Libya Coverup -- Who gets thrown under the bus? Hillary or Barack?

[delldude]

You know, that might actually be a relevant comment had it happened in his first term. But it didn't. Iran-Contra happened almost two years into his second term.

I have to say, Obama, Axelrod and Holder deserve congratulations.

It appears that they managed putting together a house of cards that stayed standing until after his re-election could be assured. But, when you have vertical integration of the media into the political party in power, this is exactly what can happen.

Just imagine what we're in for when he doesn't face the prospect of being voted out of office...

Mid-terms can't come soon enough.

Quaggie was doing the crawl/diaper routine back in that day, E.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Brahahaw.......................................

Ballsack.

You like that, don't you.

 

[ContUNITEus]

Without reading every reply that was posted on here, let me just say that I am sick and tired of hearing republicans and FOXNEWS-watchers speak about this subject. Enough already!!! You guys are so desperate in trying to make something out of nothing. Two years are gonna pass, and we're still gonna hear ya b!tch and moan about this Libya-Attack thing. At some point ya gotta learn to move on and find something new. I'm surprised at that you (currently) are not talking about how Clinton lied about his B-job from Monica back in the 90s.

The other day I mentioned at work that one news media outlet at an (undisclosed) country put the ongoing protests in Argentina as the front page of it's website. Nobody around me hadn't had the slightest clue that this was happening in the world, (and I bet you that now that I mentioned it, most of you didn't know this either.) Back a few days ago, when I noticed this, we started looking for this event on the mayor US news websites like CNN, MSNBC and FOX news and couldn't find a reference of it anywhere.

We are so consumed in this country with ourselves, that we completely miss the fact that there is a world outside the US where important stuff is happening as well. We are all being fed with ENTERTAINMENT about stuff that is absolutely not important. This might sound crude, but four Americans dying in Benghazi after an attack by nutjobs is the least of my worries. I honestly couldn't care less. Lot's of people get killed every day in foreign countries, not just American diplomats.

 

[Dog Wonder]

It is all they have left.

 

[southwind]

Without reading every reply that was posted on here, let me just say that I am sick and tired of hearing republicans and FOXNEWS-watchers speak about this subject. Enough already!!! You guys are so desperate in trying to make something out of nothing. Two years are gonna pass, and we're still gonna hear ya b!tch and moan about this Libya-Attack thing. At some point ya gotta learn to move on and find something new. I'm surprised at that you (currently) are not talking about how Clinton lied about his B-job from Monica back in the 90s.

The other day I mentioned at work that one news media outlet at an (undisclosed) country put the ongoing protests in Argentina as the front page of it's website. Nobody around me hadn't had the slightest clue that this was happening in the world, (and I bet you that now that I mentioned it, most of you didn't know this either.) Back a few days ago, when I noticed this, we started looking for this event on the mayor US news websites like CNN, MSNBC and FOX news and couldn't find a reference of it anywhere.

We are so consumed in this country with ourselves, that we completely miss the fact that there is a world outside the US where important stuff is happening as well. We are all being fed with ENTERTAINMENT about stuff that is absolutely not important. This might sound crude, but four Americans dying in Benghazi after an attack by nutjobs is the least of my worries. I honestly couldn't care less. Lot's of people get killed every day in foreign countries, not just American diplomats.

Guess some people don't have a problem with 4 Americans, pleading for help, dying needlessly !

 

[eolesen]

We listened (and continue to listen) to libs complaining about the Bush years for 12 years now. Cindy Sheehan got more attention than all of the parents from Libya combined...

This time, it was CIA who were left to die. Next time, it could be my son.

Sorry, but I for one am not going to take that chance. Don't like it? Don't read the topic. Put me on ignore. Go move to Colorado or Washington State, enjoy some now-legal pot, & drift off to Strawberry Fields...


This isn't about politics. It is about leaving those who run towards gunfire behind to die.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

This isn't about politics. It is about leaving those who run towards gunfire behind to die.

Of course it's about politics. You see your guy McCain and Graham blaming Susan Rice yesterday? Mccain got jammed right up his ass when he was asked why he defended another Rice (Condi) under the same circumstances.

If it wasn't about politics you would have started a thread about many other failed missions. You chose this one because it suited your cause célèbre.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Of course it's about politics. You see your guy McCain and Graham blaming Susan Rice yesterday? Mccain got jammed right up his ass when he was asked why he defended another Rice (Condi) under the same circumstances.

If it wasn't about politics you would have started a thread about many other failed missions. You chose this one because it suited your cause célèbre.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative
.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

 

[delldude]

Of course it's about politics. You see your guy McCain and Graham blaming Susan Rice yesterday? Mccain got jammed right up his ass when he was asked why he defended another Rice (Condi) under the same circumstances.

If it wasn't about politics you would have started a thread about many other failed missions. You chose this one because it suited your cause célèbre.

Problem with Rice is she's a proven liar and that is against her now.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Problem with Rice is she's a proven liar and that is against her now.

We know Condi lied about WMD, just like Susan lied about Libya.

 

[SparrowHawk]

We know Condi lied about WMD, just like Susan lied about Libya.

It was NEVER clear (at least to me) excatly where the WMD rumors came from, how they got traction, etc etc. In hindsight they sound an awful lot like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent pretext for ramping up the Vietnam conflict.

That said I think it somewhat different this time in that you had a lower level (Susan Rice) diplomat trying to get the public to believe a truely unbelievabe story versus an at least plausable story from the Secretary of State Rice.

Either way we had/have no business occupying or making war on either sovereign nation.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

"Some argue McCain shouldn't be condemning Ambassador Susan Rice since he supported Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State after she made false statements about weapons of mass destruction when making the case for invading Iraq when she was National Security Adviser. McCain and other Republicans defended her integrity and said anyone who opposed her was playing politics. Tonight Anderson Cooper asks the senator if there's a double standard"

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/tonight-on-ac360-sen-mccain-responds-to-pres-obama/

 

[delldude]

Ahhhh...the new Bush's fault.

 

[SparrowHawk]

"Some argue McCain shouldn't be condemning Ambassador Susan Rice since he supported Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State after she made false statements about weapons of mass destruction when making the case for invading Iraq when she was National Security Adviser. McCain and other Republicans defended her integrity and said anyone who opposed her was playing politics. Tonight Anderson Cooper asks the senator if there's a double standard"

http://ac360.blogs.c...-to-pres-obama/

Thank you Glenn for pointing out what should have been obvious to me. The key part of your post is "she made false statements". This is absolutely true of both Rice's. What I think is different is Susan Rice made Knowingly false satements while in Condi's case it was and remains far less clear that the statements were known to be false.

 

[delldude]

Thank you Glenn for pointing out what should have been obvious to me. The key part of your post is "she made false statements". This is absolutely true of both Rice's. What I think is different is Susan Rice made Knowingly false satements while in Condi's case it was and remains far less clear that the statements were known to be false.

How true. Wasn't it a consensus from a very large group of allies and not the US alone that agreed on the fact that there were in fact, WMD's in Iraq?