Wow. It's like you read my mind. I've come to expect more from you, SJ, than false dichotomies and well-worn talking points.
What exactly are we presenting to the UN again? And why on earth would I care one iota what the UN thinks about this. Or anything else, for that matter. I think you need a newspaper or two. So, I don't really care much what you think of me or partisanship or whatever. You're so far off the rails it's difficult to comment back without wasting time. We knew within three days, probably even sooner, that this had nothing to do with a video. And yet, Susan Rice banged that drum with everything she had five days after the attack. So, she either knew the truth and flat-out lied. Or, she was told what to say and didn't think it was important to ask critical questions. Either way, the UN Ambassador has no business on Sunday talkers talking about an incident that has nothing whatsoever to do with her office or her duties. Nothing at all. The excuse making for Susan Rice is just precious. She was wrong. We know she was wrong. And yet we'll shrug our shoulders and ignore the obvious question: Why did she still so vigorously press that false story? The answer is simple enough - we were in an election season. You NEVER saw me so blindly support a Bush appointee over his entire eight years. But, yeah, I'm the partisan. Heh. Righty-oh.
Yes, well, as always, I'm willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments on why Susan Rice is a qualified Secretary of State candidate. They seem to be hiding somewhere. I've given several on why she isn't. If I could hear just a few accomplishments to balance out her application that would help. But I know Susan Rice's resume. It ain't particularly pretty. This latest episode isn't damning, it's confirming.
Way to move the goalposts. ETA: Just to be clear, I'm not a particularly big fan of Susan Rice. I don't hold her in as much contempt as you do, but whatever. There is a difference, however, between thinking someone isn't super-qualified for a job and saying that she was either lying or incompetent; that is your false dichotomy. There are plenty of gradations in between, and to say otherwise is trading accuracy for the sake of... what, exactly?
Yes, that must be what I was doing. Do me the courtesy of at least reviewing my posts and seeing my boring repetitiveness, whilst I waited for some decent factual and substantive rebuttal to play with. No one could really be bothered. Instead, what I was offered was blind defense. You at least had the decency to mention you're not a fan. I know without any doubt the few others blindly defending don't have a clue about the lady or her resume, and can't be bothered to at least do a simple interweb search in her defense. I NEVER defended either GWB or his appointees with such blind faith. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Let's go through this. A Grand Digression first. Because I have the time. I hate the lady, sure. Anyone who has gone back and forth with me on this board knows that I have a small handful of Niagara Falls topics in political threads. The United Nations, for sure. The joke that is the Nobel Peace Prize, of course. Because there's almost no end to the inventory of horribles on that topic. And, although there are fewer occasions to discuss it, the Rwandan Genocide gets special treatment. It gets so well glossed over nearly twenty years later, but Susan Rice was the central motivating (or, perhaps, DEmotivating) voice for United States AND United Nations inaction, while nearly a million Rwandans were slaughtered. For domestic political reasons. Google it to death. Imagine that! She now rightfully weeps when the subject comes up. She should. And in January 2009, when Barack Obama was at the height of his popularity and when the Democrats held a super-majority in the Senate, she skated through and without even a whisper of any of it. [/Grand Digression] So, yeah, I hate the lady for incompetence before any of the nightly news programs even thought to Google the correct spelling of Benghazi. And, sure, there are gradations in all things. Nuances, if we want to talk all political-like. But we're not examining the comments of a member of the streetlight commission in Jerkwater, Kansas. These people who are sent to speak for the administration, particularly on Sunday talk shows, are briefed and rebriefed, because every little word they say can move markets, dramatically affect public opinion, give fodder to political opponents, it can give confidence to adversaries or remove it from allies, and it can determine the next seven-day news cycle. So, if we can agree on nothing else, I hope that we can at least agree that a high-level administration mouthpiece like Susan Rice isn't sent out for five Sunday interviews without being fully briefed on the topic du jour. Here's what she told us in one of those Sunday interviews. Let's count the flaws. Just to review - we confirmed in Senate committee just yesterday that there were, in fact, real-time drone video of the entire attack. We know that there had been several lesser attacks on this mission, and that there was an attempted assassination of a British Ambassador a few months earlier. We know that al Qaeda flags were flying all over the place, and were flown over the compound right after the attack. We know that the Benghazi security team requested to stay on but were denied. We know that there were several requests for additional security for the Benghazi mission, but those were denied. We know that Ambassador Stevens sent a multi-page cable expressing his security concerns and talking about the al Qaeda presence on the very day he was murdered. But we also know that there were only TWO State Department security personnel in this "strong security presence" at the mission. We know that Libyan officials immediately called this a coordinated al Qaeda attack. We know that, although Secretary Rice told us that they were "investigating closely" and that "the FBI had the lead in the investigation," at that point, the FBI wasn't even remotely near the attack site. We know that the consulate was in contact with military assets and were requesting assistance. Notice that I'm sticking to the story most favorable to Susan Rice. For example, there were also reports that the military strike team was told to "stand down." Let's assume that's not true for the moment and just stick to the points I've listed. And then there's this. On September 12, 2012. The day after the attack. The President is interviewed by 60 Minutes. Scroll up to Susan Rice's comments. Compare those with the President: Susan Rice again: Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack The best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons So, let's bring this all home. The President tells us that he suspects that it was something more organized than just a gaggle of angry Youtube viewers. And yet, Susan Rice leaves us with no doubt that this attack was caused by a Youtube video. Entirely contradictory. She was using the "best information available," and I'm giving her credit for being a very intelligent woman; something I don't think her government resume supports, but still. Details dribble out, and we learn fairly quickly that her public statements were incorrect. Measured term - incorrect. Susan Rice clearly WASN'T using the "best information available." Couldn't have been. The President's information from four days early was more correct. And, oh by the way, in his staged tantrum, Barack told us that Susan Rice was sent out "by the White House." So, (1) either the White House gave her bad information, (2) she didn't care to investigate and ask critical questions beyond the White House talking points memo, or (3) she knew the truth and chose to say something else. Calling her inept is the charitable choice. Last word is yours if you want. I'm on a plane in 3-2-1. Back on the 28th. Happy Thanksgiving, my friend.
So what's your point here? Are you trying to argue that Senate Democrats don't like Obama, so they'll vote against his nominee for Secretary of State as the first act of their expanded majority? Because that's fucking stupid. Senate Dems don't get to pick the fights, they get to vote on the nominee that the president puts forward -- and if you think that they'll start Obama's second term by breaking with the White House over a cabinet appointment of all things, you're out to lunch. Look, I'm not going to try to make you like Susan Rice. That's obviously never going to happen, and -- more importantly -- it's completely irrelevant to my point. My argument is that starting the new Congress with a ugly, high profile filibuster fight is terrible politics for the GOP. It would be a fight that the White House would welcome. And, thus far, you've provided no rebuttal except "Susan Rice sucks." Sure, whatever, but that's not the point. P.S., considering that you were the guy who told me over the summer that the attacks against Romney were accomplishing nothing -- and who apparently still thinks that Romney would've won if not for Hurricane Sandy -- maybe you should consider sitting out of the prediction game for a while. Feel free to remind me of my naivety in January
Personally I am convinced the underlying thrust of the whole anti-Susan Rice thing is racism. All the code words, like she's stupid, incompetent, can't think for herself, blah blah blah. The same thing is always said to keep the black man, in this case black woman, down. She went to Harvard, is a Rhode Scholar, and has been putting into effect American policies that, if she were a white male republican, would be lauded as the efforts and work of a great statesman. She was behind supporting the Libyan rebels when Gates was against doing anything, for example. The whole thing is a further example of efforts to undermine the notion that black people have any business being in key governmental positions. Individual posters here can choke on that all they want, pretending to look into their souls and say they are not at all motivated by racism. But what is their real beef with Susan Rice? I don't see the least bit of substance to it. So what if there were initial statements that referred to that anti-muslim video as a factor? Meanwhile the CIA was investigating links by that Libyan militia to the attack, and who might have been behind them. Nothing was compromised. No national interest was harmed. And if the beef is with the lack of security, Susan Rice had nothing to do with that. Best look at GOP Congresspeople who voted to cut State Department security budgets. I have no respect for any tool here who chooses to pretend the attacks on Susan Rice are not based in large part on racism. Sure there is the usual GOP approach of attempting to discredit a Democratic administration with phony charges. We saw that after Clinton was reelected with ridiculous attempts to say the Chinese govt. was supporting Clinton. Now that there's a black man in the White House, we get over the top allegations that he's not really an American, is a socialist, on and on, all in a blatant attempt to deligitimize his election and right to govern. The GOP lost on policy grounds, and can't face the net result, but will attempt to change the subject as hard as they can. Sore losers, to be sure, but worse than that. It's just disgusting.
Thats a bit harsh. I said all the same things about Condoleeza Rice, and race had nothing to do with it.
I don't think what Blocker is saying is that harsh though, there is some truth to it even though they are not all racists. The McCain position is the most puzzling, we know that politicians are hypocrites, but to just constantly dismiss the fact that we have evidence of you being two faced on similar issues is just beyond embarrassing
Racism. Of Course. Funny though. The Democrats spared no expense to defeat Alan West & Mia Love. Was that racism? Must have been. How about the attacks on Colin Powell when he was still a Republican? Was that racism? There's no other answer. Of course we hear nary a bad word about him the past 5 years he's been supporting Obama. And how about the other Rice? Condi. She was attacked daily. Even had cartoons depicting her as a monkey. Where were the cries of racism there? Then there's Alberto Gonzalez, the first Hispanic Attorney General of the United States. Yep. More racism. All minorities appointed by a GOP administration. Yet the GOP wears the scarlet "R".
Not that I disagree with much of this, but the bolded sentence is simply not true. Unless you count Palestinian cartoons.
It's not about racism, it's about the GOP being unable to accept that they've lost their advantage on foreign policy and are never going to get it back while Obama is the president. The Republican party is desperate to make Benghazi a scandal because of the fact that most Americans' don't view it as such. They want to tarnish the most popular part of Obama's record, and -- as Obama correctly asserted -- they view Susan Rice as an easy target.
I think you're right. But the point is that none of those show her as a monkey. One is her as the mother of a monkey, but that's a Palestinian cartoon that really shouldn't apply to this discussion. Frankly, GWB was much more often caricatured as a monkey if I recall correctly. The Danzinger one is pretty insulting, but I'm not sure I'd call it racist. The other one is just a poor job all around.
Well, its a straw man to cry about her routinely depicted as a monkey, that's all. Otherwise I'm pretty much on the same page. She's a public figure, she's going to be under scrutiny, she's going to take some low blows. There is a point where the blow is too low, but I think we all agree that one's opinion of where that line is is hopelessly interwoven with one's politics.
So are you saying if Susan Rice depicted the exact same way it wouldn't be all over the media with cries of racism? I agree with your overall point though. This is going to happen to public figures.
Although I think the racism is a little more systemic in one of the two parties... which was sort of the original point, no? I mean, it's one thing if a few cartoonists come up with inappropriate caricatures of Condi - cartoons whose racist implications I don't think would be (or were) embraced by most of the left-leaning members of this country. It's another thing when the talking points used by a political party (a political party that in its current iteration is comprised of quite a few members who tend to parrot the talking points and little more) frequently contain statements that are pretty clearly trying to play on the fears of bigots without actually having to say it.
