• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Regatta Dog

Dozen House women defend Rice over Libya comments

65 posts in this topic

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican senators' angry criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over her initial account of the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Libya smacks of sexism and racism, a dozen female members of the House said Friday.

 

In unusually personal terms, the Democratic women lashed out at Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham who earlier this week called Rice unqualified and untrustworthy and promised to scuttle her nomination if President Barack Obama nominates her to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

"All of the things they have disliked about things that have gone on in the administration, they have never called a male unqualified, not bright, not trustworthy," said Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. "There is a clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments being made by unfortunately Sen. McCain and others."

 

At a Capitol Hill news conference, the female lawmakers, the majority of them African American like Rice, suggested that the Republicans are bitter about Obama's re-election and taking it out on U.N. ambassador.

 

"
To batter this woman because they don't feel they have the ability to batter President Obama is something we the women are not going to stand by and watch,
" said Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis. "Their feckless and reckless speculation is unworthy of their offices as senators." (
)

 

 

Is she on crack? Are they all on fucking crack?

 

Why aren't they blaming the black man that sent her out there to take a bullet.

 

UFB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like General Dave had her back in those closed hearings today.

 

Et tu, Coinus Maximus?? Et tu.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she was used as a stooge.

"Stool Pigeon"?

A "stooge" would be someone like the current Afghan PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she was used as a stooge.

"Stool Pigeon"?

A "stooge" would be someone like the current Afghan PM.

Nope, stool pigeons tell the truth to people you don't want to know it. (like ratting out to the police)

 

Rice is the opposite of that.

 

Perhaps we should refer to her as a pigeon stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a word that reflects mysogyny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she was used as a stooge.

"Stool Pigeon"?

A "stooge" would be someone like the current Afghan PM.

Nope, stool pigeons tell the truth to people you don't want to know it. (like ratting out to the police)

 

Rice is the opposite of that.

 

Perhaps we should refer to her as a pigeon stool.

A stool pigeon is a decoy. The pigeon doesn't need to know they're being used.

 

 

stool pigeon

noun

1.

a pigeon used as a decoy.

2.

Also called stool·ie  [stoo-lee] Show IPA, stooly. Slang . a person employed or acting as a decoy or informer, especially for the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a word that reflects mysogyny?

That's Ms. Andry to you buster.

 

I'll take that as a no then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out why John McCain has been so vehement over this issue, and I have two thoughts:

#1. He still hasn't gotten over 2008.

#2. He still hasn't gotten over 2000 when Bush trashed him.

#3. He doesn't like Romney even a little bit.

#4. He currently heads a Committee in the Senate. I don't know what Committee that is but I suspect it has something to do with either the Military or National Security/Intelligence, or both.

#5. He is facing a TERM LIMIT on heading that Committee and as of January 1, 2013, he will no longer be the head of that Committee. Facing that demotion, the only Committee available to him would be Indian Affairs, which is like sending him to the janitors closet. He will instantly become irrelevant on most matters. That means that he will lose his TV interviews and other like Public exposure. Since he is in the Senate he must go to Harry Reid for permission to head a Committee. We all know where that will go. He has written to Harry Reid requesting that the Senate create a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi. Reid returned a letter stating that there were many investigations being conducted through various agencies, i.e. The House Of Representatives, and that another Committee would only be duplicating those efforts. So, it is off to the janitors closet for John McCain.

And that's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like General Dave had her back in those closed hearings today.

 

Et tu, Coinus Maximus?? Et tu.....?

Imagine if the unAmerican was reelected. IMAGINE!

 

crying-baby-girl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

#4. He currently heads a Committee in the Senate. I don't know ...

... that only a majority party member can head a committee and McCain is in the minority.

 

There ya go. Glad to help out. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out why John McCain has been so vehement over this issue, and I have two thoughts:

#1. He still hasn't gotten over 2008.

#2. He still hasn't gotten over 2000 when Bush trashed him.

#3. He doesn't like Romney even a little bit.

#4. He currently heads a Committee in the Senate. I don't know what Committee that is but I suspect it has something to do with either the Military or National Security/Intelligence, or both.

#5. He is facing a TERM LIMIT on heading that Committee and as of January 1, 2013, he will no longer be the head of that Committee. Facing that demotion, the only Committee available to him would be Indian Affairs, which is like sending him to the janitors closet. He will instantly become irrelevant on most matters. That means that he will lose his TV interviews and other like Public exposure. Since he is in the Senate he must go to Harry Reid for permission to head a Committee. We all know where that will go. He has written to Harry Reid requesting that the Senate create a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi. Reid returned a letter stating that there were many investigations being conducted through various agencies, i.e. The House Of Representatives, and that another Committee would only be duplicating those efforts. So, it is off to the janitors closet for John McCain.

And that's a fact.

 

That term limit thing isn't actually a demotion. It was the decision of the republican party that, when in power, that they would only allow a committee chairman to serve as such for 6 years. Then they remained on the committee but, not as chair the same would apply to ranking member status when in the minority.

 

Right now, McCain has the following committee roles per govtrack

 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services

So, when he loses ranking member status on the Armed Service Committee he can take the same position on, say, Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

 

Looks to me like you are both ignorant and hysterical about the significance of this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is also black so if this doesn't work they still have the race card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is also black so if this doesn't work they still have the race card.

Black, or half-black? That seems to be important around here...sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is also black so if this doesn't work they still have the race card.

Black, or half-black? That seems to be important around here...sometimes.

 

This racial stuff is very confusing, why do NZ folks insist on calling themselves all black when quite a few are very white.

 

teamMain_BlackFerns.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out why John McCain has been so vehement over this issue, and I have two thoughts:

#1. He still hasn't gotten over 2008.

#2. He still hasn't gotten over 2000 when Bush trashed him.

#3. He doesn't like Romney even a little bit.

#4. He currently heads a Committee in the Senate. I don't know what Committee that is but I suspect it has something to do with either the Military or National Security/Intelligence, or both.

#5. He is facing a TERM LIMIT on heading that Committee and as of January 1, 2013, he will no longer be the head of that Committee. Facing that demotion, the only Committee available to him would be Indian Affairs, which is like sending him to the janitors closet. He will instantly become irrelevant on most matters. That means that he will lose his TV interviews and other like Public exposure. Since he is in the Senate he must go to Harry Reid for permission to head a Committee. We all know where that will go. He has written to Harry Reid requesting that the Senate create a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi. Reid returned a letter stating that there were many investigations being conducted through various agencies, i.e. The House Of Representatives, and that another Committee would only be duplicating those efforts. So, it is off to the janitors closet for John McCain.

And that's a fact.

 

 

#5. He vocally supported our intervention in Libya, even travelled to Benghazi and told the rebels "you are my heroes". That puts him in a awkward spot vis-a-vis the republican Base narrative that the intervention helped the Muslim brotherhood & Al-Quaida gain influence, he's trying to cover his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out why John McCain has been so vehement over this issue, and I have two thoughts:

#1. He still hasn't gotten over 2008.

#2. He still hasn't gotten over 2000 when Bush trashed him.

#3. He doesn't like Romney even a little bit.

#4. He currently heads a Committee in the Senate. I don't know what Committee that is but I suspect it has something to do with either the Military or National Security/Intelligence, or both.

#5. He is facing a TERM LIMIT on heading that Committee and as of January 1, 2013, he will no longer be the head of that Committee. Facing that demotion, the only Committee available to him would be Indian Affairs, which is like sending him to the janitors closet. He will instantly become irrelevant on most matters. That means that he will lose his TV interviews and other like Public exposure. Since he is in the Senate he must go to Harry Reid for permission to head a Committee. We all know where that will go. He has written to Harry Reid requesting that the Senate create a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi. Reid returned a letter stating that there were many investigations being conducted through various agencies, i.e. The House Of Representatives, and that another Committee would only be duplicating those efforts. So, it is off to the janitors closet for John McCain.

And that's a fact.

 

McOld doesn't actually head a committee since he's in the minority. But he is a ranking member on a couple of important ones and he is getting shuffled off of them.

 

Yeah, he's pissed. Tough. Obama isn't going to nominate Rice next week or even next month. It'll be next year and McOld will have to keep his tantrum up. And next year he won't even have any decent committee assignments to skip.

 

Can you say Senator Napolitano?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is also black so if this doesn't work they still have the race card.

Black, or half-black? That seems to be important around here...sometimes.

 

This racial stuff is very confusing, why do NZ folks insist on calling themselves all black when quite a few are very white.

 

teamMain_BlackFerns.jpg

 

Far left, standing...what's he doing in this picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like General Dave had her back in those closed hearings today.

 

Et tu, Coinus Maximus?? Et tu.....?

Imagine if the unAmerican was reelected. IMAGINE!

 

crying-baby-girl.jpg

 

If That Guy had simply asked John and Lindsey who he would be allowed to pick for SoS, they wouldn't of had to humiliate him.

 

Very sad, that it had to come to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is also black so if this doesn't work they still have the race card.

Black, or half-black? That seems to be important around here...sometimes.

 

This racial stuff is very confusing, why do NZ folks insist on calling themselves all black when quite a few are very white.

 

teamMain_BlackFerns.jpg

 

Far left, standing...what's he doing in this picture?

 

I'm not sure but the four kneeling each have their own lines to the Haka.

 

From left to right

 

1 - Ha Ha Ha your team's a joke

2 - Your tits are small

3 - Your face is ugly

4 - Your ass is fat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she was used as a stooge.

By a man who doesn't really respect women. Obama treated Rice like some pawn sending her out to take the heat for his team's fabrication on the events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she was used as a stooge.

By a man who doesn't really respect women. Obama treated Rice like some pawn sending her out to take the heat for his team's fabrication on the events.

Seems like he was showing her some respect, AND standing up for her when he said "Calling Rice an "easy target," Obama challenged Republican lawmakers during his press conference to "go after me" instead...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was she "an easy target"? Was it because she is a woman and women can't stand up for themselves??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was she "an easy target"? Was it because she is a woman and women can't stand up for themselves??

 

I commented on the respect he showed her, and don't agree he treated her like a "pawn"

You might have to ask somebody else about the "easy target" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was she "an easy target"? Was it because she is a woman and women can't stand up for themselves??

 

I'm sure it wasn't an obvious reference to the fact that he's the fucking president, whereas she's a minor cabinet appointee. Nah. Couldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to figure out why John McCain has been so vehement over this issue, and I have two thoughts:

#1. He still hasn't gotten over 2008.

#2. He still hasn't gotten over 2000 when Bush trashed him.

#3. He doesn't like Romney even a little bit.

#4. He currently heads a Committee in the Senate. I don't know what Committee that is but I suspect it has something to do with either the Military or National Security/Intelligence, or both.

#5. He is facing a TERM LIMIT on heading that Committee and as of January 1, 2013, he will no longer be the head of that Committee. Facing that demotion, the only Committee available to him would be Indian Affairs, which is like sending him to the janitors closet. He will instantly become irrelevant on most matters. That means that he will lose his TV interviews and other like Public exposure. Since he is in the Senate he must go to Harry Reid for permission to head a Committee. We all know where that will go. He has written to Harry Reid requesting that the Senate create a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi. Reid returned a letter stating that there were many investigations being conducted through various agencies, i.e. The House Of Representatives, and that another Committee would only be duplicating those efforts. So, it is off to the janitors closet for John McCain.

And that's a fact.

 

Put him in charge of indian affairs...? That would be cruel and unusual punishment (for the indians).... :ph34r: Oh the poor old neocon fart bag has no propose. How sad and pitiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she was used as a stooge.

By a man who doesn't really respect women. Obama treated Rice like some pawn sending her out to take the heat for his team's fabrication on the events.

Seems like he was showing her some respect, AND standing up for her when he said "Calling Rice an "easy target," Obama challenged Republican lawmakers during his press conference to "go after me" instead...."

 

How is it respectful to give a person talking points and send her out to defend the WH POV when Obama himself knew it was all bull shit?

 

Nice of him to come to her defense as a gentleman after tossing her under the bus.

 

And a bunch of female Democrat politicians are angry with Republicans?

 

The feminist hypocricy of supporting the Dem party regardless of any behavior never ceases to amaze me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

 

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that was Al Qaeda affiliated?

 

KING: He didn’t know.

 

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

 

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

 

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

 

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

 

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

 

Watch King’s statements here:

 

So Susan Rice was participating in a law enforcement effort that Republicans used to hatch a conspiracy theory. John McCain and Lindsay Graham owe Susan Rice a big fucking apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

 

So why did Obama say it was a terrorist attack the very next morning in the Rose Garden? Wasn't that forewarning at the most blatent level?

 

According to you, Obama fucked up big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

 

So why did Obama say it was a terrorist attack the very next morning in the Rose Garden? Wasn't that forewarning at the most blatent level?

 

According to you, Obama fucked up big time.

 

Last week the right was screaming that he didn't say a "terrorist" attack" this week they are screaming he did. Good thing the right isn't running this country we've gone in enough circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

 

So why did Obama say it was a terrorist attack the very next morning in the Rose Garden? Wasn't that forewarning at the most blatent level?

 

According to you, Obama fucked up big time.

 

Last week the right was screaming that he didn't say a "terrorist" attack" this week they are screaming he did. Good thing the right isn't running this country we've gone in enough circles.

 

Answer the question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

I don't expect a direct and honest yes or no answer from you, because either way you answer you are admitting that Obama was/is full of shit.

 

Edit - Check Mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

 

So why did Obama say it was a terrorist attack the very next morning in the Rose Garden? Wasn't that forewarning at the most blatent level?

 

According to you, Obama fucked up big time.

 

Last week the right was screaming that he didn't say a "terrorist" attack" this week they are screaming he did. Good thing the right isn't running this country we've gone in enough circles.

It's so fucking fucked up that it's hard to keep track how fucked up it is.

SHAME on those who are using dead Americans as tools.

Fucking tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

 

So why did Obama say it was a terrorist attack the very next morning in the Rose Garden? Wasn't that forewarning at the most blatent level?

 

According to you, Obama fucked up big time.

 

Last week the right was screaming that he didn't say a "terrorist" attack" this week they are screaming he did. Good thing the right isn't running this country we've gone in enough circles.

 

Answer the question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

I don't expect a direct and honest answer from you, because either way you answer you are admitting that Obama is a liar.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the point of issuing talking points was that specific terrorist groups would not be forewarned of our interest in them.

 

 

So why did Obama say it was a terrorist attack the very next morning in the Rose Garden? Wasn't that forewarning at the most blatent level?

 

According to you, Obama fucked up big time.

 

Last week the right was screaming that he didn't say a "terrorist" attack" this week they are screaming he did. Good thing the right isn't running this country we've gone in enough circles.

 

Answer the question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

I don't expect a direct and honest answer from you, because either way you answer you are admitting that Obama is a liar.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to your original post :

 

Is she on crack? Are they all on fucking crack?

 

Why aren't they blaming the black man that sent her out there to take a bullet.

 

UFB.

 

Your repulsive post has been debunked, they were doing a job and you came around and did your best to disparage them to no avail, That's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to your original post :

 

Is she on crack? Are they all on fucking crack?

 

Why aren't they blaming the black man that sent her out there to take a bullet.

 

UFB.

 

Your repulsive post has been debunked, they were doing a job and you came around and did your best to disparage them to no avail, That's why.

 

Again --

 

Answer the question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disgusting.

 

I agree. Ignoring malfeasance in the current administration is disgusting.

 

For Obama to claim a terror attack the day after, then blame a movie, and then claim it was a terror attack during a presidential debate is reprehensible. I'm glad we are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to your original post :

 

Is she on crack? Are they all on fucking crack?

 

Why aren't they blaming the black man that sent her out there to take a bullet.

 

UFB.

 

Your repulsive post has been debunked, they were doing a job and you came around and did your best to disparage them to no avail, That's why.

 

Again --

 

Answer the question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

I'm not going to answer your silly question. Obama was making sure this country remains safe, while all the right is doing is releasing names of Libyan operatives and budget cutting the state department security budget. I've got better things to do than participate in the derailing of the narrative from positive change.

 

Here is what Petraeus said at the closed Intelligence hearing. This should settle your concern. You still owe Susan Rice an apology.

 

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to your original post :

 

Is she on crack? Are they all on fucking crack?

 

Why aren't they blaming the black man that sent her out there to take a bullet.

 

UFB.

 

Your repulsive post has been debunked, they were doing a job and you came around and did your best to disparage them to no avail, That's why.

 

Again --

 

Answer the question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

I'm not going to answer your silly question. Obama was making sure this country remains safe, while all the right is doing is releasing names of Libyan operatives and budget cutting the state department security budget. I've got better things to do than participate in the derailing of the narrative from positive change.

 

That is not a silly question, BL. It is a simple yes or no question.

 

Too difficult for you? A single question with a choice of answers - Yes or no.

 

Come on BL. What are you afraid of? Forget about what Crowley said during the debate. This is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my edited post.

 

Answer my question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Your edited post begs the question above. Grow a pair of balls and answer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

 

 

Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

 

 

Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Yes or no.

 

Did Mitt Romney purposely politicize 9/11 by making this an issue in the first place, and is that what the right is continuing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

 

 

Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Yes or no.

 

Did Mitt Romney purposely politicize 9/11 by making this an issue in the first place, and is that what the right is continuing to do?

 

What made this an issue in the first place was 4 Americans dead.

 

Can you focus for a minute and answer a simple question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Why are you afraid to answer a very simple question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

 

 

Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Yes or no.

 

Did Mitt Romney purposely politicize 9/11 by making this an issue in the first place, and is that what the right is continuing to do?

 

What made this an issue in the first place was 4 Americans dead.

 

Can you focus for a minute and answer a simple question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Why are you afraid to answer a very simple question?

 

Obama specifically mentioned "terrorism" but there is no way to discern if he was talking about 9/11 specifically, or was referring to Benghazi. Now answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

 

 

Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Yes or no.

 

Did Mitt Romney purposely politicize 9/11 by making this an issue in the first place, and is that what the right is continuing to do?

 

What made this an issue in the first place was 4 Americans dead.

 

Can you focus for a minute and answer a simple question -- Did Obama claim it was a terrorist attack when he made his comments the next day in the Rose Garden?

 

Why are you afraid to answer a very simple question?

 

Obama specifically mentioned "terrorism" but there is no way to discern if he was talking about 9/11 specifically, or was referring to Benghazi. Now answer my question.

 

But during the debate he was very certain he blamed it on terrorists in his Rose Garden remarks, and moderator Crowley backed him on that.

 

As to your question about politicizing the situation, please see my comment above.

 

I'm glad you are a simple minded political hack, craigiri. I'd be very, very scared if you were representative of normal liberals.

 

edit - check mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence seems to show the administration was doing their jobs, but the Republicans are just trying to drive their own narrative.BTW, I'm not Craigiri, you're soused again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence seems to show the administration was doing their jobs, but the Republicans are just trying to drive their own narrative.BTW, I'm not Craigiri, you're soused again.

 

Not soused. Most people here can't tell you two apart. Same drivel.

 

I agree. Those in the administration were doing thier jobs as political campaigners. It would have been nice to see an administration more concerned about 4 dead than 4 points in the polls. We deserve better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence seems to show the administration was doing their jobs, but the Republicans are just trying to drive their own narrative.BTW, I'm not Craigiri, you're soused again.

 

Not soused. Most people here can't tell you two apart. Same drivel.

 

I agree. Those in the administration were doing thier jobs as political campaigners. It would have been nice to see an administration more concerned about 4 dead than 4 points in the polls. We deserve better

 

So Romney jumping the gun on 9/11 was a political campaign trick, glad you agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence seems to show the administration was doing their jobs, but the Republicans are just trying to drive their own narrative.BTW, I'm not Craigiri, you're soused again.

 

Not soused. Most people here can't tell you two apart. Same drivel.

 

I agree. Those in the administration were doing thier jobs as political campaigners. It would have been nice to see an administration more concerned about 4 dead than 4 points in the polls. We deserve better

 

So Romney jumping the gun on 9/11 was a political campaign trick, glad you agree.

 

I didn't say that, and who fucking cares what Romney said. It is what Obama said that counts. He is our President.

 

I'm so glad you have finally agreed that Obama lied. You say --

 

Obama specifically mentioned "terrorism" but there is no way to discern if he was talking about 9/11 specifically, or was referring to Benghazi.

 

Obama said --

 

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world we are going to find out exactly what happened,
that this was an act of terror
..."

 

 

Why would Obama tell the terrorists that we were on to them? That's some treasonous stuff right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a complete idiot.

 

Bad lat.... My dear regressive friend Regatta Dog is NOT a complete idiot.

 

Unfortunately, the Fox News etc. Regressive Kool-Aid gives him temporary moments of "alernate reality". And he is still angry that the people were not swayed by his candidates total bullshit. Now, that one (Romney) is indeed a complete idiot!! B)

 

RD.. See you at noon for sailing and cocktails, eh?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is what Petraeus said at the closed Intelligence hearing. This should settle your concern. You still owe Susan Rice an apology.

 

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

That must have made for quite a scene at various rebel militia terrorist HQ's.

 

"Hey, LOOK! The Americans are so fucking stupid that they actually think our attack was some random mob violence! HA HA HAAH!"

 

Boy, we fooled them good with that one, huh? Gives me hope that one day we will win the War on Terror and it will cease to be an excuse for secret foreign wars and domestic surveillance activities. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

 

SHHHHHHH! We're huntin' wabbits!

 

2311723124_e2fa3063f7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence seems to show the administration was doing their jobs, but the Republicans are just trying to drive their own narrative.BTW, I'm not Craigiri, you're soused again.

 

 

Not soused. Most people here can't tell you two apart. Same drivel.

 

I agree. Those in the administration were doing thier jobs as political campaigners. It would have been nice to see an administration more concerned about 4 dead than 4 points in the polls. We deserve better

 

 

So Romney jumping the gun on 9/11 was a political campaign trick, glad you agree.

 

 

Know, Romney brought up a real issue which was quickly drowned out by the "We shouldn't politicize their deaths", just wait 'til the study is done but, meanwhile, believe the self serving politicized statements that we put out.

 

Tell you what, search on 'politicize benghazi' and the vast majority of what you will find are references to Romney raising the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lying by blaming a US citizen for a video, arresting him in the middle of the night and hauling him off to jail is ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lying by blaming a US citizen for a video, arresting him in the middle of the night and hauling him off to jail is ok.

 

Hey, if all the armed drones are overseas shootin' up #2, ya' go with what ya' got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lying by blaming a US citizen for a video, arresting him in the middle of the night and hauling him off to jail is ok.

 

....said nobody, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites