Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I don't expect anything. I'll state, there are times that Fox News reports on something, and does a good job. As a liberal, there are some times that I'll agree with some of their opinionators (not that clown Hannity. O'Reilly can actually be okay - although he was much better a decade or so ago than he is now).
I'll give anything a chance, unless it comes from an extremely disreputable source, like Breitbart.com or Rush Limbaugh. But Judge whoever went on a nice long rant where she repeatedly shouted "Fact!" , and then followed it up with a falsehood, and that deserves to be written about here.
(And she does it after I stopped my writeup as well, but at that point, I had given up)
I stop watching once she tried to draw us into here rant by talking about her life.
She's the one going under the bus but wasn't ultimately responsible for the changes/lies (by omission) spread from top officials in the administration.
It would be tragic to see someone like that take the fall for what is very clearly coming from higher-ups.
She's just ANOTHER person who will be thrown under the bus, as was Petreaus, and a few other people who protected the administration. How long will she take the heat for the administration before they cut her loose? And once that happens will she tell the truth?
Petreaus lied under oath during a hearing and covered for the administration only for them to screw over him after his testimony where they released the scandal, disgraced a decorated general and forced him to resign. It is only recently he has come out with the truth behind a closed door hearing. Is this Petreaus covering himself in case the WH tries to implicate him directly in this mess since it appears that the WH is throwing the blame on the CIA? They already threw him under the bus once. He has nothing to lose at this stage by telling the truth.
What is tragic is that that WH uses people to do the dirty work and cover for them so they don't have to get their own hands dirty and once those people have served their purpose they are disposed of like garbage.
Susan Rice was speaking directly for the president of the United States, when she made those statements on all those Sunday shows. There is no way in hell someone as low on the totem pole as Nuland would be allowed to make all any changes on her own.
Something this important, putting out the official White house description of the attacks, definitely involved the president. He sure as hell would never put up with bogus talking points that made him look like an ass on national TV and international cable channels.
Susan Rice didn't have a clue as to the content of the TPs she was handed and briefed on. She was told to read it and repeat it. Nuland may not have "hands on" involvement in the revisions, but I'm sure as the messenger for the Oval Office, she contributed a considerable amount of "suggestions" as to what the TPs were to reflect.
Are you saying that the CIA put together bogus talking points and that was the reason the original version had to be scrubbed and remove 2/3s of the content?? Are you serious? Using the TPs that the WH constructed, and Obama approving them, which S Rice was told to repeat on his behalf, made him look like an ass.
I think Obama was more concerned about the truth coming out and looking like an (inept) ass(hole) on national TV and international cable.
Either way, using the CIA version or the scrubbed version, you get the same result, he looks like an ass.
Obama said act of terror the day after the attack all of you right wing nut job act like he never said it here you go proof that you have been brainwashed by Faux Snooze to many times to count
Republicans need to stop wasting time and taxpayer money on this asinine witch hunt and get back to fixing real issues like the sequester taxes and loopholes
They got a warning about the demonstrations in Cairo and had their people not go to work the next day.
So they knew about movie protests but not a terrorist attack.
This may have looked like a random attack by a mob- but I doubt it. The movie issue was just a minor blip on the screen. In my estimation this was a planned attack motivated by an organized so-called terror group. They were not killed out of sheer mob spite. This was planned. The mob atmosphere simply provided an opportunity to carry out the assassinations.
You have to remember when there is a flair up. it is incited by shrewd jerks with a political motivation. Most people are slightly stupid and can be controlled by emotions such as hate and rage. Those who are in control are not emotional but very cool and calculating. Perhaps the intelligence provided the White House was just not that intelligent. I doubt very much that Hillary or Obama are really that street smart to begin with...it that is the case then those who they appoint to gather intelligence were probably poor choices.
The SEALS are ready to go at a moments notice. Obama used them to kill Osama so why not here? The WH version never made any sense.
Where were they coming from, how many?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
