Susan Rice

vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323
Edited Date/Time 12/1/2012 10:02am
Non-Moto has been too sleepy for too long.

Here's a Susan Rice thread. I believe she will probably not be nominated for SS, or that she will not be confirmed if she is nominated. Too many lies about Benghazi.

Discuss.
|
Racer92
Profile picture for user Racer92
Posts
17965
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
Racer92 11/28/2012 12:58pm
11/28/2012 12:58pm
Would you hit it ? Wink

flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 1:00pm
11/28/2012 1:00pm
Susan Rice was given a scrubbed set of talking points following the Benghazi attack, and a few partisans with an axe to grind and political agenda want to make a big deal over the fact that Susan Rice, while KNOWING classified information did not PUBLICLY DIVULGE that classified information on the Sunday morning talk shows a few days after the fact.

Once again, they're pissed she did not divulge the classified information she knew and only divulged the unclassified talking points supplied her for the general public.

Do you think a public official who is privy to classified information is obligated to divulge that information to the general public solely because they are aware of it?
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323 11/28/2012 1:08pm
11/28/2012 1:08pm
She didn't simply repeat a set of "scrubbed talking points". She made statements she knew were untrue.

Nobody thinks she should have divulged classified information, she should have said "We are gathering information and will get to the bottom of what happened and punish those responsible". She didn't have to put out a BS story she knew was untrue.
Racer92
Profile picture for user Racer92
Posts
17965
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
Racer92 11/28/2012 1:11pm
11/28/2012 1:11pm Edited Date/Time 11/28/2012 1:50pm
We all know she wasnt allowed to tell the whole story, its just that some people take issue with WHY some of the information was classified (read: withheld during presidential campaign in progress), and why was some of what she said was a blatant lie. Its one thing to withhold info, and another to straight up lie to the camera.

At the end of the day, she did her job as instructed as would anyone else in that capacity.

The Shop

See All »
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 1:15pm
11/28/2012 1:15pm Edited Date/Time 11/28/2012 1:19pm
vet323 wrote:
She didn't simply repeat a set of "scrubbed talking points". She made statements she knew were untrue. Nobody thinks she should have divulged classified information, she...
She didn't simply repeat a set of "scrubbed talking points". She made statements she knew were untrue.

Nobody thinks she should have divulged classified information, she should have said "We are gathering information and will get to the bottom of what happened and punish those responsible". She didn't have to put out a BS story she knew was untrue.
She did as she was told and gave the events as told to give those events.

She did her job.
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 1:17pm
11/28/2012 1:17pm
Actually....Colin Powell also did what he was told to do, where was the Congressional Inquiry for him?

Remember this?



He said what he was told to say, where was the Congressional Inquiry over those flat out blatant lies, that HE KNEW was bullshit when he said it?



Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

August 23, 2005

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program pieced together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."
72kiteboarder
Profile picture for user 72kiteboarder
Posts
4645
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
72kiteboarder 11/28/2012 1:19pm
11/28/2012 1:19pm
Dave, I don't think the POTUS is looking for a new Press Secretary.
72kiteboarder
Profile picture for user 72kiteboarder
Posts
4645
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
72kiteboarder 11/28/2012 1:25pm
11/28/2012 1:25pm
Dave, is it your position is that since she and the administration knew that her talking points were incorrect, it was ok to send her to the TV shows to specifically talk about something that they could not tell the truth about?

They sent her to the TV shows with talking points that they all knew were wrong in order to try and quiet the press about Benghazi because it could hurt the Election and you know it.

Is it your contention that this is perfectly fine because the truth was still classified?

How about this: I cannot comment on that because it is an ongoing classified investigation.
72kiteboarder
Profile picture for user 72kiteboarder
Posts
4645
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
72kiteboarder 11/28/2012 1:31pm
11/28/2012 1:31pm
vet323 wrote:
She didn't simply repeat a set of "scrubbed talking points". She made statements she knew were untrue. Nobody thinks she should have divulged classified information, she...
She didn't simply repeat a set of "scrubbed talking points". She made statements she knew were untrue.

Nobody thinks she should have divulged classified information, she should have said "We are gathering information and will get to the bottom of what happened and punish those responsible". She didn't have to put out a BS story she knew was untrue.
flarider wrote:
She did as she was told and gave the events as told to give those events.

She did her job.
Her job is not to do what she is told if she is told to do something Ilegal, immoral or just plain wrong. Her job is to Support and Defend the Constitution of The United States, not the administrations election chances.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 1:33pm
11/28/2012 1:33pm Edited Date/Time 11/28/2012 1:34pm
72kiteboarder wrote:
Dave, is it your position is that since she and the administration knew that her talking points were incorrect, it was ok to send her to...
Dave, is it your position is that since she and the administration knew that her talking points were incorrect, it was ok to send her to the TV shows to specifically talk about something that they could not tell the truth about?

They sent her to the TV shows with talking points that they all knew were wrong in order to try and quiet the press about Benghazi because it could hurt the Election and you know it.

Is it your contention that this is perfectly fine because the truth was still classified?

How about this: I cannot comment on that because it is an ongoing classified investigation.
No, they sent her with talking points that were both possible and plausible because there was unrest in the ME over that stupid video tape. Now while they may have believed AQ was involved in some part, it was an ongoing investigation at that point in regards to it being spontaneous in part or wholly and if all involved were AQ and some as part of the unrest due to that silly video.
There is no denying that there was unrest in the ME over the movie, as stupid as it was, and at the same time there's an opportunistic attack on a consulate in Libya, so it's not unreasonable to surmise it's possible they were intertwined, either by design or coincidence.
That is why the administration had Mrs Rice divulge the scrubbed intelligence, because there was an ongoing investigation.

There's a conspiracy only if you want to see one
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323 11/28/2012 1:43pm
11/28/2012 1:43pm
flarider wrote:
Actually....Colin Powell also did what he was told to do, where was the Congressional Inquiry for him? Remember this? [img]https://bp3.blogger.com/_akLbxNKanGc/R6g5emkbiWI/AAAAAAAABCY/4OLdqUpui1A/s400/powell-UN-03.jpg[/img] He said what he was told...
Actually....Colin Powell also did what he was told to do, where was the Congressional Inquiry for him?

Remember this?



He said what he was told to say, where was the Congressional Inquiry over those flat out blatant lies, that HE KNEW was bullshit when he said it?



Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

August 23, 2005

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program pieced together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."
".....HE KNEW was bullshit when he said it?"

Where in that story you posted does it say that Powell knowingly lied about intelligence? He testified in Feb. 2003 and the WMD intelligence changed in summer 2003 (according to the above)- are you sure HE KNEW he was stating bullshit?
Racer92
Profile picture for user Racer92
Posts
17965
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
Racer92 11/28/2012 1:53pm
11/28/2012 1:53pm Edited Date/Time 11/28/2012 1:54pm
flarider wrote:
No, they sent her with talking points that were both possible and plausible because there was unrest in the ME over that stupid video tape. Now...
No, they sent her with talking points that were both possible and plausible because there was unrest in the ME over that stupid video tape. Now while they may have believed AQ was involved in some part, it was an ongoing investigation at that point in regards to it being spontaneous in part or wholly and if all involved were AQ and some as part of the unrest due to that silly video.
There is no denying that there was unrest in the ME over the movie, as stupid as it was, and at the same time there's an opportunistic attack on a consulate in Libya, so it's not unreasonable to surmise it's possible they were intertwined, either by design or coincidence.
That is why the administration had Mrs Rice divulge the scrubbed intelligence, because there was an ongoing investigation.

There's a conspiracy only if you want to see one
Dave, please tell me you dont really believe the drivel you just posted here.

They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, it was ALL about Obama's re-election, and it was never about the video.

Whether or not that lady was told what she was saying was true or not, I cant say, but the White House knew EXACTLY what the truth was, and they caused her to flat-out lie to the American public for two weeks.
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
WhKnuckle 11/28/2012 3:45pm
11/28/2012 3:45pm
The same people who are crucifying her for sticking to the information that was given to her by the CIA would be crucifying her if she'd revealed information that the CIA told her not to discuss. And the CIA had a reason not to reveal it - they had people on the ground trying to find out who was responsible for the Benghazi attack, and I'm sure the CIA didn't want the perpetrators to be aware that they were in danger. I'm sure the CIA wanted them to think we were unaware that the attack was an act of terrorism. Obama himself walked the line as tightly as he could the day after the attack, when he said we would not be intimidated by terrorists, but he didn't say it was specifically a terrorist attack.

And the average American doesn't care about this. It's just an argument between partisans. A reasonable person would say, "She revealed the information that the CIA told her that she could. What's the problem?"

Oh, one other thing - John McCain is an idiot. If anyone else used an attack like this for purely partisan purposes like he is, he'd be screaming treason at the top of his lungs.
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323 11/28/2012 4:04pm
11/28/2012 4:04pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
The same people who are crucifying her for sticking to the information that was given to her by the CIA would be crucifying her if she'd...
The same people who are crucifying her for sticking to the information that was given to her by the CIA would be crucifying her if she'd revealed information that the CIA told her not to discuss. And the CIA had a reason not to reveal it - they had people on the ground trying to find out who was responsible for the Benghazi attack, and I'm sure the CIA didn't want the perpetrators to be aware that they were in danger. I'm sure the CIA wanted them to think we were unaware that the attack was an act of terrorism. Obama himself walked the line as tightly as he could the day after the attack, when he said we would not be intimidated by terrorists, but he didn't say it was specifically a terrorist attack.

And the average American doesn't care about this. It's just an argument between partisans. A reasonable person would say, "She revealed the information that the CIA told her that she could. What's the problem?"

Oh, one other thing - John McCain is an idiot. If anyone else used an attack like this for purely partisan purposes like he is, he'd be screaming treason at the top of his lungs.
Try and follow the argument.

She didn't say what the CIA told her to. She didn't "stick (ing) to the information that was given to her by the CIA". Her remarks were not the same info the CIA gave her (per Petreaus' testimony). She also didn't have to say anything about any classified information, she didn't have to knowingly say anything false at all.

"I'm sure the CIA wanted them to think we were unaware that the attack was an act of terrorism. Obama himself walked the line as tightly as he could the day after the attack, when he said we would not be intimidated by terrorists, but he didn't say it was specifically a terrorist attack. "

Really? He didn't say it was a terror attack? What was that whole debate/Candy Crowley business, then?

To bottom-line it for you- Rice DIDN'T reveal info that the "CIA told her she could". Petreaus said that specific mentions of the attack being a coordinated terrorist action were in the CIA talking points given to the WH and that someone else changed them.
bsm121
Profile picture for user bsm121
Posts
1833
Joined
10/5/2006
Location
New Braunfels, TX US
bsm121 11/28/2012 4:14pm
11/28/2012 4:14pm
Confirming Rice (if appointed) would validate the administrations decision to lie to the public...wether Rice knew the truth or not.

This is about more than just Rice.
borg
Profile picture for user borg
Posts
6718
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
borg 11/28/2012 4:19pm
11/28/2012 4:19pm
Why did they keep insisting days that the video was the cause? Fuck if I know. It's her job to spin for the prez. In fact, that kind of spin is exactly what we need at top levels. You have to be able to cover for the big dog. That's how you get cabinet posts. Remember all those cabinet people that told us that Clinton didn't spume on the fat intern? They were just doing their jobs. relaying the intel. And quite well I might add. Some of you have the misconception that upper level officials somehow owe the people the truth. My question to you is: when the fuck was that rule EVER adhered to? Why start now? We could go back to Viet Nam and all truths we were given by the LBJ and NIXON administrations as a benchmark. Or maybe even Iran/Contra, but those were the good old days.

Half of you will defend these frauds when your team is in power, then the other half of you will defend your frauds when they are in power. I think we are on the verge of creating a more perfect union.

Pit Row

See All »
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323 11/28/2012 4:24pm
11/28/2012 4:24pm
borg wrote:
Why did they keep insisting days that the video was the cause? Fuck if I know. It's her job to spin for the prez. In fact...
Why did they keep insisting days that the video was the cause? Fuck if I know. It's her job to spin for the prez. In fact, that kind of spin is exactly what we need at top levels. You have to be able to cover for the big dog. That's how you get cabinet posts. Remember all those cabinet people that told us that Clinton didn't spume on the fat intern? They were just doing their jobs. relaying the intel. And quite well I might add. Some of you have the misconception that upper level officials somehow owe the people the truth. My question to you is: when the fuck was that rule EVER adhered to? Why start now? We could go back to Viet Nam and all truths we were given by the LBJ and NIXON administrations as a benchmark. Or maybe even Iran/Contra, but those were the good old days.

Half of you will defend these frauds when your team is in power, then the other half of you will defend your frauds when they are in power. I think we are on the verge of creating a more perfect union.
She and the rest of the administration didn't have to lie. She (and they) could have said "We don't know, we are still gathering facts". What was the point of lying?

I KNOW why Clinton lied, I don't know why the current administration did.
FreshTopEnd
Profile picture for user FreshTopEnd
Posts
13196
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
FreshTopEnd 11/28/2012 4:36pm
11/28/2012 4:36pm
This is "controversy" is a big butt-hurt republican nothing.
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 4:39pm
11/28/2012 4:39pm
vet323 wrote:
Try and follow the argument. She didn't say what the CIA told her to. She didn't "stick (ing) to the information that was given to her...
Try and follow the argument.

She didn't say what the CIA told her to. She didn't "stick (ing) to the information that was given to her by the CIA". Her remarks were not the same info the CIA gave her (per Petreaus' testimony). She also didn't have to say anything about any classified information, she didn't have to knowingly say anything false at all.

"I'm sure the CIA wanted them to think we were unaware that the attack was an act of terrorism. Obama himself walked the line as tightly as he could the day after the attack, when he said we would not be intimidated by terrorists, but he didn't say it was specifically a terrorist attack. "

Really? He didn't say it was a terror attack? What was that whole debate/Candy Crowley business, then?

To bottom-line it for you- Rice DIDN'T reveal info that the "CIA told her she could". Petreaus said that specific mentions of the attack being a coordinated terrorist action were in the CIA talking points given to the WH and that someone else changed them.
Petreaus didn't give her shit.
The CIA gave their preliminary findings to the WH and DoS, they scrubbed it and gave her the talking points.

Ambassador Rice used the information given to her by her superiors and did her job.
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 4:40pm
11/28/2012 4:40pm
FreshTopEnd wrote:
This is "controversy" is a big butt-hurt republican nothing.
WINNER!!
Stanton876 11/28/2012 4:43pm
11/28/2012 4:43pm Edited Date/Time 11/28/2012 6:55pm
Maybe she's having an affair with the president. Only real reason for him to protect her like he is.

Threw Hillary under the bus already....
borg
Profile picture for user borg
Posts
6718
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
borg 11/28/2012 4:46pm
11/28/2012 4:46pm Edited Date/Time 11/28/2012 7:45pm
FreshTopEnd wrote:
This is "controversy" is a big butt-hurt republican nothing.
flarider wrote:
WINNER!!
I want to thank you guys for validating my thesis.
Racer92
Profile picture for user Racer92
Posts
17965
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
Racer92 11/28/2012 5:04pm
11/28/2012 5:04pm
flarider wrote:
Petreaus didn't give her shit. The CIA gave their preliminary findings to the WH and DoS, they scrubbed it and gave her the talking points. Ambassador...
Petreaus didn't give her shit.
The CIA gave their preliminary findings to the WH and DoS, they scrubbed it and gave her the talking points.

Ambassador Rice used the information given to her by her superiors and did her job.
So "scrubbing" something means to leave out the truth and insert a straight up lie? Got it. Im not familiar with all the Democrat buzz words.

The next time you liberals bitch about Dubya for lying about things in the past, remind yourself that by your own admission lying directly to the American people by the White House is acceptable.
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323 11/28/2012 5:06pm
11/28/2012 5:06pm
flarider wrote:
Petreaus didn't give her shit. The CIA gave their preliminary findings to the WH and DoS, they scrubbed it and gave her the talking points. Ambassador...
Petreaus didn't give her shit.
The CIA gave their preliminary findings to the WH and DoS, they scrubbed it and gave her the talking points.

Ambassador Rice used the information given to her by her superiors and did her job.
Racer92 wrote:
So "scrubbing" something means to leave out the truth and insert a straight up lie? Got it. Im not familiar with all the Democrat buzz words...
So "scrubbing" something means to leave out the truth and insert a straight up lie? Got it. Im not familiar with all the Democrat buzz words.

The next time you liberals bitch about Dubya for lying about things in the past, remind yourself that by your own admission lying directly to the American people by the White House is acceptable.
WINNER!
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 5:33pm
11/28/2012 5:33pm
Racer92 wrote:
So "scrubbing" something means to leave out the truth and insert a straight up lie? Got it. Im not familiar with all the Democrat buzz words...
So "scrubbing" something means to leave out the truth and insert a straight up lie? Got it. Im not familiar with all the Democrat buzz words.

The next time you liberals bitch about Dubya for lying about things in the past, remind yourself that by your own admission lying directly to the American people by the White House is acceptable.
Scrubbing means removing confidential information.

as for your comment..."The next time you liberals bitch about Dubya for lying about things in the past, remind yourself that by your own admission lying directly to the American people by the White House is acceptable."








Again, I ask.... "Do you think a public official who is privy to classified information is obligated to divulge that information to the general public solely because they are aware of it?"
flarider
Profile picture for user flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
flarider 11/28/2012 5:54pm
11/28/2012 5:54pm
I'm not a Democrat.
Bush was told many times it was bad intel, curveball was not reliable and the UN inspector everyone insisted was "crazy" turned out to be right.

Even Powell in his own book said "Curveball" was not reliable and he was our primary source of "intelligence" in regards to the Iraqi WMD program.

That said, it's not a strawman argument, it's a legitimate question you know you can't answer without compromising your biased position.

If you want to be pissed at DoS for scrubbing the AQ aspect from the talking points, you'd have a better position, even though that direct information was omitted because the intel officials were in the middle of an active investigation, and you don't want your suspects to know you're on to them and actively putting your case together...by the way, several of the participants were arrested, weren't they?

But again, you'd have a better case, albeit wrong, but a better case being pissed at DoS or even the WH rather than Ambassador Susan Rice who did nothing more than the job she was asked to do by her superiors.

But your bias blinds you to rational thinking.
Racer92
Profile picture for user Racer92
Posts
17965
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
Racer92 11/28/2012 6:22pm
11/28/2012 6:22pm
Thats a paragraph and a half of jibberish and distraction. You just wont address the point at hand. (you really outta consider running for political office, you are a textbook politician at heart) Bottom line is the White House is in charge about what is and isnt said to the American people, period. The POTUS trumps every Dept there is and calls the shots. You keep, over & over, trying to change the focus of what Im saying towards that woman and she is not the point. Shes a peon, a puppet. Anyone who has a functioning brain realizes the WH isnt gonna tell everyone whats going on, and they will leave out some things at times. But you keep side-stepping the whole point of the WH telling a full-blown lie to keep bad press from hitting the 6pm news at a very critical time before election day. (not that it wouldve mattered either way as BO woulda won regardless, at this point nothing will break the sheep from the spell) but the WH definately did not want any negative press getting started, went into protection mode and sent their puppet out lying for two weeks as the clock ticked down to Election Day.
vet323
Profile picture for user vet323
Posts
3591
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD US
vet323 11/28/2012 6:25pm
11/28/2012 6:25pm
flarider wrote:
I'm not a Democrat. Bush was told many times it was bad intel, curveball was not reliable and the UN inspector everyone insisted was "crazy" turned...
I'm not a Democrat.
Bush was told many times it was bad intel, curveball was not reliable and the UN inspector everyone insisted was "crazy" turned out to be right.

Even Powell in his own book said "Curveball" was not reliable and he was our primary source of "intelligence" in regards to the Iraqi WMD program.

That said, it's not a strawman argument, it's a legitimate question you know you can't answer without compromising your biased position.

If you want to be pissed at DoS for scrubbing the AQ aspect from the talking points, you'd have a better position, even though that direct information was omitted because the intel officials were in the middle of an active investigation, and you don't want your suspects to know you're on to them and actively putting your case together...by the way, several of the participants were arrested, weren't they?

But again, you'd have a better case, albeit wrong, but a better case being pissed at DoS or even the WH rather than Ambassador Susan Rice who did nothing more than the job she was asked to do by her superiors.

But your bias blinds you to rational thinking.
Even Powell in his own book said "Curveball" was not reliable and he was our primary source of "intelligence" in regards to the Iraqi WMD program.

Really? Powell said he knew he was lying about the intel? I don't think so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/colin-powell-book_n_1503592.ht…
"All in all, Powell acknowledges that the speech was “one of my most momentous failures, the one with the widest-ranging impact.” But he also concludes that “every senior U.S. official would have made the exact same case,”

He adds: “I get mad when bloggers accuse me of lying -- of knowing the information was false. I didn’t.” "

Watch out Dave-Colin's mad at you.

"If you want to be pissed at DoS for scrubbing the AQ aspect from the talking points, you'd have a better position, ..."


I'm not pissed at anyone "scrubbing" anything-they flat out lied. They could have "scrubbed" the AQ aspect and everything else from the CIA talking points. They didn't have to use ANYTHING from the talking points, why can't you understand that?

[b]"But your bias blinds you to rational thinking."

I can at least follow the argument, more than you can say.

Post a reply to: Susan Rice