16 Thoughts to “Old guys who get us into wars go after Susan Rice”

  1. Elena

    Rice vs Rice, OMG, this is painful to watch. McCain and Grahm must HATE Stewart. I mean, come on folks (as in GOP), you must realize how vapid your points are in compariso to the yellow cake and centerfuge fiasco of Iraq!

  2. Of course, everyone that hates him here will just blindly disregard this, but here’s more reasons that they don’t like Rice….its not just her misstatements about Benghazi. She has a long history of incompetence.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/27/Top-Ten-Reasons-to-Oppose-Susan-Rice

    And…which “old guy” up there “got us into wars?” I seem to remember a whole bunch of Democrats voting for use of force.

  3. How quickly Graham and McCain attack S. Rice and give a pass to C. Rice who did drop the ball and tell a few falsehoods over the WMD that didn’t exist that sent us to Iraq.

    Do these guys have no shame?

    Guess not.

    Elena and I howled over Jon Stewart who turned 50 yesterday.

  4. Elena

    Boy, I wish people here would address the topic at hand, that would be so wonderful for a change

  5. @Cargosquid

    Yea right, like we want to hear what Brietbart says. Isn’t that AH dead?

    She apparently was critical of McCain during the 2008 cam[paign and I guess his wittle bitty feelings got hurt. He hasn’t gotten over it.

    IF she WAS incompetent then let’s discuss that incompetence 20 years ago under Clinton at an appropriate time. It doesn’t have one G D thing to do with her appearing on the Sunday talk shows.

    Where is the accountability for the other Rice getting up and lying like a dog about weapons of masds destruction that didn’t exist? Why can’t those 2 nasty old men hold her to the same standard? No, they WHINED about how poor Condie was treated.

    I can’t stand those two old buzzards now. McCain’s daughter even sounds like a Valley girl now.

  6. @Moon-howler
    What lies were those? Please, enlighten me.

  7. kelly_3406

    The key difference between the two Rices is that Condi did NOT lie. Here is an article and link to a document in which the CIA admits that it assessed Iraq WMD wrong and why it was so. Political pressure from the Bush Administration was not the issue.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/a_classified_CIA_mea_culpa_on_iraq%20

    So this is quite different from Benghazi, no matter how Jon Stewart makes it look.

  8. @kelly_3406
    Of course, Saddam DID have chemical WMD and he was ready to start a nuke program as soon as the UN dropped sanctions…. but that’s not important.

    1. Where are they? Show me the WMD. No, it really isn’t very important because it doesn’t exist.

      ^The entire invasion of another country was built on LIES. Yet these hypocrites publically bash the UN Ambassador while giving a pass to the OTHER Rice who flat out lied to the American people? Maybe she was just given bad information. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. That more than those nasty Old Men are willing to give Susan Rice.

  9. Oh..ok. Lies.

    Tell that to the gassed Marsh Arabs and Kurds. Tell that to the Iranians. If it was lies, and we knew it, then why did we actually spend weeks in MOPP gear?

    Lies. Ok. Believe what you want.

    Those “nasty old men” are treating her like any other “old man” that didn’t do her due diligence and repeated false stories after the facts were known and won’t reveal who told her to do that or who cut the actual intel from her reports. Maybe she did get some bad intel. The CIA says that the bad intel did not come from her and she refuses to say.

    You really do have a problem, it seems, with Congressional oversight. Unless, of course, its a Republican doing something.

    1. Let’s make it simple…What did the nasty old men say about Condie Rice when she lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction.

      Check out the video if you want to know the answer.

  10. kelly_3406

    @Cargosquid

    Actually, Cargo, please take a look at the link in my post above. A recently declassified CIA report reveals that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD by the time of the invasion in 2003. The CIA explained in the report that it assessed the secretive, deceptive behavior of the Iraqis during UN inspections as evidence that the Iraqis were hiding WMD rather than carrying on as the paranoid regime that it was.

    It is fascinating reading. It also shows that the Bush Administration did not lie, but rather acted on flawed intelligence.

    That’s why there should be an investigation of the Benghazi attack: to sort out the relative roles of bad security, flawed intelligence, and poor decision-making.

  11. Elena

    Oh good lord, the you know what is gettin deep around here! So, flawed intelligence for CR is ok but not for SR?

    Do you hear how silly that sounds Kelly?

  12. @kelly_3406
    That’s exactly right. AND don’t forget, during the months of lead up the attack, 100’s of heavy trucks were seen heading into Syria.

    Hey…lookithat! Syria has WMD. Fancy that.

  13. @Elena
    Except that SR did not have flawed intel. The administration knew from the first day that the attack was not due to the protests. The actual intel was removed from her statements and the administration refuses to answer the question of who did that. The CIA states that they gave her the real story of terrorists attacking.

    Why are you guys NOT interested in the truth?

  14. middleman

    @kelly_3406

    Actually, Kelly, there IS an investigation of Benghazi going on right now, but why would Mc Cain and crew wait for facts before jumping in- they never have before. I especially like the effort they’ve made to try to make themselves look less biased by including a token younger female in their greek chorus of old has-beens.

    This is a transparent effort on the part of Republicans to get John Kerry out of the Senate. It would also get McCain back on some sort of committee, since he’s been largely irrelevant for some time now…

Comments are closed.