Yep, this should have been a bigger issue before the election. This is exactly what happened after the first election. "See!! I won and you are losers!! Get over it!! You have to do everything my way!!!!" What an *******!
And if Barack has lots of supporters like the OP then we get four more years of that exact attitude. Maybe I was confused that the popular vote was almost split evenly.
I missed the part where McCain and Graham sent Susan Rice out to talk about something that according to the president she wasn't even involved with. It would be great if someone had responded "well, in all fairness, Mr. President, YOU refused to respond to the questions, and YOU were the one who sent her out there to talk about a subject that YOU now claim she knew nothing about. And now YOU are claiming that she was speaking for YOU, and yet YOU claimed that you said it was a terror attack all along! So which is it?" The man plays the indignation card like no other. When you hit close to the mark, he responds by saying "How dare you question me", and lapdogs like Roger run in to say "oooooh burrrrrrn!" The man can't keep his story straight through all his blustering.
This is going to be a long four years. Obama is going to be a very weak President with lots of opposition.
More than half the country will take the President's cue and regard it as mean-spirited Republicans attacking a woman of color because, after all, Republicans hate people of color and they hate women, and because they miss no opportunity to besmirch the good names of "those" types of people. The realpolitik of 2012 is this: It doesn't matter what's true. For more than half the country, only two things are decisive: (1) that which evokes a certain sentimentality on behalf of the historically marginalized, and (2) that which promises to advance self interest. A plurality of the people does not care about Benghazi. And even if someone somehow manages to reveal a smoking gun on Benghazi, the plurality will find an excuse to rationalize it in order to minimize its impact and implications, because that is the construction that more closely aligns with their sentimentality and self interest. The Republicans might make some headway with the plurality if they leveled the charge that Obama let the ambassador die because the ambassador was gay. As of now, in the public's mind, he's just a dead white guy, and that evokes zero sentimentality, though perhaps it evokes a bit of empathy for the assailants.
They should go after Obama. He's the dumbass that sent Rice on all the Sunday talk shows loaded down with BS to spread. BO knew the truth, but didn't want the American people to know it.
"Obama smacks down McCain / Graham".....Yeah, that's what he did. (in my best Jerry Seinfeld voice rebuking George re flying too close to the sun on wings of pastrami). Seriously though, you can tell they hit home by his indignation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ As of now, in the public's mind, he's just a dead white guy, and that evokes zero sentimentality, though perhaps it evokes a bit of empathy for the assailants. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Whatever gave you that idea? On the face of it, remembering the national reaction and grieving at his loss, that seems preposterous. Am I missing something?
Good for the President. His actions show some leadership, not a quality for which he's earned very high marks in the past. I don't think there is any substantive reason why Ambassador Rice isn't qualified to assume that job.
If anyone took their eye off the foreign policy ball it was W. Trusting the Paks to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora, letting him slip away, subsidizing the Paks for years who were giving him safe harbor, diminishing the efforts in Afghanistan while wasting American blood and treasure in a pointless war in Iraq. Come back when you've got something real to discuss.
So which is it: was she speaking for Obama, or wasn't she? Does she have any knowledge of Benghazi or not? If she didn't, why was she being sent out in the first place? If Obama didn't want her questioned, he probably shouldn't have sent her out to the press with a false narrative. But as we know, that's exactly what he wanted. Honest to goodness, this guy thinks the American people have a memory of about two weeks - this is one of the most blatant lies I've ever heard.
Perham The issue is why did S Rice lie on all the sunday talk shows. Who asked her to lie? if as BO said she was not involved in the Benghazi event WHY was she trotted out there to lie? Why do supporters think it shows leadership to send someone out representing the BO admin who had no involvement in the event and who lied on all the shows? What kind of leader does that?
Too bad we still have to go through the whole checks and balances process and actually follow constitutional guidelines. I personally would love to finally understand what the White House did or did not do in Libya. Her approval process would be a great chance to get some straight answers. Hopefully we won't get a smoke-screen of racial allegations, misogyny allegations, or other low-IQ tactics that the administration used during the election.
BI I am not going to play your game. As another poster put it, google it, it has been all over the net. Has it never occured to you to ask why SRice was sent to the shows when as BO points out she had NO involvement. Why was she sent instead of someone who had involvement,:Clinton Panetta, Donilion, Petreaus Clapper why not one of them? By the time she went on those shows it was apparent even to someone like you who while youmight not been keeping up with the news you could have read a few timelines and interviews from people who were there OR even read the Libyan president say that it was a planned attack. so either she knowlingly lied or the BO admin sent her to tell the lie and she was like you and hadn't paid attention. If she knowlingly lied she is a fool if she was duped into lying she is a bigger fool
If Obama is seriously considering Rice for Secretary of State, he's nuts. If he wants to make an impact appointment, he should nominate Dick Lugar. For starters, the guy is a foreign policy maestro. You're not going to find someone more qualified. In addition, it would send the message to moderate Republicans that if they'll ditch the Tea Party and work with him, he's got their back. Finally, the nomination would sail through, and Obama would look very non-partisan and very shrewd. If he nominates Rice, he's getting someone less qualified than Lugar. He's also polarizing the appointment and unifying the GOP caucus against the nomination. Lindsey Graham and John McCain aren't bomb throwers. They're pretty reasonable guys who aren't prone to hyperbole or partisan ridicule. If they rip Rice, people will listen. Most of all, he's bringing the Benghazi issue to the forefront. I'm not suggesting that it's next Watergate like Fox News desperately tried to make it. However, there's enough to scrutinize that if I was Obama, I wouldn't want to put the issue on the front page of the newspaper.
BI, is your hangup here on the distinction between lying and giving false information? Or do you honestly think there's nothing to see in all this? And secondly, don't you think that the idea that she would jump into this with no background, no relationship to the issue and nothing other than the president or his people telling her "we want you to go out and tell the media that this happened due to the video" is troubling and not exactly what you look for from a potential secretary of state?
