Benghazi is just a non issue, and everybody is trying to make it seem like this watergate kind of issue. It's so nakedly partisan.

Benghazi is a non-issue?

Four Americans dead, including the US Ambassador, and no security, despite repeated requests. and it's a 'non-issue'?

Aren't American lives and national security important to you?
 
Nothing personal, it was not just aimed at you, there are many people in the thread suggesting that sort of thing. Benghazi is just a non issue, and everybody is trying to make it seem like this watergate kind of issue. It's so nakedly partisan.

I was just pointing out a coincidental pattern in a colorful way. I do, however, disagree with you about Benghazi being a non-issue, but that is in the hands of Congress to sort out now.
 
Benghazi is a non-issue?

Four Americans dead, including the US Ambassador, and no security, despite repeated requests. and it's a 'non-issue'?

Aren't American lives and national security important to you?

Obviously you know that is not what I meant. The attack was an issue, but nothing more than that. What I meant was that there was no "Benghazi cover up" in any meaningful sense, or any scandal arising from the attack. So don't pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about, that is dishonest.
 
Obviously you know that is not what I meant. The attack was an issue, but nothing more than that. There was no "Benghazi cover up" in any meaningful sense. So don't pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about, that is dishonest.

What about dropping the ball on the Anniversary of 911? How about Inappropriate Command Judgment? I mean if it is good enough to remove Top Brass from Command Positions. Why not the Commander In Chief?
rolleyes.png
 
Because she admitted she it what all she said wasn't true!


U were sayin something bout the GOP doing what now? :rolleyes:

Did she say it wasn't true or did she say she knew is wasn't true all along?

I remember during the Bush Presidency people who I think either lacked character accused the president of intentionally "lying" about wmds in Iraq in order to justify invasion. I was highly offended Americans old accuse their own president of such a think when to me it was obvious he and everybody else for that matter thought Iraq had wmds. In a situation like Benghazi where the details events were unfolding far more quickly that the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, my assumption is the YouTube video was what what honestly believed to be the motive AT THE TIME Rice made those statements. After better intelligence came to light then the honest thing was to that the initial reports were not true, which is exactly what she did. However there are those who take the fact that better information became available later and and saying she was "lying" at first. That IMHO is just as much dishonest as saying Bush lied about wmds in Iraq because he thought there were when he made the initial claim.
 
Did she say it wasn't true or did she say she knew is wasn't true all along?

I remember during the Bush Presidency people who I think either lacked character accused the president of intentionally "lying" about wmds in Iraq in order to justify invasion. I was highly offended Americans old accuse their own president of such a think when to me it was obvious he and everybody else for that matter thought Iraq had wmds. In a situation like Benghazi where the details events were unfolding far more quickly that the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, my assumption is the YouTube video was what what honestly believed to be the motive AT THE TIME Rice made those statements. After better intelligence came to light then the honest thing was to that the initial reports were not true, which is exactly what she did. However there are those who take the fact that better information became available later and and saying she was "lying" at first. That IMHO is just as much dishonest as saying Bush lied about wmds in Iraq because he thought there were when he made the initial claim.

How does this explain Susan Rice's Incompetence with the Continent of Africa? Do you think we can force other foreign Diplomats to talk to her? How's that Image thing working now when Rice can't be an effective diplomat for the best Interests of the US? Here let me remind you.....as evidenced.


Yes lets look at those Merits outside of Benghazi that she was offering up. Course she isn't fit to be the UN Ambassador let alone the SOS.

UNITED NATIONS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Susan Rice has had a series of diplomatic triumphs as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Barack Obama, an old friend, showed he has her back when last week he publicly challenged her Republican critics over the Benghazi controversy to "go after me" rather than her. She knew former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the age of 4.

And yet Rice is now fighting for her political future. Her chances of becoming the next secretary of state - replacing Hillary Clinton - have been significantly damaged.

Senior Republicans, such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have said they will oppose her getting the job, signaling a confirmation battle if Obama decides to nominate her. Some critics in the U.S. media, such as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, have said she is unsuitable for the position.

Diplomats on the 15-nation U.N. Security Council privately complain of Rice's aggressive negotiating tactics, describing her with terms like "undiplomatic" and "sometimes rather rude." They attributed some blunt language to Rice - "this is crap," "let's kill this" or "this is bull****."

"She's got a sort of a cowboy-ish attitude," one Western diplomat said. "She has a tendency to treat other countries as mere (U.S.) subsidiaries."

Two other diplomats - all three were male - supported this view.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, himself not known for mincing words, publicly admonished Rice after she said Russian calls for an investigation into civilian deaths in Libya caused by NATO were a "bogus" ploy.

"Really this Stanford dictionary of expletives must be replaced by something more Victorian, because certainly this is not the language in which we intend to discuss matters with our partners in the Security Council," said Churkin, mocking Rice's education at Stanford.

More immediately at the United Nations, she faces criticism from human rights activists and some diplomats because of U.S. opposition to public criticism of Rwanda for its role in the worsening conflict in the Congo.

Still, it is far from smooth sailing for Rice. Security Council diplomats and human rights activists have more recently criticized her over Rwanda.

Her involvement with the East African nation began in the 1990s, when she was a National Security Council official responsible for international organizations and peacekeeping.

Still reeling from its 1993 failure in Somalia, the United States under Clinton did virtually nothing to stop the Rwanda genocide in 1994.

Nearly two decades later, council diplomats and rights groups accuse Rice of protecting Rwanda and President Paul Kagame, a charge that Rice's defenders say is baseless.

That doesn't wash with some human rights activists. "Despite its influence on Rwanda, in public the U.S. government has been inexplicably silent," said Philippe Bolopion, U.N. director for Human Rights Watch.....snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...san-rice-withdraws-sec-state-candidate-5.html

Susan Rice battles critics over style, substance, perceptions - Yahoo! News


Can you say Blackhawk Down? You do remember our two Embassies that got hit back then Right? Kenya and Tanzania? Darfur Ring any Bells?

Do you think the Russians and UN Human Rights Groups and Activists are all Republican and trying to destroy her already Destroyed Reputation with the Continent of Africa?

Don't you actually think that Susan Rice did the Only thing She could do to stop her Political career from being Completely Destroyed.....as it should be! Did you want to continue to talk about Susan Rice's Merits?
rolleyes.png
 
Last edited:
Did she say it wasn't true or did she say she knew is wasn't true all along?

I remember during the Bush Presidency people who I think either lacked character accused the president of intentionally "lying" about wmds in Iraq in order to justify invasion. I was highly offended Americans old accuse their own president of such a think when to me it was obvious he and everybody else for that matter thought Iraq had wmds. In a situation like Benghazi where the details events were unfolding far more quickly that the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, my assumption is the YouTube video was what what honestly believed to be the motive AT THE TIME Rice made those statements. After better intelligence came to light then the honest thing was to that the initial reports were not true, which is exactly what she did. However there are those who take the fact that better information became available later and and saying she was "lying" at first. That IMHO is just as much dishonest as saying Bush lied about wmds in Iraq because he thought there were when he made the initial claim.



Well here hopefully this time you will remember that the ones that are sinking Susan Rice's Career are those from the left.....Perhaps you should have a talk with those Progressives.....huh?

Just For the Record: The Left Took Out Susan Rice

Certainly, Republicans like John McCain and Susan Collins had issues with Rice, and made that clear (although McCain also "softened" his opposition). But is there any thinking person out there who believes the Obama administration would have accepted her withdrawal if opposition to her could have been portrayed as some kind of right wing "dog whistle"? Please.

What ultimately did Rice in was criticism from the likes of Maureen Dowd (twice -- here and here) and Dana Milbank and Lloyd Grove and in the Atlantic magazine(both here and here) and in Foreign Policy even in a piece on the hallowed (to liberals) op/ed page of the New York Times. Hillary Clinton let her opposition to Rice be known. Those are the kind of opponents that a Democrat nominee simply cannot overcome -- not a couple of Republican senators when the administation's customary M.O. is simply to attribute everything to race and gender.

Note also that the Republican opposition was based specifically on Rice's misleading statements in the wake of Benghazi. It was her critics on the left, in contrast, who highlighted gauzier, more personal issues, characterizing Rice as someone afflicted with a supposed "personality disorder" (Grove), who is "ill-equipped to be the nation's top diplomat" because of her "shoot-first tendency" and "pugilism" (Milbank), with a "bull-in-the-china-shop reputation" (Dowd).....snip~

Just For the Record: The Left Took Out Susan Rice - Carol Platt Liebau

Even Clinton Chooses Kerry over Rice.

Hillary Clinton 'doesn't want Susan Rice to take over as Secretary of State' | Mail Online
 
No, and not everybody is as shallow as you. I could find you many powerful people who don't have cheap whores draped across their arm.

If thats what you wish to call them, thats your choice. However, I bet I could find more men who are powerful and wealthy married to very attractive wives, than you could find powerful and wealthy men married to ugly wives. Old people who have been married for 30 years dont count either. Their wives were probably attractive when they were both young.
 
Obviously you know that is not what I meant. The attack was an issue, but nothing more than that. What I meant was that there was no "Benghazi cover up" in any meaningful sense, or any scandal arising from the attack. So don't pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about, that is dishonest.

I still don't know what you're talking about.

Obviously there is a cover up or, after three months, we would know what happened. The scandal is that everything still remains secret.
 
4) and why on earth was Susan Rice blamed for the talking points she was obviously given by higher ups as if she gave them to herself as the 'grown ups' of the Republican Party cause me to lose almost all hope there is anything I can place trust in within the GOP who for some reason knowingly singled out someone they knew full well was innocent and just wanted to limit her career potential.

Didn't you know, Susan Rice is a "Higher Up." She had and has access to all the security information surrounding Libya, from day one. Susan, Hillery, and Obama are all tied together in this coverup, further Susan could not explain herself to the Republicans who questioned her. She knows she would have to answer some serious questions if she was appointed. Congress needs to get Susan and Hillery to testify, and then keep digging deeper until all questions are fully answered. Heads need to role.
 
There is a faintly offensive odor floating up from this paragraph. It's now been more than 3 months since the attack and I still haven't heard why:

1) Before the attack, why were requests for increased security ignored?
2) During the attack, did Obama really give orders to relieve the consulate and, if so, who failed to carry out those orders?
3) After the attack, who gave Susan Rice those ridiculous talking points for the Sunday morning shows?

You know what the awesome thing about a conspiracy theory is? You get to connect everything.
 
And your post proves just what a shallow minded person you really are, because you are talking trash about someone's appearance.

Also, just so you know, this country went to hell in a handbasket when Bush 43 was President, and we are still trying to dig our way out of it.

Indeed, to the tune of 1 trillion dollars added to the national debt every year. The only thing being dug is this nation's fiscal grave.
 
Don't forget Obama had to send her to Israel and Gaza when he went to Burma. Since the UN Sec. Ban Ki Moon had to get over there. That was a major screw up, Right there. Days before the Palestinians were accepted into the UN.....huh?

Obama did what all men do when faced with the situation of what to do with a powerful woman. He made her a secretary. His sexist irony is not lost on us all.
 
l dont like her but hope she gets well .maybe she is a wonderfull lady as a friend or neighbour
 
You know what the awesome thing about a conspiracy theory is? You get to connect everything.

And some people never can connect the dots... :lamo:lamo
 
Oh for ****'s sake. Come on people. Hilary is still going to testify. She didn't "fake" a concussion to avoid testifying. It's just going to be postponed. Just like Petraeus' ousting wasn't some sort of secret move to keep him from testifying like all the nutjobs were convinced of when the news first broke.

Come on people. Stay sharp.
 
Did she say it wasn't true or did she say she knew is wasn't true all along?

I remember during the Bush Presidency people who I think either lacked character accused the president of intentionally "lying" about wmds in Iraq in order to justify invasion. I was highly offended Americans old accuse their own president of such a think when to me it was obvious he and everybody else for that matter thought Iraq had wmds. In a situation like Benghazi where the details events were unfolding far more quickly that the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, my assumption is the YouTube video was what what honestly believed to be the motive AT THE TIME Rice made those statements. After better intelligence came to light then the honest thing was to that the initial reports were not true, which is exactly what she did. However there are those who take the fact that better information became available later and and saying she was "lying" at first. That IMHO is just as much dishonest as saying Bush lied about wmds in Iraq because he thought there were when he made the initial claim.

There are dozens of anti Muslims videos on Youtube and have been for years. If she did not know this at least she should have been suspicious before announcing that killing the American ambassador over a video is an overreaction. We know now also that by the time she made the talk show circuit that the video excuse was a sham.

It is good that people often get the benefit of the doubt but in her case, and the Obama administration, there is no doubt. The only interesting part now is whether they will eventually come out with the truth of what happened and when this "investigation" will finally be over.
 
Oh for ****'s sake. Come on people. Hilary is still going to testify. She didn't "fake" a concussion to avoid testifying. It's just going to be postponed. Just like Petraeus' ousting wasn't some sort of secret move to keep him from testifying like all the nutjobs were convinced of when the news first broke.

Come on people. Stay sharp.

There are some times I admire such certainty but this is not one of them, especially regarding Petraeus.
 
I can never forgive Hillary for the way **** let Bill treat her like **** after all his affairs....She just opened her mouth and swallowed it strictly for political reasons.....No woman would take what he did.
 
She is very evil. She is has to be liberal minded, yet she let her husband get it on with another woman. Obviously, she is only married for the political advantages it brings to being married to a former president.



Eww... I can pick up women much more attractive than her, and
I'm just a lowly NCO in the military. He is the president of the most powerful country in the world, and that is the best he can do? If your going to get caught doing something like that, you might as well do it right!
NCOs are the backbone of the military. You carry the warrior culture. NCOs are essential. I love NCOs (full disclosure, my Father retired as an E7 roughly one million years ago).
 
Earlier Dinongeners wrote, "There is a faintly offensive odor floating up from this paragraph. It's now been more than 3 months since the attack and I still haven't heard why:

1) Before the attack, why were requests for increased security ignored?
2) During the attack, did Obama really give orders to relieve the consulate and, if so, who failed to carry out those orders?
3) After the attack, who gave Susan Rice those ridiculous talking points for the Sunday morning shows?
To which you replied for reasons known only to you,
You know what the awesome thing about a conspiracy theory is? You get to connect everything.

Do you have any answers Cardinal?

Why has the regime been so silent on the events of Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Why did the regime abandon four Americans?
 
Last edited:
I can never forgive Hillary for the way **** let Bill treat her like **** after all his affairs....She just opened her mouth and swallowed it strictly for political reasons.....No woman would take what he did.

That's what did it for me (well, that and the deal she struck with the NY Hassidic Jews to "encourage" their votes for her). Her overweening political ambitions knew no bounds at all. Then again, though, I think she and Bill have more of a business relationship than anything else. ;)
 
Oh for ****'s sake. Come on people. Hilary is still going to testify. She didn't "fake" a concussion to avoid testifying. It's just going to be postponed. Just like Petraeus' ousting wasn't some sort of secret move to keep him from testifying like all the nutjobs were convinced of when the news first broke.

Come on people. Stay sharp.
Speaking of staying sharp what does it say about us as a "free" nation when all of our emails are being captured for evaluation by this government?

How is it that we are all under continuous surveillance by our government?
 
Back
Top Bottom