Republicans should apologize to Susan Rice

[GLOBALIST]

Susan Rice should apologize to the United Nations for being a cunt

[Alias]

On 5/19/2013 7:03 PM, GLOBALIST wrote:
> Susan Rice should apologize to the United Nations for being a cunt
>

How *Christian* of you.

--
Alias

[Robert]

On May 19, 12:03 pm, GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Susan Rice should apologize to the United Nations for being a cunt

All that she, or any of the people involved in the four ongoing
scandals
had to do was simply say who gave them the message to present.
By refusing to give the name of the person(s) who handed them the
paper to use she, and all the others, have kept themselves in the
limelight.
I think that Ms Rice was only doing what she was told to do, and
I cana't fault her for that. But refusing to help identify the source
is
in my opinion "obstruction of justice" and can come back to bite her.

Nobody much cares about the low level "worker bees"... The goal is
to find out where the information presented came from, or who
originated the commands for the actions taken.... They WILL be
found out, sooner or later. Looks to me that Ms Rice threw herself
under the bus by being silent.....

[GLOBALIST]

She has arrogantly and frequently stormed out of the UN chamber
when ANY of Israel's war crimes are addressed. That makes
the US the laughing stock of the entire world and our
credibility with any of the other Middle Eastern nations
is a joke to them. Why would they listen to anything
we stay when we lie about that situation?

[BIG BIRD]

"GLOBALIST" <free....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1eebe556-1b0c-4611...@googlegroups.com...
: Susan Rice should apologize to the United Nations for being a cunt
:


she will as soon as you do, you go first

[BIG BIRD]

"Robert" <jungl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:173b9ffd-b418-437c...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

:
:


you low life, trailer trash hillbillies have been looking for something,anything
to pin
on Obama for 5 years

why do you retarded,lard assed, rich men's dirty.slimy,stinkin dick suckers
think you're ever going to succeed ?

you're losers, always have been, always will be

you dick suckin cunts are going down again, and I don't mean down on another
rotten,smelly old dick,


LMAO

although you would prefer that

suck the rich man's dick boy, someday he'll make you as rich as he is and yall
gonna be able
to move out that bedbug and roach infested trailer

[BIG BIRD]

"GLOBALIST" <free....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:857b85ba-66a8-4a21...@googlegroups.com...

: On Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:41:06 PM UTC-5, Robert wrote:
: > On May 19, 12:03 pm, GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:

: >
: >
: > found out, sooner or later. Looks to me that Ms Rice threw herself

: >
: > under the bus by being silent.....
:
: She has arrogantly and frequently stormed out of the UN chamber
: when ANY of Israel's war crimes are addressed. That makes
: the US the laughing stock of the entire world and our
: credibility with any of the other Middle Eastern nations
: is a joke to them. Why would they listen to anything
: we stay when we lie about that situation?

:


right, she's just another nigger which riles your
lame,useless,worthless,non-achieving antique,hillbilly ass up

[Islander]

Oh good grief! You clearly do not understand how things happen in a
bureaucracy where everyone has to reach consensus before any public
statement is made. What happened here is that the various agencies
needed to come to agreement on what to say publicly. Principle among
these are the CIA and State, but they are not the only parties. It is
likely that the CIA did not want to compromise information about why
they had more personnel in Benghazi than State had diplomatic personnel
and State had to be sensitive to the new Libyan government which had the
responsibility for protecting the diplomatic mission. So, the statement
had to be scrubbed to eliminate any reference to these sensitivities.
The result was the fairly bland statement that Rice made. So much for
the content that anyone who appeared in public would cover. Who picked
Rice? That was probably a decision by State. She was picked because
she is smart enough to not deviate from the message and is relatively
well liked by the public.

This is life in the bureaucracy. One can try to turn it into a scandal,
but essentially there is no there there.

It is a shame that the Republicans built this into an issue where it
destroyed her chances to become SecState. She is more qualified than
Kerry, IMO, and we are now denied the benefit of her talent. The
scandal here is that the Republicans sacrificed a good person to pursue
political aims. It didn't harm Obama and now it will not harm Hillary
Clinton. She is probably the most experienced person in handling
scandals in the government today. She eats scandals for breakfast!

[Islander]

On 5/20/2013 8:32 AM, Em...@nospam.com wrote:

> I don't understand how this, which seems so obvious to me, has not
> been mentioned anywhere. But I confess that I've been so turned off
> by all this pointless brouhaha about "scandals" that I haven't watched
> my usual raft of political shows for the last week or so, so perhaps
> it has been noted but I just missed it.

There is an expression for what has happened here that escapes me for
the moment, but it is about defining a conclusion and then attempting to
find justification for that conclusion. The Republicans do not want to
find out the cause of the deaths in Benghazi, they only want to find a
way to blame Obama (and now Clinton) for Benghazi. If they were really
interested in finding the cause, they would consider the cuts in the
State budget that limited what could be done, not only in Benghazi but
in many other diplomatic installations around the world.

>
>> Who picked
>> Rice? That was probably a decision by State. She was picked because
>> she is smart enough to not deviate from the message and is relatively
>> well liked by the public.
>>
>> This is life in the bureaucracy. One can try to turn it into a scandal,
>> but essentially there is no there there.
>>
>> It is a shame that the Republicans built this into an issue where it
>> destroyed her chances to become SecState. She is more qualified than
>> Kerry, IMO, and we are now denied the benefit of her talent. The
>> scandal here is that the Republicans sacrificed a good person to pursue
>> political aims. It didn't harm Obama and now it will not harm Hillary
>> Clinton. She is probably the most experienced person in handling
>> scandals in the government today. She eats scandals for breakfast!
>

> I agree.
>

[GLOBALIST]

================

This is life in the bureaucracy

You basically have the same excuse that the Nazis used at Nuremberg.
How was I to know, I was only following orders.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 9:40:30 AM UTC-7, GLOBALIST wrote:
> This is life in the bureaucracy
>
> You basically have the same excuse that the Nazis used at Nuremberg.
> How was I to know, I was only following orders.

No it's not. There is a huge difference between giving talking points
one believes to be true and killing people. The Nuremberg trials were
about killing people. The argument being given was they thought killing
people was legal if done by the government but they should have known
that geneocide would not be considered legal by the world.

Has the Republican party become so silly as to equate talking about
something after the fact with killing people?