John McCain = Chump

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

Term limits. Publicly fund elections. Allow individuals to contribute up to X amount of dollars to candidates of their choice. Punish any politician caught taking bribes.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that, as big a fan as I am of free speech as symbolized by unlimited campaign contributions from political action committees, lobbying groups etc... , I'm an even bigger fan of good government, and it's apparent that the impact of money on American politics has been a corrosive one vis a vis the level of political discourse and the quality of government that we receive.

 

[Horn69]

John McCain: so many foreign screw-ups. His favorite lines have been to arm the rebels regardless of Iraq Bosnia Libya Syria. You pick. McCain's competence is gone, bye-bye.

Hook'em!!!

 

[l00p]

He was a ****** pilot too. And he smells of elder berries.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Guys, the Administration didn't claim ignorance on the attacks. They claimed that there was a spontaneous riot caused by a Youtube video. That was ********. Susan Rice was the one who spouted the ********. Don't you care why she said that? If we didn't know what was really going on, why not just claim ignorance? Who came up with this video story and why? I think those are pretty fair questions to ask.

I'm not saying that her nomination should automatically be shot down, and I'm certainly not putting this on a level with Watergate. However, the idea that we shouldn't even be asking about it is absurd. If the Bush Administration was saying this stuff, you guys would be losing your minds.

 

[Clean]

Rule 1. Don't feed the Troll. They'll never leave if you do.

 

[pasotex]

The FOX News narrative on Benghazi is a lie. Rice did not blame it on the movie. She indicated that the matter was under investigation and the facts would be uncovered.
She also indicated that the current information was that the incident appeared to arise spontaneously and was highjacked by extremists. She indicated, when pressed, that the extremists could have been al Qaeda.

I know this doesn't fit with the FOX News and Republican outrage du jour, but this is the truth. You can read the actual transcripts here:

The Link

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[bedhead]

As was said about Watergate, "when did they know it, and how much did they know?"
I think that is a pretty fair question to ask in this situation, and one that needs to be answered.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Did you read what she actually said?

 

[pasotex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

Paso, you're dancing around. Where did the friggin' movie stuff come from? That question needs to be answered. Rice may not know the answer, but somebody does. That person needs to talk.

 

[pasotex]

This is nothing but pathetic sore-loser partisanship by Republicans.

When this turns out to be true (which it is but was testimony in a closed session), doesn't McCain owe Rice an apology?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Rice never said that the violence was fueled by the video. This lie comes from FOX News (and it has been repeated by lots of lazy people). Read what she actually said (which came from the CIA).

 

[Horns11]

"I still want to know who fed the lie that an anti-Muslim video drove this whole thing."

That's just it... I don't think anyone "fed the lie." I think the video, with multiple outlets repeating it over and over again in both blog sources and MSM, became the official line for anyone, not necessarily the Obama administration. Blaming Rice for propagating it is like blaming the mailman for bringing the bills.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The GOP has unwittingly fallen right into the trap set by the left, which is to get into pointing fingers about who said what about what. There were very clear implications about the role of the video, including the Secretary of State telling the families of victims that they would make sure that the man who made the film was arrested.

However, that is a sideshow. At the end of the day, covering up or minimizing the terrorist aspect of the attack is typical politics. The issue is that the embassy had repeatedly requested additional security, there had been repeated attacks on the compound in the past year, and the security was allowed to deteriorate to the point where this was able to occur. With all the finger-pointing about the scripting, no one is talking about why this happened and who allowed it to happen.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

I posted a link to the transcript (and an excerpt from the Meet the Press one along with two others). Can you read and comprehend more than a single isolated sentence in English? The part you posted was about the demonstration in Egypt not Benghazi if you read the question and her answer. You need to read the entire transcript from Meet the Press if you want to intelligently criticize what she said. This is because context matters.

Here is a link to the entire transcript (again):

The Link

I have put below the question and answer for the small excerpt you quoted. The follow up questions and answers (which I am not posting again) relate to Benghazi. The context is important. You need to read the entire transcript to see what she actually did and did not say.

Should I post the entire exchange?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

The FOX News narrative has been to claim she blamed the incident on the movie. This is completely false if you read her entire remarks on Meet the Press or from any of the other four shows where she appeared. This is just nonsense. You either have partisan blinders on or have failed to read the entire transcript. She followed the talking points almost to the letter. This story is ludicrous and it is just another reflection of why the Republicans lost the election.Here is what she said immediately after the question and answer I posted above:

In reply to:

---

---

---

---

 

[Bronco]

Paso- You are a piece of work. Did you go to the links I provided? Rice and press secretary both attributed the violence to the video.

Further, it is completely obvious to anyone with a brain that introducing the video IN ANY context would have big consequences. They knew this completely.

5 days after the incident? An incident they watched in real time occur with reports from the ground and reports from inside the actual building. They knew this was not a result of a video. It is impossible to not know. But they trotted it out there to see if the public/press would buy it and then hedged like jellyfish to say there was an investigation ongoing. Just so that people like you could spin it if it turned badly on them.

If you think that the entire BO admin didint know exactly what happened 7 days after the event then you are just too dense to even respond to. They were worried of the impact it would have on the election. Why didnt big bad BO defend Rice before the elction? Was it only insulting to him 60 days or so later? For the record, I understand why he did it. It is just comical that people like you fall for it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

This conversation is instructive:

Being full of crap is acceptable, so long as you can maintain an image of a viable argument long enough to outlast the attention span of the majority, and especially of those shallow enough or lazy enough to regard themselves as moderates or independents.

Paso's argument isn't for the sake of the conservative or the liberal or the radical; it's for the sake of the big, stupid, sentimental middle. And I have no doubt it will work. Not one doubt.

 

[pasotex]

I am astounded at the lack of basic reading ability. Actually, I sadly am not. You guys are partisan hacks. I am enjoying this.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

This reminds me of the "definition of "is" " discussion. Paso is hanging his hat on the true point that Rice never actually says "this killing was a result of the video." That's a pretty narrow and - in my opinion - dishonest approach. There is no one that I've heard in the media that is honestly saying that there was no attempt by the administration to push a narrative that the video was at fault. Unless of course paso and roger35 are part of the media.

But again, I'd love to have the discussion of why we had a "security detail" comprised of hired Libyans at the embassy, and why there were no attempts to beef up security in the wake of numerous violent acts surrounding the embassy leading up to 9/11, and why calls by the embassy for more security were ignored - a fact that Clinton cedes when she claims to have specifically requested more security only to have those requests ignored.