Obama and his "I am a man"moment.

[FaninAma]

Throwing down and challenging GOP senators to come after him instead of the delicate Ambassador Rice.

[jk the sooner fan]

i have a feeling we're going to see A LOT more of that ego....... A LOT

[Harry Beanbag]

He's a despicable human being.

[Curly Bill]

Throwing down and challenging GOP senators to come after him instead of the delicate Ambassador Rice.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say they're gonna be more than willing to take him up on this challenge.

[sappstuf]

As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her

In plain English, I told her to go and then we lied to her about what we knew. It makes sense in that plausible deniability way..

Can anyone give a good explanation on why Obama would ask the US Ambassador to the UN go on Sunday talk shows to talk about a military attack on a US Consulate? She knows nothing about the military, CIA or State depart..... Oh... They sent out a patsy.

Ken Salazar must be too valuable to give up.

[SoonerProphet]

In plain English, I told her to go and then we lied to her about what we knew. It makes sense in that plausible deniability way..

Can anyone give a good explanation on why Obama would ask the US Ambassador to the UN go on Sunday talk shows to talk about a military attack on a US Consulate? She knows nothing about the military, CIA or State depart..... Oh... They sent out a patsy.

Ken Salazar must be too valuable to give up.

She was on Clinton's NSC from 1993 to 1997. She has plenty of establishment foreign policy credentials.

[Midtowner]

I really don't get the outrage. So far, all you have is that Obama stated that this was because of a video, which was plausible then because the Egypt riot was and that he lied.

Okay, assume all of that is true. What is the harm done? From the looks of things, all of our defensive forces except for a fighter jet were mobilized ASAP. The fighter jet was not mobilized due to it being an inadequate and unsafe means of protecting our people with the risk of collateral damage or friendly fire being too great.

So he said it was a video. So he may not have been 100% truthful about that. He may have had his reasons for doing that. It may have been a ploy to make the attackers feel more secure in that we actually didn't know what happened or a ploy to flush out the attackers to get them to claim responsibility. Who knows at this point?

The scandal argument is pretty weak at this point though. Maybe we'll hear something in the hearings, but I sincerely doubt it.

[Harry Beanbag]

Remember way back in the '90's when all the adults in the room were amazed and disappointed at how Clinton was disrespecting the office of the Presidency. Wow, looking back now, those were the good ol' days.

[FaninAma]

Midtowner, it would have been quickly forgotten if 4 Americans hadn't died and if Obama would have came out a little quicker and admitted his first impression was wrong but he persisted with this excuse for weeks. And now we have the Patraeus thing that even the mainstream media is going to cover because it involves sex and intrigue. They probably would have never covered the Benghazi tragedy otherwise.

IMO, I think that the Obama administration tried to hold the Patraeus affair over his head and make him toe the line and he just said "F it." and resigned.

It is going to be an interesting 4 years.

Somebody this morning descibed it as the shortest post-election honeymoon in history.

[cleller]

Sorry, I thought this was going to reveal a schedule for the event at some future date. :welcoming::chuncky:

[KantoSooner]

In plain English, I told her to go and then we lied to her about what we knew. It makes sense in that plausible deniability way..

Can anyone give a good explanation on why Obama would ask the US Ambassador to the UN go on Sunday talk shows to talk about a military attack on a US Consulate? She knows nothing about the military, CIA or State depart..... Oh... They sent out a patsy.

Ken Salazar must be too valuable to give up.

I was getting definite Colin Powell 'weapons of mass destruction' vibes on this one. To be lied to like that and set up to look like a fool and then to stay on? That takes extreme loyalty.
I wouldn't blame her at all if she ditched the admin, took a job at Brookings or the like, got six or seven comfy board seats, wrote up her memoirs and did the speaking circuit at $50K a pop or so. Much more to life than being Hillary's stalking mule.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

He's a despicable human being.
^^^ This!

[rock on sooner]

I don't think Obama regarded it as any sort of honeymoon. Y'all er nutz
if you think he doesn't know what's in front of him with the Pubs, especially
McCain and Graham. I wouldn't expect him to do anything but defend Rice.
I'd think less of him if he didn't. To some extent a lot of Pubs, including ones
on this board are pizzed (and embarassed) that the Dems out coached, out
played and out lasted the GOP. To make matters worse the Dem ground
army will remain largely intact for 2016. Here's a thought that will give a
lot of people heartburn....H Clinton is running, B Clinton, B Obama and M
Obama are the top surrogates on the stump for her. Oh, and Axelrod will
be her top advisor....

[rock on sooner]

I was getting definite Colin Powell 'weapons of mass destruction' vibes on this one. To be lied to like that and set up to look like a fool and then to stay on? That takes extreme loyalty.
I wouldn't blame her at all if she ditched the admin, took a job at Brookings or the like, got six or seven comfy board seats, wrote up her memoirs and did the speaking circuit at $50K a pop or so. Much more to life than being Hillary's stalking mule.

Kanto, remember that power is what many crave. If she did stay on, she'd get
confirmed, have Hillary as an adviser for the short term, be out front on the
world stage and THEN do what you listed, 'cept wouldn't be for $50k a pop...

[cleller]

I don't think Obama regarded it as any sort of honeymoon. Y'all er nutz
if you think he doesn't know what's in front of him with the Pubs, especially
McCain and Graham. I wouldn't expect him to do anything but defend Rice.
I'd think less of him if he didn't. To some extent a lot of Pubs, including ones
on this board are pizzed (and embarassed) that the Dems out coached, out
played and out lasted the GOP. To make matters worse the Dem ground
army will remain largely intact for 2016. Here's a thought that will give a
lot of people heartburn....H Clinton is running, B Clinton, B Obama and M
Obama are the top surrogates on the stump for her. Oh, and Axelrod will
be her top advisor....


How does that sound to you? Before the whole Libya thing, I felt like Hilary had the larger set of testes, (over Obama) but have now dropped the notion.

[rock on sooner]

How does that sound to you? Before the whole Libya thing, I felt like Hilary had the larger set of testes, (over Obama) but have now dropped the notion.

How does it sound to me? I caucused for Hillary when she ran in '08 here
in Iowa If she does run in '16, then ima gonna sit back and watch all kinds
of fur fly. I'll be in my 70's then and will need entertainment during the
college football offseason..:biggrin:

[hawaii 5-0]

Let's send his skinny azz back to Kenya !!


5-0

[olevetonahill]

I don't think Obama regarded it as any sort of honeymoon. Y'all er nutz
if you think he doesn't know what's in front of him with the Pubs, especially
McCain and Graham. I wouldn't expect him to do anything but defend Rice.
I'd think less of him if he didn't. To some extent a lot of Pubs, including ones
on this board are pizzed (and embarassed) that the Dems out coached, out
played and out lasted the GOP. To make matters worse the Dem ground
army will remain largely intact for 2016. Here's a thought that will give a
lot of people heartburn....H Clinton is running, B Clinton, B Obama and M
Obama are the top surrogates on the stump for her. Oh, and Axelrod will
be her top advisor....

Dont make me PUKE,
IF hillary Cankle wins in 2016 Ima leave fer sure

[rock on sooner]

Dont make me PUKE,
IF hillary Cankle wins in 2016 Ima leave fer sure

Aw Vet, you wouldn't do that...who'd stir the pot then?

[KantoSooner]

Plus where'd you go?

If you really wanted to go set up a nice distilling operation in the Philippines, say in Cebu, I could introduce you to some real nice folks. And $1,000 a month buys you a house with a pool 150 ft from the beach, all grocs and utiliities with household staff. Not a bad lifestyle.

Bring in the corn from Luzon and 'off to the races'. Put it in crystal bottles and sell it as a premium Asian Single Barrell Bourbon in the old Kentucky Tradition, or some such BS.

We'd both be dead within five years, of course. But it would take a jack hammer to chisel the smiles off our faces before they nailed the boxes closed.

[Soonerjeepman]

So he may not have been 100% truthful about that. He may have had his reasons for doing that. .

maybe, just maybe, he had a big day Nov 6th to worry about..

Now I understand ALL presidents have more than likely "lied" about somethings. The issue is y'all and all the libs kept spouting off about Romney lying all the time and obamay is a man of the people...whatever.

[BigTip]

I said when Carter got elected, "He is a good man, but he won't be a good president." In retrospect, like I had a crystal ball.

I will say this about Obama. History will not be kind to him. He will be judged as our worst president.

[olevetonahill]

Plus where'd you go?

If you really wanted to go set up a nice distilling operation in the Philippines, say in Cebu, I could introduce you to some real nice folks. And $1,000 a month buys you a house with a pool 150 ft from the beach, all grocs and utiliities with household staff. Not a bad lifestyle.

Bring in the corn from Luzon and 'off to the races'. Put it in crystal bottles and sell it as a premium Asian Single Barrell Bourbon in the old Kentucky Tradition, or some such BS.

We'd both be dead within five years, of course. But it would take a jack hammer to chisel the smiles off our faces before they nailed the boxes closed.

Well hell lets not wait till then
lets get this show on the road

[Curly Bill]

I said when Carter got elected, "He is a good man, but he won't be a good president." In retrospect, like I had a crystal ball.

I will say this about Obama. History will not be kind to him. He will be judged as our worst president.

Yup, this is a dealio where peeps are gonna look back at the Obammy era and wonder WTF where those people (U.S. voters) thinking?

[MountainOkie]

So what I get is this: She's an ambassador to the U.N. and the prez doesn't even think she can stand up for herself, much less the country?

Maybe we need a new ambassador, or maybe we need a prez. who truly thinks women are just as capable as men. This administration really likes to have its cake and eat it too. Course the opposition lets them get away with it...

[olevetonahill]

I really don't get the outrage. So far, all you have is that Obama lied.
. So he may not have been 100% truthful about that. He may have had his reasons for doing that.

removing all yer Hyperbole and what ya have left?
HMM seems you and most of yer Buds were calling for Ws head over something similar :chuncky:

[sappstuf]

She was on Clinton's NSC from 1993 to 1997. She has plenty of establishment foreign policy credentials.

What does having a job 15 years ago have to do with operational knowledge of something that had happened 5 days before? Try harder.

The commerce secretary knew as much as she did.

Hillary, Petraeus, James Clapper or Tom Donilon were much more qualified to speak on the administration's behalf, along with their assistants.... And their assistant's assistants.

[KantoSooner]

Well hell lets not wait till then
lets get this show on the road

How long will it take for you to liquidate your shack, etc? I gave everything to to ex, I'm ready to go as soon as we book tickets. Tomorrow too soon?

[SoonerProphet]

Sorry, thought you were talking about her regarding Sec State cred. Don't know about what she did or didn't know about Benghazi, doubt you do either

[olevetonahill]

How long will it take for you to liquidate your shack, etc? I gave everything to to ex, I'm ready to go as soon as we book tickets. Tomorrow too soon?

I may have to find some one to be caretaker I can trust
Findin a caretaker wont be hard, Finding one I can trust be a nuther story

Im have to get me a Passport, Ive traveled all over this world and aint ever had one

[olevetonahill]

Sorry, thought you were talking about her regarding Sec State cred. Don't know about what she did or didn't know about Benghazi, doubt you do either

Oh hell dude you just like to hear yer Keyboard clack

[SoonerProphet]

Oh hell dude you just like to hear yer Keyboard clack

52,000 posts to 3,000 begs to differ.

[olevetonahill]

52,000 posts to 3,000 begs to differ.

Mines silent so I dont hear it

[Curly Bill]

Mines silent so I dont hear it

I thought it was cause you got a soft touch? At least some of the guys were commenting on how soft your hands are. I don't know what they meant by that???

[olevetonahill]

I thought it was cause you got a soft touch? At least some of the guys were commenting on how soft your hands are? I don't know what they meant by that???

:confused:

[rock on sooner]

Mines silent so I dont hear it

Nah, that aint it, youre hard o hearing! Hell, I can hear ya all tha way
here to IA....i unnerstand that hearing is tha third er fourth thing ta go...:biggrin:

[sappstuf]

Sorry, thought you were talking about her regarding Sec State cred. Don't know about what she did or didn't know about Benghazi, doubt you do either

It isn't hard to figure out she was clueless.

CNN is now reporting that Petraeus will testify that he knew the attacks were terrorism, perpetratd by Ansar Al Sharia "almost immediately". President Obama stated in an interview that wasn't broadcast by 60 minutes until much later that:


You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

So even Obama is hinted that it was premeditated the very next day.

If the head of the CIA knew it was terrorism and the president hinted at it all within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and that was indeed accurate, how did it come to pass that an ignorant woman with no direct knowledge of the incident except the spin that was presented to her ended up on the Sunday morning talk shows? All she did was state lies that it was not terrorism and that there was no evidence it premeditated when all the evidence was pointing in the opposite direction.

If Obama cared as much for this woman as he is trying to put on, he probably shouldn't have put false facts in front of her and sent her out to 5 morning talk shows.

Edit:

Just a couple of more points to show her ignorance of the situation.


Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence with our personnel…

No one else has claimed we had substantial presence of security personnel there. Why? Because we didn't. It is a laughable claim.


Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function.

Providing security to the consulate was absolutely not their function. They went to the rescue of people at the consulate because there was no one else that could do it. They worked at the CIA annex and were killed there after coming under mortar attack.

It is clear she was clueless. You are blindly trying to defend her instead of looking at the facts.

[sappstuf]

Looks like Patreus is set to testify that the talking points that he submitted and that was approved by the intelligence community are not the talking points that Rice used.

Hmmm.. Who would have the power to ignore intelligence from the director of the CIA and instead run with fake intelligence that better fits the political landscape and come up with a dupe to run with it...

Who would do such a thing.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yep, what I have been saying all along is coming to be known as true. Just the stupid Socialist apologists on here can see the fact of what The Socialist is or how despicable he is... He has killed at least 3 careers we know of on Benghazi and he may have had a hand in the resignation of the Lockheed-Martin CEO... Chicago thuggery at its best, well played The Socialist, well played Axel*********...

[soonercruiser]

I really don't get the outrage. So far, all you have is that Obama stated that this was because of a video, which was plausible then because the Egypt riot was and that he lied.

Okay, assume all of that is true. What is the harm done? From the looks of things, all of our defensive forces except for a fighter jet were mobilized ASAP. The fighter jet was not mobilized due to it being an inadequate and unsafe means of protecting our people with the risk of collateral damage or friendly fire being too great.

So he said it was a video. So he may not have been 100% truthful about that. He may have had his reasons for doing that. It may have been a ploy to make the attackers feel more secure in that we actually didn't know what happened or a ploy to flush out the attackers to get them to claim responsibility. Who knows at this point?

The scandal argument is pretty weak at this point though. Maybe we'll hear something in the hearings, but I sincerely doubt it.

4 people died dummy!
What don't you get about lying about the whole incident, just so he could appear to have not had a terrorist attack on his watch!
He even claimed at a news conference to have given an "order to do everything to save them"!
If so, is he lying again, or who disopeyed that order?
Duh!

I'll bet you would have jumped all over Nixon for a breaking and entering coverup!
What an honorable position!

[soonercruiser]

It isn't hard to figure out she was clueless.

CNN is now reporting that Petraeus will testify that he knew the attacks were terrorism, perpetratd by Ansar Al Sharia "almost immediately". President Obama stated in an interview that wasn't broadcast by 60 minutes until much later that:

So even Obama is hinted that it was premeditated the very next day.

If the head of the CIA knew it was terrorism and the president hinted at it all within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and that was indeed accurate, how did it come to pass that an ignorant woman with no direct knowledge of the incident except the spin that was presented to her ended up on the Sunday morning talk shows? All she did was state lies that it was not terrorism and that there was no evidence it premeditated when all the evidence was pointing in the opposite direction.

If Obama cared as much for this woman as he is trying to put on, he probably shouldn't have put false facts in front of her and sent her out to 5 morning talk shows.

Edit:

Just a couple of more points to show her ignorance of the situation.



No one else has claimed we had substantial presence of security personnel there. Why? Because we didn't. It is a laughable claim.



Providing security to the consulate was absolutely not their function. They went to the rescue of people at the consulate because there was no one else that could do it. They worked at the CIA annex and were killed there after coming under mortar attack.

It is clear she was clueless. You are blindly trying to defend her instead of looking at the facts.

I'm thinking it is some kind of WH Love Triangle that we are witnessing.
Obummer probably has said many nice things about Rice, and some jealous witch in the WH took the talking points and fed Rice some chit to say on TV, so that she could eventually be doscredited.
Who are the powerful women in the WH that could have done that......Valerie Jarrett maybe???

I can't wait for Rice to testify before Congress!

[LiveLaughLove]

The only thing manly about Obama is Michelle.

[okie52]

The only thing manly about Obama is Michelle.

Lol

[rock on sooner]

Patraeus was quoted in the paper today saying that the initial after
action reports deleted any references to Al Queda or any other
terrorist group so as to not tip our hand that we suspected them
and to give time to get on their trail.

Any thoughts there as to that being accurate or just cover up?

[LiveLaughLove]

Patraeus was quoted in the paper today saying that the initial after
action reports deleted any references to Al Queda or any other
terrorist group so as to not tip our hand that we suspected them
and to give time to get on their trail.

Any thoughts there as to that being accurate or just cover up?

Doesn't compute. AQ claims (and did so) responsibility almost always immediately after an attack.

Why would we not want to "tip our hand" that we were on to them, when they had already said it was them?

Makes no sense. But I have no doubt the administration will try all sorts of reasons/excuses and the compliant media will go along and say "move along nothing to see here" as soon as they possibly can.

[rock on sooner]

Doesn't compute. AQ claims (and did so) responsibility almost always immediately after an attack.

Why would we not want to "tip our hand" that we were on to them, when they had already said it was them?

Makes no sense. But I have no doubt the administration will try all sorts of reasons/excuses and the compliant media will go along and say "move along nothing to see here" as soon as they possibly can.

Fair statement and fair points, too. Only thing that might called into
question is that AQ probably would claim credit no matter what, just to
counter the claims that they have been "decimated".

[FaninAma]

Doesn't compute. AQ claims (and did so) responsibility almost always immediately after an attack.

Why would we not want to "tip our hand" that we were on to them, when they had already said it was them?

Makes no sense. But I have no doubt the administration will try all sorts of reasons/excuses and the compliant media will go along and say "move along nothing to see here" as soon as they possibly can.

The could have called the attack a terrorist attack without specifically identifying the groups. This is just more smoke and the lack of investigation by the main stream press is concerning.

[rock on sooner]

The could have called the attack a terrorist attack without specifically identifying the groups. This is just more smoke and the lack of investigation by the main stream press is concerning.

The issue there, I think, is there so few "known" terrorist groups in the area
that even calling it a terrorist attack would point to AQ. I'm not defending
the administration or even making excuses, just exploring what the admin was
going through...clearly a screwup of major proportions. I don't think Patraeus
gains anything by participating a coverup, so I'm inclined to accept the testimony
of a four star general

[sappstuf]

Patraeus was quoted in the paper today saying that the initial after
action reports deleted any references to Al Queda or any other
terrorist group so as to not tip our hand that we suspected them
and to give time to get on their trail.

Any thoughts there as to that being accurate or just cover up?

This is from the same administration that couldn't wait to tell the world they had killed OBL. Waiting a week to break that news could have made a huge difference as we had his computer and track down close associates before they knew he had been killed.

So no, I doubt that is the reason.

[rock on sooner]

This is from the same administration that couldn't wait to tell the world they had killed OBL. Waiting a week to break that news could have made a huge difference as we had his computer and track down close associates before they knew he had been killed.

So no, I doubt that is the reason.

I forgot about having OBL's computer. Wonder just how much hunting is going on, then?
If your point is accurate about not tipping our hand, it goes back to the at least three
different time line versions out there, not one of which helps the major screwup issue.

[LiveLaughLove]

The issue there, I think, is there so few "known" terrorist groups in the area
that even calling it a terrorist attack would point to AQ. I'm not defending
the administration or even making excuses, just exploring what the admin was
going through...clearly a screwup of major proportions. I don't think Patraeus
gains anything by participating a coverup, so I'm inclined to accept the testimony
of a four star general

They didn't just NOT call it a terrorist attack. They sent Rice out to be on 5 talk shows to get a particular message out. That is active, not passive.

Seems to me if you just aren't wanting to tip your hand (which I just don't buy from the evidence), you don't actively go out and promote a point of view.

They were active about saying it was the video because of politics, pure and simple. Obama had been proclaiming the death of AQ, now they or their splinter groups just killed an ambassador. Bad politics for Obama. That's the simplest most logical answer to all of this.

The scariest part to me, besides those porr dead guys, is that they had no trouble blaming a citizen and getting him incarcerated, just as Hillary told Ty Woods dad they would. Do you really think people are sitting in jail for a year on probation violations of using the internet and having a fake license? Someone like that might have a warrant but they wouldn't actively go after them. They would wait and get him when they do a normal traffic stop or such. California just released a few thousand non violent offenders because of over crowding. This guy wasn't one of them, wonder why?

[sappstuf]

I haven't seen it reported much, but Obama completely gave away that he had been playing politics with Benghazi from the very beginning in his press conference.


And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.

Meaning before the election he was happy to play politics and stonewall over the deaths of 4 Americans.

Classy.

[okie52]

I haven't seen it reported much, but Obama completely gave away that he had been playing politics with Benghazi from the very beginning in his press conference.



Meaning before the election he was happy to play politics and stonewall over the deaths of 4 Americans.

Classy.

Putin, Iran, Israel ....

[SoonerProphet]

meh, so now we a reduced to "terrorism" or "extremist" semantics games...good lord what sad argument this was.

[SoonerProphet]

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/19/diplomacy_is_dangerous_business_a_fact_washington_ needs_to_remember

[sappstuf]

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/19/diplomacy_is_dangerous_business_a_fact_washington_ needs_to_remember

The title of your article is:


Diplomacy is dangerous business -- a fact Washington needs to remember

I agree it can be dangerous. You know what makes it more dangerous?

Having shoddy security and being ignored by, at least Hillary if not higher, while you plead for help for months on end.

[FaninAma]

Patraeus was quoted in the paper today saying that the initial after
action reports deleted any references to Al Queda or any other
terrorist group so as to not tip our hand that we suspected them
and to give time to get on their trail.

Any thoughts there as to that being accurate or just cover up?

Patraeus didn't say that. That "explanation" came from the administration. It is about the 10th different story that they have tried to float.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Now the DNI redacted the Al Qaeda reference.... What is it??? These yahoos are so effing stupid...

The Socialist is now embarassing us overseas...can't pronounce names correctly, calls a country by the made up junta name, not what the US calls it, and looks like he is going to ram his tongue down Aung San Suu Kyi throat, botches Burma's President's name. Just a replay of Debate #1...

[sappstuf]

She was on Clinton's NSC from 1993 to 1997. She has plenty of establishment foreign policy credentials.

Oh yes.. Rice has impeccable credentials from her time with Clinton.


At an interagency teleconference in late April [1994], Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/

Wouldn't want genocide to get in the way of the elections, she was really on the ball...

Anyone that can frame genocide in such a self-serving manner should never sniff the Secretary of State position. It reveals her character and why she was chosen to speak on the talk shows that morning. Rice is a partisan hack.

[cleller]

Oh yes.. Rice has impeccable credentials from her time with Clinton.



.

That is an accomplishment. Women's credentials had an tendency to get messy under Clinton. Clearly, she's used to doing what she's told, regardless of the credibility of the assignment.