Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT Susan Rice will not be Sec State after all.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
theget
Dec 13, 2012, 7:36:12 PM12/13/12
to
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-cites-very-politicized-confirmation-process
"Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
“the unfair and misleading attacks” on Rice, who was considered a
front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation’s top foreign
policy official"
And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-card-will-foreign-policy-be-dealt-another-bad-hand/
USA has something else to say,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-secretary-of-state-obama/1767725/
"Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
get to the bottom of it, so later when s/he doesn't they can use that
for political talking points.
Now the questions we're left with are who will BO nominate for the
position and where is HC going to go?
"Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
“the unfair and misleading attacks” on Rice, who was considered a
front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation’s top foreign
policy official"
And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-card-will-foreign-policy-be-dealt-another-bad-hand/
USA has something else to say,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-secretary-of-state-obama/1767725/
"Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
get to the bottom of it, so later when s/he doesn't they can use that
for political talking points.
Now the questions we're left with are who will BO nominate for the
position and where is HC going to go?
David Johnston
Dec 13, 2012, 8:04:58 PM12/13/12
to
On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
> http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-cites-very-politicized-confirmation-process
>
> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> �the unfair and misleading attacks� on Rice, who was considered a
> http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-cites-very-politicized-confirmation-process
>
> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation�s top foreign
> policy official"
>
> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-card-will-foreign-policy-be-dealt-another-bad-hand/
>
>
> USA has something else to say,
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-secretary-of-state-obama/1767725/
> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> get to the bottom of it,
What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
>
> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-card-will-foreign-policy-be-dealt-another-bad-hand/
>
>
> USA has something else to say,
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-secretary-of-state-obama/1767725/
> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> get to the bottom of it,
LGi...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2012, 11:53:31 AM12/14/12
to
for VP has the nerve to say someone else is not qualified to secretary
of state.
Sara Palin wasn't qualified to be dog catcher.
David Johnston
Dec 14, 2012, 1:12:24 PM12/14/12
to
theget
Dec 14, 2012, 11:04:08 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 13, 8:04 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
> On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> > the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
> > "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> > front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
> > policy official"
>
> > And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> > more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> > it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
> >http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
>
> > And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> > more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> > it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>
> > USA has something else to say,
> >http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
> > USA has something else to say,
> > "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
> > than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> > about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> > raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> > get to the bottom of it,
>
> What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
Benghazi. The attack on a US ambassador. The response of the admin.
> > than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> > about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> > raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> > get to the bottom of it,
>
> What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
The blaming of the attack on some film. And perhaps the attack on the
US embassy in Cairo as well. I'm sure there are some things I missed.
theget
Dec 14, 2012, 11:04:49 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14, 11:53 am, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:36:12 -0800 (PST), theget
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:36:12 -0800 (PST), theget
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> > the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
> >front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
> >policy official"
>
> >And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> >more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> >it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
> >http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
> >"Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> > the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
> >front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
> >policy official"
>
> >And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> >more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> >it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>
> >USA has something else to say,
> >http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
> >USA has something else to say,
> >"Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
> >than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> >about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> >raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> >get to the bottom of it, so later when s/he doesn't they can use that
> >for political talking points.
>
> >Now the questions we're left with are who will BO nominate for the
> >position and where is HC going to go?
>
> Let me see if i have this straight: John McCain who chose Sara Palin
> for VP has the nerve to say someone else is not qualified to secretary
> of state.
>
> Sara Palin wasn't qualified to be dog catcher.
You may wish to consult that pesky constitution to find the
> >than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> >about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> >raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> >get to the bottom of it, so later when s/he doesn't they can use that
> >for political talking points.
>
> >Now the questions we're left with are who will BO nominate for the
> >position and where is HC going to go?
>
> Let me see if i have this straight: John McCain who chose Sara Palin
> for VP has the nerve to say someone else is not qualified to secretary
> of state.
>
> Sara Palin wasn't qualified to be dog catcher.
qualifications that a person is required to have to be VP.
theget
Dec 14, 2012, 11:05:08 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14, 1:12 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 9:53 AM, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:36:12 -0800 (PST), theget
> > <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> >>http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
> On 12/14/2012 9:53 AM, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:36:12 -0800 (PST), theget
> > <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> >> the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
> >> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
> >> policy official"
>
> >> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> >> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> >> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
> >>http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
> >> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
> >> the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
> >> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
> >> policy official"
>
> >> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
> >> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
> >> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>
> >> USA has something else to say,
> >>http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
> >> USA has something else to say,
> >> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
> >> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> >> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> >> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> >> get to the bottom of it, so later when s/he doesn't they can use that
> >> for political talking points.
>
> >> Now the questions we're left with are who will BO nominate for the
> >> position and where is HC going to go?
> > Let me see if i have this straight: John McCain who chose Sara Palin
> > for VP has the nerve to say someone else is not qualified to secretary
> > of state.
>
> > Sara Palin wasn't qualified to be dog catcher.
>
> VP is a less demanding job than dog catcher.
How about Governor of Alaska?
> >> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
> >> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
> >> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
> >> get to the bottom of it, so later when s/he doesn't they can use that
> >> for political talking points.
>
> >> Now the questions we're left with are who will BO nominate for the
> >> position and where is HC going to go?
> > Let me see if i have this straight: John McCain who chose Sara Palin
> > for VP has the nerve to say someone else is not qualified to secretary
> > of state.
>
> > Sara Palin wasn't qualified to be dog catcher.
>
> VP is a less demanding job than dog catcher.
Jeff Gersten
Dec 15, 2012, 5:47:21 AM12/15/12
to
the...@bigmailbox.net (theget) wrote (much snipped)
>>What is that the nominee should get to the
>>bottom of?
>Benghazi. The attack on a US ambassador.
>The response of the admin. The blaming of
>the attack on some film. And perhaps the
>attack on the US embassy in Cairo as well. I'm
>sure there are some things I missed.
How about testimony that Saddam Hussein had weapon of mass destruction?
Or how about the illegal Iran-Contra dealings?
Oh wait, those were not transgressions by Susan Rice.
>>What is that the nominee should get to the
>>bottom of?
>Benghazi. The attack on a US ambassador.
>The response of the admin. The blaming of
>the attack on some film. And perhaps the
>attack on the US embassy in Cairo as well. I'm
>sure there are some things I missed.
Or how about the illegal Iran-Contra dealings?
Oh wait, those were not transgressions by Susan Rice.
David Johnston
Dec 15, 2012, 10:37:23 AM12/15/12
to
On 12/14/2012 9:04 PM, theget wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:04 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
>>
>>> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
>>> the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
>>> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
>>> policy official"
>>
>>> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
>>> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
>>> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
>>
>>> USA has something else to say,
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
>>> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
>>> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
>>> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
>>> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
>>> get to the bottom of it,
>>
>> What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
>
> Benghazi.The attack on a US ambassador.
> On Dec 13, 8:04 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
>>
>>> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
>>> the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
>>> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
>>> policy official"
>>
>>> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
>>> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
>>> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
>>
>>> USA has something else to say,
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
>>> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
>>> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
>>> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
>>> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
>>> get to the bottom of it,
>>
>> What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
>
Why that attack and not any of the 10 previous attacks on Middle Eastern
embassies since 9/11? What makes this one different?
David Johnston
Dec 15, 2012, 10:38:23 AM12/15/12
to
On 12/14/2012 9:04 PM, theget wrote:
state?
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 11:05:05 AM12/15/12
to
their own faults by pointing out the perceived faults of people they
don't care for.
Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Maybe you didn't mean to justify what seem
to be the lies the BO admin told?
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 11:07:11 AM12/15/12
to
Because of how the BO admin handled it.
One example: Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, but she was
the person the admin sent out to front for them and to sell a load of
codswallop to the American people.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 11:11:58 AM12/15/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent
"Apparently" this is reference to Susan Rice.
Her problem still would be that they'd ask her questions about
Benghazi. Those are questions that apparently the admin not only
doesn't want answered, they don't want the questions to be raised.
In La La Land reality is far far away.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-susan-rice-20121216,0,3648203.column
"McManus: Susan Rice, done in by the 'fiscal cliff'"
David Johnston
Dec 15, 2012, 12:18:17 PM12/15/12
to
justified than when there are issues of national security involved.
David Johnston
Dec 15, 2012, 12:19:16 PM12/15/12
to
On 12/15/2012 9:07 AM, theget wrote:
> On Dec 15, 10:37 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 9:04 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 13, 8:04 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
>>
>>>>> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
>>>>> the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
>>>>> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
>>>>> policy official"
>>
>>>>> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
>>>>> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
>>>>> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
>>
>>>>> USA has something else to say,
>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
>>>>> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
>>>>> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
>>>>> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
>>>>> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
>>>>> get to the bottom of it,
>>
>>>> What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
>>
>>> Benghazi.The attack on a US ambassador.
>>
>> Why that attack and not any of 10 previous attacks on Middle Eastern
> On Dec 15, 10:37 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 9:04 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 13, 8:04 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2012 5:36 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-sus...
>>
>>>>> "Obama said in a statement that he accepted her decision and regretted
>>>>> the unfair and misleading attacks on Rice, who was considered a
>>>>> front-runner to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation s top foreign
>>>>> policy official"
>>
>>>>> And probably breathed a sigh of relief that she won't be answering
>>>>> more questions about Benghazi and why she was sent out to talk about
>>>>> it if as BO himself said, she had nothing to do with it per:
>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...
>>
>>>>> USA has something else to say,
>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/13/susan-rice-benghazi-...
>>>>> "Behind the scenes, Obama concluded her nomination was more trouble
>>>>> than it was worth." Yeah, I'll bet. But it won't make the questions
>>>>> about Benghazi go away. If the Reps have any smarts at all they'll
>>>>> raise the issue and get some sort of commitment from the nominee to
>>>>> get to the bottom of it,
>>
>>>> What is that the nominee should get to the bottom of?
>>
>>> Benghazi.The attack on a US ambassador.
>>
>> embassies since 9/11? What makes this one different?
>
> How many of those attacks resulted in the murder of a US ambassador?
Ah, so it's the social station of one of the guys who died this time
>
> How many of those attacks resulted in the murder of a US ambassador?
that makes the difference...
>
> Because of how the BO admin handled it.
the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
David Johnston
Dec 15, 2012, 12:22:04 PM12/15/12
to
constitution says the qualifications are to be secretary of state.
David Johnston
Dec 15, 2012, 2:58:51 PM12/15/12
to
having, so presumably it was at least as demanding as being dog catcher.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 6:40:42 PM12/15/12
to
blame someone else for your own faults.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 6:42:59 PM12/15/12
to
station. If you must, think of me hoping that America would protect
all citizens equally and grasping at straws in the hope that we'll
protect any of our citizens.
>
>
>
> > Because of how the BO admin handled it.
>
> Oh? Are they going to ask the State nominee to "get to the bottom" of
> the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
> don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
They can ask for anything, and the POTUS isn't king. It's an elected
>
>
> > Because of how the BO admin handled it.
>
> Oh? Are they going to ask the State nominee to "get to the bottom" of
> the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
> don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
office and he can be removed.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 6:50:41 PM12/15/12
to
"The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent
"Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution
states:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, [...] and he shall nominate, and by and with
the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, [...]
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: [...]
I'm afraid that I must disagree with you. It does, at least in part.
I don't know what specific law that Congress has "established by
law." But it is within their power under the COTUS to do so.
The constitutional requirement is that the SoS be nominated by the
President and shall appoint Ambaassadors with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 6:56:25 PM12/15/12
to
were brought by dems to IMO harass her. And probably a realization
that she could make lots more money on the talk circuit without the
albatross of public office around her neck.
> so presumably it was at least as demanding as being dog catcher.
life. I don't see any on TV where I've seen a few governors. I don't
know what the differences are between facing voters and rabid dogs.
Jeff Gersten
Dec 15, 2012, 7:29:44 PM12/15/12
to
that they received from the "intelligence community". Two difference
though, we went to war with supposed weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of Saddam being a perceived primary reason, and the John McCains
and thegets of the world did not attack them mercilessly.
But, OTOH, you want a war in Libya. And McCain wants us fighting along
side the Syrian rebels, but will be the first to complain when the new
government is run by Al Queda.
As for Reagan's people in regard to the illegal Iran-Contra scandal.
they just outright lied.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 8:11:56 PM12/15/12
to
relied on? Because the info that Susan Rice relied on suggests that
she lack the ability to engage in critical thinking. But even so,
Condoleeza's failings, if they were failings, do nothing to justify
Rice's.
> Two difference
> though, we went to war with supposed weapons of mass destruction in the
> hands of Saddam being a perceived primary reason, and the John McCains
> and thegets of the world did not attack them mercilessly.
with something to hide.
> But, OTOH, you want a war in Libya.
see us continue our war on AQ, although the admin seems to want to say
that it's winding down. I'd like to see us get the people who invaded
US territory in Egypt. But a war in Libya? Against? I mean besides
the one we're already waging against AQ? Or maybe I don't understand
what you mean?
> And McCain wants us fighting along
> side the Syrian rebels, but will be the first to complain when the new
> government is run by Al Queda.
Brotherhood winning? I seem to recall libs and dems being pretty happy
about it before the outcome became clear.
So yes.. There I agree with you. We ought to tread very very
carefully. Syria makes me think of Kissinger's comment wondering if
the optimal outcome of the Iran-Iraq war would be both parties to the
conflict suffering defeat.
Perhaps there are elements of the Syrian rebels that we might consider
backing without having too much to do with the other groups?
> As for Reagan's people in regard to the illegal Iran-Contra scandal.
> they just outright lied.
still of interest to me to know how it happened that she went on all
those talk shows. That's why she "withdrew" her name.
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 8:26:19 PM12/15/12
to
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2012/12/15/secretary-state-faints-sustains-concussion/KKUeJKJjxBfHETPRHZutrN/story.html
"Secretary of state faints, sustains concussion"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony_n_2308153.html
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who canceled an overseas trip
last weekend because of illness, suffered a concussion after fainting
due to dehydration, prompting the postponement of her scheduled
congressional testimony on the attack on a U.S. mission in Libya,
officials said on Saturday."
theget
Dec 15, 2012, 8:39:54 PM12/15/12
to
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kerry-replace-hillary-state-dept-report-article-1.1220883
"President Obama has chosen Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to succeed
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, according to a report.
Obama will announce his choice of Kerry in the coming weeks, the
Chicago Sun-Times reported, citing a source.
The White House has not confirmed the selection."
Link to Sun Times seems broken in my browser, here it is.
http://www.suntimes.com/17019560-761/source-obama-has-chosen-john-kerry-as-secretary-of-state.html
"President Obama has chosen Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to succeed
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, according to a report.
Obama will announce his choice of Kerry in the coming weeks, the
Chicago Sun-Times reported, citing a source.
The White House has not confirmed the selection."
Link to Sun Times seems broken in my browser, here it is.
http://www.suntimes.com/17019560-761/source-obama-has-chosen-john-kerry-as-secretary-of-state.html
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 12:42:22 AM12/16/12
to
On 12/15/2012 4:56 PM, theget wrote:
>> Well she couldn't finish her term due to all the problems she was
>> having,
>
> My recollection is that the problems involved endless lawsuits that
> were brought by dems to IMO harass her.
Your recollection is incorrect. No lawsuits. Just an ethics
>> Well she couldn't finish her term due to all the problems she was
>> having,
>
> My recollection is that the problems involved endless lawsuits that
> were brought by dems to IMO harass her.
investigation over the firing of an official.
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 12:44:14 AM12/16/12
to
>>
>>
>>
>>> Because of how the BO admin handled it.
>>
>> Oh? Are they going to ask the State nominee to "get to the bottom" of
>> the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
>> don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
>
> They can ask for anything,
and the POTUS isn't king. It's an elected
> office and he can be removed.
no reason.
>
>
>
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 12:45:06 AM12/16/12
to
>
>
>
>
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 12:49:54 AM12/16/12
to
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 2:57:17 AM12/16/12
to
Ah, what a nice word.
.
>
>
>
> >>> Because of how the BO admin handled it.
>
> >> Oh? Are they going to ask the State nominee to "get to the bottom" of
> >> the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
> >> don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
>
> > They can ask for anything,
>
> No matter how stupid.
government role. It's a bit unusual, but it does happen from time to
time.
>
> and the POTUS isn't king. It's an elected
>
> > office and he can be removed.
>
> Since the Republicans don't control the Senate, he can't be removed for
> no reason.
Hard to tell what's going to happen at this point. I think this whole
> and the POTUS isn't king. It's an elected
>
> > office and he can be removed.
>
> Since the Republicans don't control the Senate, he can't be removed for
> no reason.
thing doesn't pass the smell test and you never know, it may get so
bad even the dems will want him out.
Hey, I'm an optimist.
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 3:00:31 AM12/16/12
to
On Dec 16, 12:45 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> > The constitutional requirement is that the SoS be nominated by the
> > President and shall appoint Ambaassadors with the Advice and Consent
> > of the Senate.
>
> Yes, but that could be any random idiot.
Which IMNHO is about to be proven if Obama actually nominates Kerry.
> > The constitutional requirement is that the SoS be nominated by the
> > President and shall appoint Ambaassadors with the Advice and Consent
> > of the Senate.
>
> Yes, but that could be any random idiot.
No wait. Nothing random about Kerry. He's actually quite deliberate.
But Kerry did serve one useful purpose. He got me to vote for Bush in
2004. Something I didn't do in 2000.
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 3:02:58 AM12/16/12
to
the actual outcomes of his policies, and not what he'd have us
believe. AQ is still going strong. They murdered a US ambassador.
He tried to blame a movie.
I don't think anyone believes that. Not even Susan Rice.
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 1:31:30 PM12/16/12
to
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 1:33:09 PM12/16/12
to
On 12/16/2012 12:57 AM, theget wrote:
>>>>> Because of how the BO admin handled it.
>>
>>>> Oh? Are they going to ask the State nominee to "get to the bottom" of
>>>> the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
>>>> don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
>>
>>> They can ask for anything,
>>
>> No matter how stupid.
>
> The Senate can even ask for things that are relevant to their
> government role.
Not from people who don't have them and don't have the authority to get
>>>>> Because of how the BO admin handled it.
>>
>>>> Oh? Are they going to ask the State nominee to "get to the bottom" of
>>>> the President's decision to stall or the advice the CIA gave him? I
>>>> don't think that would work, seeing who works for whom.
>>
>>> They can ask for anything,
>>
>> No matter how stupid.
>
> The Senate can even ask for things that are relevant to their
> government role.
them. Well, they can, but it just makes them look stupid.
7...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2012, 4:11:16 PM12/16/12
to
who was behind the attack that the US of A didn't want to
let the terrorists know the entirety of what was known?
Z...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2012, 4:21:04 PM12/16/12
to
state...........Swift Boat Vets will never stand for it.
Kerry will never get past senate confirmation, no matter how much
republicans want scott brown in the seat.
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 6:11:56 PM12/16/12
to
election year. Send out Rice? Lie about the film? Get reelected.
But avoid the inevitable embarrassing questions that will pop up.
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 6:13:19 PM12/16/12
to
Hillary had a fall. She won't testify, maybe not at all. And when
she's back together again, look for her to slink away.
Because those questions can't be answered any which way.
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 6:15:54 PM12/16/12
to
not IMO. So I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that what
they did they really did because they were worried about how an
apparent policy failure would impact the election. Probably it
wouldn't have, but they were worried. Maybe there's more there than I
think. Probably they panicked a little bit and did something stupid.
It's very very unlikely that it will get BO kicked out, but it will
give the Reps some political leverage. And it's fun to watch. You
know, like a car wreck.
theget
Dec 16, 2012, 6:19:16 PM12/16/12
to
On Dec 16, 4:21 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:39:54 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kerry-replace-hillary-state-...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:39:54 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> >"President Obama has chosen Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to succeed
> >Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, according to a report.
>
> >Obama will announce his choice of Kerry in the coming weeks, the
> >Chicago Sun-Times reported, citing a source.
>
> >The White House has not confirmed the selection."
>
> >Link to Sun Times seems broken in my browser, here it is.
> >http://www.suntimes.com/17019560-761/source-obama-has-chosen-john-ker...
> >"President Obama has chosen Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to succeed
> >Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, according to a report.
>
> >Obama will announce his choice of Kerry in the coming weeks, the
> >Chicago Sun-Times reported, citing a source.
>
> >The White House has not confirmed the selection."
>
> >Link to Sun Times seems broken in my browser, here it is.
>
> Let me put it this way: John Kerry will not be secretary of
> state...........Swift Boat Vets will never stand for it.
>
> Kerry will never get past senate confirmation, no matter how much
> republicans want scott brown in the seat.
From your lips to Thor's ears. I hope that you are right. As I said
> Let me put it this way: John Kerry will not be secretary of
> state...........Swift Boat Vets will never stand for it.
>
> Kerry will never get past senate confirmation, no matter how much
> republicans want scott brown in the seat.
else where, Kerry is the guy who got me to vote for Bush. Why, I
pretend to hear you ask? Because I think Kerry is a fool. I think he
would have made a bad president. I think he'd be a bad SoS. I don't
much care for Clinton, but she's done a reasonably good job as SoS. I
doubt Kerry could meet that standard. He wants to look the part more
than I think he is the part, but then, maybe that's exactly what Obama
wants. He might identify with Kerry.
David Johnston
Dec 16, 2012, 9:45:32 PM12/16/12
to
\Whoopsies. Bad call. In an
> election year. Send out Rice? Lie about the film? Get reelected.
> But avoid the inevitable embarrassing questions that will pop up.
>
Still haven't heard one.
> But avoid the inevitable embarrassing questions that will pop up.
>
David Johnston
Dec 17, 2012, 11:56:03 AM12/17/12
to
theget
Dec 17, 2012, 2:06:40 PM12/17/12
to
" October 11, 2012"
"... today, al Qaeda is on its heels ..."
And one month later...
Maybe BO didn't mean that AQ is going to be on its heels a month from
the day he spoke?
>
> \Whoopsies. Bad call. In an
>
> > election year. Send out Rice? Lie about the film? Get reelected.
> > But avoid the inevitable embarrassing questions that will pop up.
>
> Still haven't heard one.
have to appear before congress. Now because of Clinton's concussion
he's dodged having her appear before congress.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/15/usa-clinton-idUSL1E8NF1KQ20121215
"Jodi Seth, a spokeswoman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee head
John Kerry, said that given her condition, Clinton's testimony would
be postponed, but did not say until when. Seth said the planned
hearings would be held with other senior officials appearing in
Clinton's place." and you know, getting to the bottom of things,
"Clinton has appointed a special panel known as an accountability
review board to assess both the incident and the official response to
it."
So it'll be interesting to see if she actually testifies. I can't find
it again, but there has been some, well, I'll call it, implied
suspicion about her fainting. I did read one article that pointed out
that they hadn't seen any reports on where she was when she fainted.
Which seems like a reasonable question for a journalist to ask,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws.
theget
Dec 17, 2012, 2:14:26 PM12/17/12
to
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/12/04/watchdogs-obama-administration-became-less-transparent-in-months-leading-to-election
"When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he promised a new
level of transparency in government, issuing the Open Government
Directive for greater government accountability and calling on
agencies to be more cooperative in responding to Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests.
But four years later, transparency watchdogs — and journalists —
aren't impressed.
At a event held on Capitol Hill Monday, the Sunlight Foundation, an
open government advocacy group, said that after what they saw as a
promising start, the Obama administration is not shaping up to be as
open as they hoped."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/12/17/167446393/open-government-watchdogs-ok-with-closed-door-fiscal-cliff-talks
"True, the closed-door negotiations do represent a departure from the
kind of transparency Obama promised during his 2007-2008 presidential
campaign. Back then, Obama promised to hold negotiations for health
care legislation on C-SPAN."
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/11/26/obamas-war-on-transparency/
"Obama’s war on transparency is forever intensifying. His crackdown on
whistleblowers and attacks on legitimate journalism as national
security threats are now infamous. But last week the President issued
a “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies”
which detailed new requirements that agencies must meet in order to
tackle “insider threats,” or the threat of potential leakers and
whistleblowers."
And how I enjoy a practical illustration of how much Dems value free
speech. Not much really. Blame the film. Because the guy who made it
really can't defend himself, especially if you can put him in the
pokey.
But you're right, so what. He won. Enjoy.
David Johnston
Dec 17, 2012, 4:25:28 PM12/17/12
to
On 12/17/2012 12:14 PM, theget wrote:
> On Dec 17, 11:56 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2012 4:15 PM, theget wrote:
>
>>>> Did you happen to think that even though the US of A knew
>>>> who was behind the attack that the US of A didn't want to
>>>> let the terrorists know the entirety of what was known?
>>
>>> Yes. But that doesn't account for the way they handled it. At least
>>> not IMO. So I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that what
>>> they did they really did because they were worried about how an
>>> apparent policy failure would impact the election.
>>
>> And...so what?
>
> And so transparency.
Gosh. A President didn't fulfill every plank in his platform. Well
> On Dec 17, 11:56 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2012 4:15 PM, theget wrote:
>
>>>> Did you happen to think that even though the US of A knew
>>>> who was behind the attack that the US of A didn't want to
>>>> let the terrorists know the entirety of what was known?
>>
>>> Yes. But that doesn't account for the way they handled it. At least
>>> not IMO. So I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that what
>>> they did they really did because they were worried about how an
>>> apparent policy failure would impact the election.
>>
>> And...so what?
>
> And so transparency.
that's never happened before and certainly will never happen again.
theget
Dec 17, 2012, 11:11:33 PM12/17/12
to
that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press as much as
President Obama." And look what happened to Nixon. That Obama must be
a pretty smart fellow.
I'm starting to see that blaming the film may be part of a cut of the
same cloth as the rest of him.
But he made the promise and it can be used as a talking point against
him.
David Johnston
Dec 18, 2012, 1:57:20 AM12/18/12
to
On 12/17/2012 9:11 PM, theget wrote:
> On Dec 17, 4:25 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 12:14 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 11:56 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:15 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Did you happen to think that even though the US of A knew
>>>>>> who was behind the attack that the US of A didn't want to
>>>>>> let the terrorists know the entirety of what was known?
>>
>>>>> Yes. But that doesn't account for the way they handled it. At least
>>>>> not IMO. So I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that what
>>>>> they did they really did because they were worried about how an
>>>>> apparent policy failure would impact the election.
>>
>>>> And...so what?
>>
>>> And so transparency.
>>
>> Gosh. A President didn't fulfill every plank in his platform. Well
>> that's never happened before and certainly will never happen again.
>
> Probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas "She also said
> that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press as much as
> President Obama."
By what means?
> On Dec 17, 4:25 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 12:14 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 11:56 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:15 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Did you happen to think that even though the US of A knew
>>>>>> who was behind the attack that the US of A didn't want to
>>>>>> let the terrorists know the entirety of what was known?
>>
>>>>> Yes. But that doesn't account for the way they handled it. At least
>>>>> not IMO. So I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that what
>>>>> they did they really did because they were worried about how an
>>>>> apparent policy failure would impact the election.
>>
>>>> And...so what?
>>
>>> And so transparency.
>>
>> Gosh. A President didn't fulfill every plank in his platform. Well
>> that's never happened before and certainly will never happen again.
>
> Probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas "She also said
> that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press as much as
> President Obama."
theget
Dec 18, 2012, 7:52:33 PM12/18/12
to
My recollection is hazy and I am too lazy to try to find out by
googleing or wikipedaing but I think it may have had something to do
with only allowing certain members of the press to ask questions. Or
perhaps prearranged questions. Sorry, I don't recall now. I don't
think Helen liked Nixon, or maybe not Reps in general, particularly
after that riposte from Tony Snow, "Thank you for the Hezbollah
view.". Heh. I liked that. It was funny.
theget
Dec 19, 2012, 2:06:34 PM12/19/12
to
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57560026-10391739/state-dept-officials-resign-following-benghazi-report/
Several officials resign.
"The two bureaus cited -- Near Eastern Affairs and Diplomatic Security
-- were criticized for a security posture that was "grossly inadequate
to deal with the attack," and for failing to coordinate with other
agencies to better secure the consulate."
The still want Hillary to testify.
""... I am deeply concerned that the unclassified report omits
important information the public has a right to know," Issa said.
"This includes details about the perpetrators of the attack in Libya
as well as the less-than-noble reasons contributing to State
Department decisions to deny security resources. Relevant details that
would not harm national security have been withheld and the classified
report suffers from an enormous over-classification problem." "
Several officials resign.
"The two bureaus cited -- Near Eastern Affairs and Diplomatic Security
-- were criticized for a security posture that was "grossly inadequate
to deal with the attack," and for failing to coordinate with other
agencies to better secure the consulate."
The still want Hillary to testify.
""... I am deeply concerned that the unclassified report omits
important information the public has a right to know," Issa said.
"This includes details about the perpetrators of the attack in Libya
as well as the less-than-noble reasons contributing to State
Department decisions to deny security resources. Relevant details that
would not harm national security have been withheld and the classified
report suffers from an enormous over-classification problem." "
theget
Dec 19, 2012, 6:21:57 PM12/19/12
to
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-clinton-faking-illness-benghazi-20121219,0,5649917.story
"In an appearance on Fox News, Bolton said that Clinton’s claim that
she had fainted because of the flu, hitting her head and suffering a
concussion, was what foreign service officers call a “diplomatic
illness,” intended to free a diplomat from an unpleasant duty."
"Clinton said Monday in a letter to the committee that she would
respond to the committee’s questions in January."
"In an appearance on Fox News, Bolton said that Clinton’s claim that
she had fainted because of the flu, hitting her head and suffering a
concussion, was what foreign service officers call a “diplomatic
illness,” intended to free a diplomat from an unpleasant duty."
"Clinton said Monday in a letter to the committee that she would
respond to the committee’s questions in January."
Z...@gmail.com
Dec 20, 2012, 1:37:58 PM12/20/12
to
causing Benghazi when they cut funding. But why let facts get
in the way of a good rant.
Jeff Gersten
Dec 20, 2012, 1:49:45 PM12/20/12
to
mentions that the republican house of representatives led by the tea
party republican cut the proposed amout appropriated for protecting
foreign embassies.
theget
Dec 20, 2012, 10:39:45 PM12/20/12
to
What I really don't know is if the cuts were an actual cut, because
the word cut as used in DC often has a different meaning than it's
normal every day meaning, and if they had any effect in the Benghazi
deaths.
theget
Dec 20, 2012, 10:43:29 PM12/20/12
to
On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
What would the actual charge be?
> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding? Or is that
some sort of code word for didn't increase it.
Come to it, I don't think we have a budget. If we don't have a budget
how are we paying ambassadors to begin with? So if BO had wanted to
send some military personal on some fast helicopter from somewhere
couldn't he get the money from the same stash he uses to pay the
ambassador's salary?
> But why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
David Johnston
Dec 21, 2012, 1:27:47 AM12/21/12
to
On 12/20/2012 8:43 PM, theget wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
>> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
>
> What would the actual charge be?
>
> Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding?
Here you go.
> On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
>> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
>
> What would the actual charge be?
>
> Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding?
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-libya-security-coll.jpg
The answer is yes, they cut it from what it was immediately before they
took the house although it's still higher than any year before 2009.
Or is that
> some sort of code word for didn't increase it.
>
> Come to it, I don't think we have a budget.
theget
Dec 21, 2012, 2:21:59 PM12/21/12
to
On Dec 21, 1:27 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 12/20/2012 8:43 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
> >> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
>
> > What would the actual charge be?
>
> > Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding?
>
> Here you go.
>
> http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-libya-security-co...
> On 12/20/2012 8:43 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
> >> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
>
> > What would the actual charge be?
>
> > Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding?
>
> Here you go.
>
>
> The answer is yes, they cut it from what it was immediately before they
> took the house although it's still higher than any year before 2009.
Thanks for the link. A quick look suggests it's proportional to other
> The answer is yes, they cut it from what it was immediately before they
> took the house although it's still higher than any year before 2009.
expenses, but I didn't look very hard. So perhaps they were expected
fewer people to need protection?
Besides which, doesn't the thing have to pass both houses? And so
wouldn't at least a few Dems have their hand in the pie?
> > Come to it, I don't think we have a budget.
>
> What gives you that idea?
the current budget?
David Johnston
Dec 21, 2012, 2:56:24 PM12/21/12
to
On 12/21/2012 12:21 PM, theget wrote:
> On Dec 21, 1:27 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2012 8:43 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
>>>> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
>>
>>> What would the actual charge be?
>>
>>> Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding?
>>
>> Here you go.
>>
>> http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-libya-security-co...
>>
>> The answer is yes, they cut it from what it was immediately before they
>> took the house although it's still higher than any year before 2009.
>
> Thanks for the link. A quick look suggests it's proportional to other
> expenses, but I didn't look very hard. So perhaps they were expected
> fewer people to need protection?
>
> Besides which, doesn't the thing have to pass both houses? And so
> wouldn't at least a few Dems have their hand in the pie?
Not really. While the Senate could amend their version of the budget,
> On Dec 21, 1:27 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2012 8:43 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 1:37 pm, Z...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Never mind that republicans should be hauled off to jail for
>>>> causing Benghazi when they cut funding.
>>
>>> What would the actual charge be?
>>
>>> Is it really the case that the Republicans cut funding?
>>
>> Here you go.
>>
>> http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-libya-security-co...
>>
>> The answer is yes, they cut it from what it was immediately before they
>> took the house although it's still higher than any year before 2009.
>
> Thanks for the link. A quick look suggests it's proportional to other
> expenses, but I didn't look very hard. So perhaps they were expected
> fewer people to need protection?
>
> Besides which, doesn't the thing have to pass both houses? And so
> wouldn't at least a few Dems have their hand in the pie?
doing so would require beating the Republican filibuster (which they can
still do just by saying one word) and even if that happened, the
amendment would then have to be kicked back to a committee controlled by
the Republicans to concile the differences between the versions. In the
last few years, the American Senate has become less and less of a factor.
>
>>> Come to it, I don't think we have a budget.
>>
>> What gives you that idea?
>
> Reports I've seen here and there. Can you tell me where I can find
> the current budget?
>
theget
Dec 22, 2012, 1:59:11 PM12/22/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
"If Congress fails to pass an annual budget (as has been the case
since 2009), a series of Appropriations bills must be passed as "stop
gap" measures."
So we don't really have a "budget"? Or we don't have an "annual
budget"?
0 new messages