Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Benghazi 4.0

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 26, 12 at 21:19

"Thomas E. Ricks, the veteran defense reporter and author, said he expected his Monday morning appearance on Fox News to last about three minutes. It ended, in fact, after 90 seconds - his last sentence was a description of the network as "a wing of the Republican Party."

After the interview, a Fox News staffer told Mr. Ricks that he had been rude.

The strange and unusually short interview segment quickly gained the attention of media critics, because criticism of Fox News is rarely aired on Fox News. Mr. Ricks said in an e-mail message afterward that he did not think he was being rude. "I thought I was being honest," he said. "They asked my opinion, and I gave it."

The topic was the attack on the United States's diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Before being thanked and sent on his way, Mr. Ricks said he thought the controversy around the attack was "hyped, by this network especially."

Fox News has devoted far more airtime to the events in Benghazi, on Sept. 11, than other television news networks, with numerous suggestions that the Obama administration is engaged in a cover-up. Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and the anti-Fox group Media Matters, among others, have documented the ups and downs of Fox's reporting on the subject.

"Right now, pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi," the Fox anchor Jon Scott said before tossing to Mr. Ricks, a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter whose latest book, "The Generals," was published last month.

After Mr. Ricks said that he thought that "Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially," Mr. Scott homed in on the word "hype," asking, "When you have four people dead, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?"

Mr. Ricks answered, "How many security contractors died in Iraq? Do you know?"

Mr. Scott said he did not know.

"Nobody does, because nobody cared," Mr. Ricks said. "We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, No. 1, I've covered a lot of firefights, it's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

That was the end of the segment.

"Alright, Tom Ricks, thank you very much for joining us today," Mr. Scott said before his co-anchor tossed to a commercial break.

Mr. Ricks said in his e-mail that "I think the segment was about half as long as planned." In the pre-interview with the producer in charge of the segment, Mr. Ricks expressed his point of view that the Benghazi controversy had been over-covered, "so they shouldn't have been surprised when they pushed back on that, and I defended my position," he said.

The producer, whom Mr. Ricks did not name, told him beforehand that he'd also have a chance to talk about the lack of combat readiness of some Army units, a subject he wrote a blog post about last Friday. "But they seemed to lose interest in that," he said.

Mr. Ricks added, "One reason I spoke the way I did is that the hero of my new book is George Marshall, the Army chief of staff during World War II. He got his position by speaking truth to power, and I try to follow that example."

A Fox News spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether the interview segment was cut short." end quote

Tom Ricks being the guy who we recently discussed as being a bit critical of the military brass in recent years, ie Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to article about how to get booted off of FOX


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I enjoyed hearing him & he made clear what the focus is!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I read this earlier today & wondered if it would be discussed here. Odd, how silent it is here from the Bengazigate theorists.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I scrolled around and found him on MSNBC being interviewed by Ed. He also was featured on Sullivan's blog. So pretty big small story of how not to treat FOX Fantasy Follies, called news and views, fair and balanced.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

After listening to Ricks on the radio, I find out that his best comments were delivered during a TV broadcast.

I heard him interviewed a couple of times regarding his new book. I had hoped he would comment on the Benghazi attacks, but in the one interview he spent the better part of his time bashing General Tommy Franks and his command in Iraq.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I saw this link on Facebook. Love this guy and loved the look in the interviewers face.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Love this. Rude? I think not.

Odd, how silent it is here from the Bengazigate theorists.

Not odd. It didn't work. Obama's approval ratings are rising. So, they've given up (ie, shut up) and are waiting for the next outrage they are supposed to be mad about.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

That's the best moment I've ever seen on Fox News.

Glad I caught it even if it was belated. Thanks, david.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

LOL, no wonder liberals are such a miserable lot. Nothing makes them happy. You say wait for the investigations, don't keep bringing up Benghazi...so ok, Susan Rice is supposed to be meeting with some senators and answering some questions. It hasn't happened yet. We are waiting. Now you are grousing that we aren't posting about Benghazi.
And jill, compared to other presidents like Clinton or Reagan at this point in their presidency, 52% approval isn't much to brag about.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Perhaps not but....it beats Romney's popularity rating all to heck :)


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

compared to other presidents like Clinton or Reagan at this point in their presidency, 52% approval isn't much to brag about.

From someone who kept posting statistics supporting the theory that President Obama would not, could not, be re-elected -- approval ratings too low, unemployment too high, etc.


 o
well RE: Benghazi 4.0

Romney is president chase? LOL, I'll impart a slightly funny story. My mom is 94. A couple of days after the election she said to me..."have you seen the stock market"?
Yeah mom, it's dropping like a rock. She says, " you see what happened when they elected Romney?" Ummm, no Mom, Obama was re-elected. Silence, and change of subject lol.

nancy, I truly believed that Obama could not be re-elected. I truly believe it's a terrible thing for the country that he was. But it is what it is, and I was wrong.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 27, 12 at 9:58

FOX - We Distort, Then Cut Short........Reality.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

No he isn't...his popularity rating didn't cut it.

Just heard that consumer confidence is the highest it's been in 4 years and housing prices are up. I suspect you will see the President's popularity rating rise higher as the economy improves.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

no wonder liberals are such a miserable lot

Wrong. We're a very very happy lot. Have been since Nov 6th. Haven't you been reading here? I'd say we're giddy!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

yup--giddy!

Kate : )


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

LOL the angriest giddy bunch I've ever seen!!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

LOL--mrsk, you just can't give up, can you! That was funny!

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Still doing the happy dance here. Giddy doesn't even describe it.

David...Post the chart you had in the Benghazi 3.0 edition at the very end of the thread . Not a word was said about all the attacks on our embassies except this one because FOX was trying with all the other wingnuts to bring down Obama before the election. Didn't work and I hope Susan Rice is our next SOS.

McCain has had a vendetta against Rice because apparently she worked hard in 2008 to oppose his nomination, but even he is backing off. .


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 27, 12 at 13:03

Yes this episode was handled badly, Obama should have looked to another president on how to handle militant attacks on Americans in the Middle East.

" ....fundamentalist militants attacked the US Marine barracks in Beirut with a truck bomb on October 23, 1983, they killed 241 American servicemen the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility

....two days after the Beirut barracks bombing, Reagan sent 7,000 troops to invade Grenada"

(The Nation)


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

LOL, no wonder liberals are such a miserable lot.

Mrsk, you really are amusing. I get such a kick out of your posts.

You comment is almost as funny as Pat Robertson calling all Atheists "Miserable".

~Ann


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

52% approval isn't much to brag about.

Actually it is. There have been only four Presidents in modern times that have been elected and then re-elected with over 50% of the vote, and Obama is one of the four.

As far as the GOP Senator meeting with Susan Rice Lindsay Graham has demonstrated how partisan and rude he is . He continues to pander to the Southern White folks who hate President and people of color, including Susan Rice.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

heri, there has to be some Klan forum that you can become a part of so you can spread your venom. I can't think of another person on this forum that thinks like you do. Your obsession with race is a little frightening.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

It's true, Mrsk -- there are times when Heri's obsession with race almost approaches the frightening levels of your hateful obsession with Obama.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Since Heri is OBJECTING to the attitudes embraced by the Klan, I don't think he would be very welcome in their circles. In fact, they might consider him a "traitor" to the white race!

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Since Heri is OBJECTING to the attitudes embraced by the Klan, I don't think he would be very welcome in their circles. In fact, they might consider him a "traitor" to the white race!

Then again, they wholeheartedly agree with his hatred of Jews, so they have themselves quite a dilemma!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

His hatred of Jews? I guess I missed all of those posts.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Selective reading is a Hot Topics tradition.

But it's OK, I bet he has a Jewish friend, so he couldn't possibly be racist.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

circuspeanut, I have no obsession with Obama, hateful or otherwise. Did you think George Bush was a good president? If not, was it a hateful obsession? I think Obama is a terrible president. I certainly don't hate him.

Um Kate, I just thought heri might be happier around some real racists, that way all of his accusations would hit their mark. I think you missed the point.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

mrskjun, Maybe I can explain to you why I am not angry.........If Romney had won can you imagine how happy you would you would feel? Well multiply that happy feeling by a thousand.

So angry........ Nooooooo way. I am so happy I am dancing.

Benghazi is a tragedy that the BatCrapCrazy need to wrap around them to help with there depression of losing. I feel very sorry for the parents that have to endure this behavior when they should be healing instead of a Political party and its supporters using them in death to have something hold on to their hate and disappointment.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

The Klan is busy defending christmas.

His hatred of Jews? I guess I missed all of those posts.

So did I.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Defense of Palestinian nationhood does not equal hatred of Jews, or am I missing something, HG? I admit I don't read every thread.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Hokay, "Mrskjun". You don't hate Obama and it's my misperception that virtually every new thread you have begun in the past few years attempts to paint Obama in a bad light, spread nutty rumors about him, or vilify some aspect of his administration. My bad!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

it's my misperception that virtually every new thread you have begun in the past few years attempts to paint Obama in a bad light, spread nutty rumors about him, or vilify some aspect of his administration.

Must be a bi-coastal hallucination that circuspeanut and I are sharing.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Defense of Palestinian nationhood does not equal hatred of Jews, or am I missing something, HG? I admit I don't read every thread.

The hatred of Jews is as evident as a certain set's hatred of black people. Carefully worded statements that cannot mask the hatred evident in the constant criticism. Never misses a chance either. It's almost an obsession with a couple of people... quickly followed by a disclaimer of "but I have jewish friends/ family member".

It's very similar to the "black people/lazy welfare" connection made by some people, quickly followed by a statement about having successful black friend, so what I said wasn't racist. I only meant "some".

The intent is obvious... especially when the barrage is constant from the same person. Or person and their defenders, as the case may be.

And Hot Topics can certainly be a place of selective reading.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

HG, your performance piece would be more entertaining if the script hadn't been used repeatedly by politicos and pundits to shut down public discussion of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Perhaps you are unaware of this drama as it takes place below your southern border.

Just to expand your performance piece to capture all the permutations that the U.S. script has: And how do you know that Heri isn't a 'self-hating Jew?'


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Hardly a performance piece, Nancy... it's just that I have noticed that certain prejudices are more acceptable than others. Perhaps because it is one side of the border vs another but I don't think so.

Unacceptable targets for criticism and bigotry include black people, muslim people, native people and latino people.

Acceptable targets include Jewish people, women, white people and most recently... Mormon people. Oddly, it has been the Liberals who have been targeting Jews and Mormons.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

We definitely read different threads, HG.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

You left out conservative women hg.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Acceptable targets include Jewish people

I strongly disagree - which is why derailing substantive discussions of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is so easy. A claim of anti-Semitism shuts down all conversations even if objections are specifically to the policies of the Likudniks governing Israel. If the critic happens to be Jewish, then the charge of 'self-hating Jew' is tossed out. I've heard a claim that any criticism of Israel is automatically considered anti-Semitic since Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.

Unless you have actually heard debates where this charge is raised (or read op-ed pieces where it is raised) - usually when the defender of an Israeli policy/action feels in a weak position - then I doubt that you have a proper context in which to judge. (Another tactic is to talk over and interrupt the critic of Israeli actions.) Since I don't listen to commercial media, my experience with this narrative is limited to non-commercial, public-ratio stations.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

We definitely read different threads, HG.

We must, Kate.

It struck me as bizzaro world one day when I found myself... an atheist... defending against religious bigotry in the voting booth. Some statements were made by some people that they would not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. How is that any different than the people who would not vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic? Or Obama because he is black? Or Clinton because she is a woman?

Vote for someone because of their political stance... not because of their religion or race or gender.

Full disclosure again... I don't believe in ANY religion. I find them all silly and unbelievable. But if I refused to vote for someone because of their religion...then I would be voting out of hatred and bigotry.

I was disappointed to hear several people in this past election who stated they would not vote for Romney because of his religion.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I strongly disagree - which is why derailing substantive discussions of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is so easy. A claim of anti-Semitism shuts down all conversations even if objections are specifically to the policies of the Likudniks governing Israel.

Nancy,

just so you know where I am coming from, I also believe that Palestine needs it's statehood. I'm also a bit cynical in that I don't believe the Israelis and Palestinians will ever get along. And I disagree with Israeli settlements.

But as Batya pointed out the other day, this is far from being the one-sided, only Israel's fault situation as is so often put forward by certain members here. That's not that I see anti-Semitism in faulting Israel for it's attacks on Palestine. I see anti-Semitism in insisting that Israel is the only one at fault while ignoring or justifying-- even praising-- Palestine's attacks on Israeli civilians.

Both sides are at fault...leadership of both sides. And the civilians will pay the price.

In the meantime, we have certain forum members who insist that the Jews are the bad guys and other forum members who insist it's the Arabs who are the bad guys. Their prejudices are obvious to see for the people who aren't choosing sides.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I see anti-Semitism in insisting that Israel is the only one at fault while ignoring or justifying-- even praising-- Palestine's attacks on Israeli civilians.

I'm not sure that I have ever seen these comments, certainly not any endorsement of civilians being killed on either side. There is one participant that likes to act as a counter-weight to the reporting in the mainstream media, and will push the envelope to make the point.

I'm not sure where anti-Semitism enters the discussion; I see extreme partisanship on both sides. In the U.S. context, one narrative has been that the Arabs are at fault for almost everything. For years this has been what is heard, with change coming only relatively recently. It was not considered anti-Arab in that no one was called on it. Even today it would be rare to have someone called on their blame-the-Arabs stance unless it reached the extreme of the people who Anders Breivik admired- Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Heck, they passed an anti-sharia law in Oklahoma, as if there were a danger of sharia law being instituted anywhere in the U.S. let alone in the reddest of the red states.

In the U.S. during the Cold War, anything other than the strongest criticism possible for the Soviet Union was considered a sign of doubtful patriotism.

Maybe I'm used to the rhetorical extremes found in U.S. political discourse.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

HG, your point was made when the defenders recognized exactly who you were referring to, without you mentioning him by name.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

HG, I just wrote a long response that floated out into cyberspace somehow--and I don't feel like composing another long response, so let me just make a couple quick points.

1. I agree pretty much with Nancy's statement above--but quite frankly I don't know a lot about the Israel-Palestine question to make helpful comments on it. That is why I usually don't get involved in those threads and didn't have the Israel-Palestine dilemma on my mind when you referred to bigotry against Jews.

2. I'm still confused about your statement that "liberals" are prejudiced against Jews and Mormons. That is a totally puzzling statement. Take Mormons first. Liberals would not have voted for Romney no matter what religion he was or wasn't, so whomever you are referring to as not voting for Romney because he is Mormon is more likely to be a right-wing religious fundamentalist Republican--in particular a white evangelical protestant--since they are the ones who tend to think Mormons are some kind of (devil-inspired) "cult." I think you have your political-religious groups all confused on this matter.

3. You may have some other groups all confused also. I've been a liberal in many respects for many, many years, but never have I ever heard that liberals believe that
Acceptable targets include Jewish people, women, white people and most recently... Mormon people. Oddly, it has been the Liberals who have been targeting Jews and Mormons. I have never met a liberal who believes prejudice against any of those groups is OK. Where are you getting this stuff? Most liberals are also ACLU types who support extending rights to everybody!

Back to the Israel-Palistine situation (about which I admitted I know little). Two thoughts occur to me, that I wish they would stop killing each other (says the Irishwoman who knows her ancestors relationship with the British) and, as circuspeanut observed, "Defense of Palestinian nationhood does not equal hatred of Jews--if that is what this argument is really about.

I think you are really mis-reading the allegiances and beliefs of some posters, HG.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

LL-"HG, your point was made when the defenders recognized exactly who you were referring to, without you mentioning him by name."

HG's post "Since Heri is OBJECTING to the attitudes embraced by the Klan, I don't think he would be very welcome in their circles. In fact, they might consider him a "traitor" to the white race!
Then again, they wholeheartedly agree with his hatred of Jews, so they have themselves quite a dilemma!"

Heri's name is in the quote above her statement. It is not tricky to see who she was talking about.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

sums it up....


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I'm still confused about your statement that "liberals" are prejudiced against Jews and Mormons.

I forgot to address the allegation about prejudice against Mormons. There was only one person on HT, that I observed, who made derogatory comments about Mormons. However, a number of us commented on the trouble that the GOP religious base had with Romney's religion. Rick Perry played on this prejudice when he was the GOP candidate du jour of the hour. Santorum as well; he may be Catholic but that beats being a Mormon. iirc, there was a decrease in turn out of fundamentalist Protestant voters for the November election which some pundits interpreted as ambivalence towards Romeny's religion (although a case could be made for his being perceived as not a 'true' conservative).

As far as targeting Heri, I had another HT regular in mind, ever the contrarian, who rarely dances around the Israel/Palestine question.

If HG is tailoring her argument to fit one particular HT regular, then I'm out of this discussion.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

2. I'm still confused about your statement that "liberals" are prejudiced against Jews and Mormons. That is a totally puzzling statement. Take Mormons first. Liberals would not have voted for Romney no matter what religion he was or wasn't, so whomever you are referring to as not voting for Romney because he is Mormon is more likely to be a right-wing religious fundamentalist Republican--in particular a white evangelical protestant--since they are the ones who tend to think Mormons are some kind of (devil-inspired) "cult." I think you have your political-religious groups all confused on this matter.

There were a couple of threads here where a few liberal posters on this forum stated that they would not vote for Romney because of his religion, not his politics.

In fact, there was one Mormon scare-mongering thread where you piped up to say that you did not care about his religion, only his politics. And that was a Democrat you were talking to. Heri also said he would not vote for a Mormon, along with the demonization of Mormons. I would place Heri as a liberal, albeit a warmongering liberal.

And it is funny you used the word "cult". Search the forum for "Mormon" and "Cult" and the same couple of names pop up over and over smearing Mormonism as a cult. Those names are of liberal posters.

To your credit, you have been in a couple of those threads arguing against smearing Mormons like that.

I think that Mormon people have become innocent casualties in this recent election battle against Romney. In an effort to do anything to smear him, some people have villified an entire group based solely on sharing the same religion as Romney. Guilt by association.

In some cases, the same people who fought so hard against villifying ALL muslims are now doing the same thing to Mormons.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Well, I looked up a couple of the threads you referred to, and I guess I can see why you think a couple posters are anti-Mormon--although I'm not sure why you think at least one of them is liberal (or do you mean all Democrats are liberal? I don't think so.).

However, what I see as I quickly scan over a couple threads (I'm not going to re-read them in detail) is more attention to the issue of "separation of church and state" --the 1st Amendment. Repeatedly posters are saying that if Romney's decisions as president would be shaped by his Mormon faith, they wouldn't vote for him. That isn't the same as saying I'm prejudiced against Mormons and therefore won't vote for anyone who is a Mormon.

I honestly couldn't see much in the 3 threads I skimmed that fits into your characterization. And I tend to feel that if one or two people say questionable things and all the other posters say No, that's not right, that thread is not a highly prejudiced thread or the posters in general (or liberals in general) are prejudiced people. I think you are over-reacting to 1 or 2 exceptions.

But I suppose I probably do that sometimes on other topics that I hold dear--as do many others on their special topics. Perhaps a human weakness?

Well, not really worth arguing over since we'd have to go back and dissect looooong threads --which I have no desire to do--but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain what you were referring to so that I could at least better understand what you were talking about.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

mrskjun:
I am always amused at your projection about racism.
Do you realize that a greater percentage of white voters in your age range in Louisiana voted against Obama than the percentage of African Americans that voted for him? Well over 90%. If you want to deny that race was a factor in that, you are part of the problem.

I am looking forward to another 4 years of having President Obama in office and watching those who cannot accept a black President writhe and squirm. Sometimes I wish Obama would really shock the intolerant by growing a big fro, putting a pick in the back of it, and giving press conferences with rap music playing in the background. As it is, I think many of them see him in that way.

HG:

You seem to be very sensitive about Mormonism and the jabs taken at Romney during the campaign. Similarly, Chase wanted the other Mormon, Jon Huntsman, because according to him/her, Obama was too divisive.

I never read much about Mormonism before Romney and Huntsman ran for President. I did then because for me personally, a candidate's religious views are relevant to my own decision abput who to vote for.

I recall posting about the fact that the Jesus of Christianity is quite different than the Jesus that Mormons believe in, and I linked up to a website than explained the different beliefs. I also opined, as I recall, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and there is much evidence to support that.

As far as Romney, good riddance. He is gone and soon will be forgotten.
The fact that Mormonism is a bit cult-y is certainly not the main reason he lost by over 3 Million votes.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Heri is right. Romney didn't lose because he's a Mormon. No liberal would ever think of voting for Mitt. It has nothing to do with his religion. But on the next block , there lives a very right wing Christian family who had a Santorum sign out during the primary season. They always have political signs out but nothing for Romney. They put a "Don't Tread on me" sign out. I know they hate Obama.

About Benghazi which is the topic of this thread on it's 4th run to 150. I finally figured it out with the help of Rachael Maddow. John McCain who appears to be veering towards senility and Lindsey Graham are singing the same chorus about Susan Rice. Know why? Because they want John Kerry to be SOS. Even McCain admitted it. Then they can have the loser Scott Brown run for his seat and get another senate seat for the GOP> Totally makes sense. I actually thought of that when Kerry's name was mentioned. I thought... we don't want to lose him in the Senate , but I didn't put Brown's name in the equation.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

McCain issue has so many reasons for his stupidity and it is ego and political. Benghazi he thinks is going to be his saving grace. It is only at this height to Fox & their BatCrapCrazy Friends and McCain.

Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), should really be careful. Women are not important in the Conservative world. She will be called the "Little Woman" next. Maybe she knows her place and does not have a problem being the "Little Woman" since she is a conservative running behind McCain and Lindsey. She stands behind them when they talk but when she get to the mike they kick dust in her face as they walk away. There is no sight of McCain and Lindsey standing behind her hanging onto her every word.

It is a shame that they feel they need to do it on the grave of 4 people that served our country.

In January, the Arizona senator will lose his top-ranking committee seat due to term limits. The only ranking Republican spot available to him next session will be on the Indian Affairs Committee.

Here is a link that might be useful: McCain looking for a life line


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

"Similarly, Chase wanted the other Mormon, Jon Huntsman, because according to him/her, Obama was too divisive. "

You are wrong about that Heri but I don't ever expect you to see it.

I simply said that I thought the Republicans would have their best shot at defeating President Obama if they chose Huntsman as their candidate. I thought then, and still think, he was the most moderate, best qualified candidate they had in that circus of a primary. His problem.....too moderate.

I never said I wanted him to win the Presidency and I certainly did not say it was because the President was divisive.

Heri, in my view you really are way too sensitive about comments made about the President. It is possible to admire him , which I do, be supportive of him, which I am, but not agree with every utterance or action.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

My age range heri? What would you know about my age range? Sometimes I have to admit, you creep me out with some of your personal observances about posters.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I suspect we all, from time to time, make some assumptions about the age range (and other characteristics) of certain posters, depending on how they respond to questions or the kinds of references they sometimes make. I don't think there is anything "creepy" about that.

Sometimes it is amusing how far off base some of those assumptions turn out to be when they are actually articulated in a post.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Wed, Nov 28, 12 at 10:24

Benghazi and Susan Rice's Sunday Morning appearances are a difficult topic for me. I have such a HUGE crush on her I think it may be clouding my judgement. I can barely wait until she is president.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Well, let's hold off for at least 4 years, kwoods--OK?

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I can barely wait until she is president.

You may be joking but it is being floated. Especially because of the media coverage, Exposure is not bad....recognition is key. She is being elevated now higher than her position by being held responsible for Benghazi.

They are talking Connie Rice for President and she was responsible for many soldiers dying.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Wed, Nov 28, 12 at 10:59

I am certainly NOT joking. I first stated I thought she would make a great president at least 4 years ago on this forum. She is as tough and as intelligent as they come. She will give Hillary a run for her money in the primaries.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I am certainly NOT joking.

Well I bow to you for your perception of recognizing the talent and the future of what is possible.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

"Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), should really be careful. Women are not important in the Conservative world. She will be called the "Little Woman" next."

LOL! The president wasn't talking about "little woman" Ayotte when he said "If you want to come after someone, come after me."


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

The )President wasn't talking about any "little woman" when he said that.

Just an ugly Republican spin on his taking responsibility for what was released to the public. As I said before, if he hadn't I'm sure it would have been said he threw her under the bus.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

"The )President wasn't talking about any "little woman" when he said that."

Nobody was, until Marquest brought it up.

I'm confident that both Susan Rice and Sen. Ayotte are up to the task of dealing with their critics, all by themselves.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

ooh, nothing like a nice shot of misogyny right before cocktail hour. Thanks Nik!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

At the risk of being berated by Demi for my choice of words...I'm pretty sure it was Mrs ,not Marquest , who introduced the "little woman" reference which was straight from the Fox news site.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

"The )President wasn't talking about any "little woman" when he said that."
Nobody was, until Marquest brought it up.

I was parroting one of your Republican women talking points. I assume it works for Republican women because they are not aware "Little Woman" is not a effective argument of the situation.. I assume they are kept in the kitchen hidden behind the apron so they do not understand that end of the business world.

Nik
I want you to watch if your news station shows the three come out and speak about this incident. There have been three incidents when these three came out to speak against Rice.

Everytime.....McCain spoke first then Lindsey, During both their talks there stood McCain and Lindsey with Kelly Ayotte standing behind them dutifully waiting her turn to speak. When she steps up to the mike those two men just walk very fast away.

Where are these two when Ayotte steps up to the mike? She is a background music tune for them to walk/run away. They total forget she is part of their take down Rice team.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Actually it was me who felt like Obama was treating Rice like " the little woman", who needed his protection. You remember Obama? The one who called the female reporter sweetie!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

You remember Obama? The one who called the female reporter sweetie!

You remember that he was criticized in HT for doing that?


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Number one story on Fox News right now - Susan Rice. Not the fiscal cliff, but Susan Rice. Keep up the noise!


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

FOX already has the lede for the Fiscal Cliff. It is all Obama's fault; a failure of leadership by a distracted and ill-qualified social*ist* worker.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Nahh marshall, Obama is hitting the campaign trail. He plans to do what he does best, give speeches. Sure wouldn't want to stay in Washington and try to work out a deal.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Mrskjun, he doesn't need to be physically present to make deals. Most of the hard work is always delegated to staff at both ends of the Capitol. I'm sure you've heard or read about this telecommunications revolution with hand-held devices having the capacity vastly superior to those available to Clinton.

No wonder the Republicans lost; too retro and too daunted by the process to hire competent staff. :)


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 29, 12 at 9:29

Yeah I saw where Fox was labeling Obama going directly to the people as a "campaign trail". He won, get over it. Lighting a fire under the repubs via the people is the only way to work out a "deal" with them, otherwise it's their way or the highway. Fox loves to put Obama in a box, he's either in the DC bubble or he's still out "campaigning". Not even given a thin line to walk. Repub politicians are just a sorry bunch of bad losers. Their definition of good sportsmanship is winning and nothing else. They are ugly Americans even at home.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Vgkg, I am in full agreement with your statement. The Repubs have nothing to fear but themselves.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Lighting a fire under the repubs via the people is the only way to work out a "deal" with them

If President Obama looks to be successful in taking his plan to the people, expect the attacks to intensify - Why isn't he in DC where he's needed!!!! (instead of kicking our collective rear with approval from the public).


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Lest you forget, Obama wasn't the only one re-elected.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Hmmm...just curious...did you say the same things when GWB was at his ranch clearing brush for a good part of his presidency? Somehow I doubt it, but feel free to point me to those posts so I don't think you're a hypocrite.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 29, 12 at 5:25

Nahh marshall, Obama is hitting the campaign trail. He plans to do what he does best, give speeches. Sure wouldn't want to stay in Washington and try to work out a deal.

Vgkg, I saw that too. They shared a clip on MSNBC last night from Fox News and Mrsk's comment is surprising similar to what was said. Something along the lines of Obama out campaigning when he should be in a room doing his job. I thought it was ridiculous when I heard it the first time. And more so the second.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

And more so the second.

.. and the third, fourth, fifth...

If we're in for another four years of constant sniping from the GOP, I wish that they would at least show a bit of clever originality.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Lest you forget, Obama wasn't the only one re-elected.

Yes, but he is the President that was re-elected. Everyone has their job. He presented his plan it is up to Congress and the Senate to work out how to pay for the plan.

I saw Mitch McConnell turtle man on the news saying Obama should be in Washington yesterday and I laughed. He still has not learned he could not make him a one term President he is not going to stop him from making this country successful again.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Actually, my advice to the republicans is to pull an Obama...just vote present for everything and let the chips fall where they may.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Actually, my advice to the republicans is to pull an Obama...just vote present for everything and let the chips fall where they may.

Is that what you voted for your Representative to do? I would hope at some point the stupidity stops and this country gets back to on her feet. With adults not acting like grade school kids. You did this and I am going to stick my tongue out at you. It is silly and immature.

I would hope if they do not agree they say they do not and offer a viable alternative. If they agree then vote accordingly.

Do you not agree that the position the country is in now that we need adults working to fix the problem? You lost get on with business is what I am saying to the Republican leaders and their supporters.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

To pull an Obama is to behave like an astute politician facing a recalcitrant Republican opposition in Congress.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Hey, voting "present" and being less than stellar as a senator catapulted Obama into the Presidency--or was it something else?

Salesmanship.
I'll hand him that.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Yes Demi I agree he is becoming a successful President. I love that he was able to get Health Care through it is great that it has been named ObamaCare.

Past presidents who attempted to pass health care reform include, but not limited to, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Yes, two GOP presidents, Eisenhower and Nixon attempted to do it.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Snipe snipe snipe. Doesn't it get old, Demi?

In the meantime, the misunderstanding over the CIA's presentation of the Benghazi incident has been settled, consumer confidence is booming, and the housing market is raring to go again.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Ricks was subsequently invited onto MSNBC, and .....

MSNBC invited me, but I said, '"You're just like Fox, but not as good at it." They wrote back and said, "Thank you for your candor.'"

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

No one could be as good as Fox. They have no relationship with any part of truth. MSNBC try to include truth with their argument.

Fox will pull a tale from the sky to make whatever they are pushing at the time.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 29, 12 at 16:04

"Actually, my advice to the republicans is to pull an Obama...just vote present for everything and let the chips fall where they may."

That's a darn good idea Mrskjun!, I could go for that deal too. They'd still collect their paychecks for doing nothing, but we'd get more for the money when they officially get out of the way.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

David, someone probably mentioned this, too, but when Fox claimed on air that Ricks had apologized for his "rudeness", Ricks called this "horseshit", he never said such a thing.

Gotta love a closed circle news show!

Here is a link that might be useful: ricks interview on huffington post


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on Thu, Nov 29, 12 at 16:09

"David, someone probably mentioned this, too, but when Fox claimed on air that Ricks had apologized for his "rudeness", Ricks called this "horseshit", he never said such a thing."

From CP's link:

"Ricks hammered the point home when speaking with HuffPost Live's Ahmed Shihab-Eldin. In response to Clemente's statement indicating that Ricks "apologized" after the interview, "ignored the anchor's question," and doesn't have "the strength of character to [apologize] publicly," Ricks had one thing to say: "that's horseshit.""

It's not clear which was "horseshit"--"Ricks "apologized" after the interview," "ignored the anchor's question," or "doesn't have "the strength of character to [apologize] publicly." Maybe all of it; we don't know.

Ricks did say that (privately): "Later, as I was leaving, the booker or producer (I am not sure what her title was) said she thought I had been rude. I said I might have been a bit snappish because I am tired of book tour. This was in no way an apology..." (Politico)

Sounds like a misunderstanding. Like that never happens here on HT ;D


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

I often wonder about some of the outrageous statements which are posted here by the Righities and wonder where in the world this came from. Then all I have to do is check in at Fox, and it's clear as a bell. It's the mission of the day, the talking points, the subject du jour.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

lily, if it weren't for all the lefties on here that religiously watch FOX, I wouldn't know half of what they say. I do watch FOX, and CNN, and ABC. I find that the "news" is pretty much the same on all. I find MSNBC just plain nutty.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Even during WW I there was a Christmas truce, but maybe that was a more civilized time...


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

"Actually it was me who felt like Obama was treating Rice like " the little woman", who needed his protection."

Yep. When your boss doesn't think you're up to defending yourself from the opposition party at home, he can't be serious about making you Sec. of State.

Unless, that is, your "job" is to be a mere figurehead/conduit for whatever propaganda is on the administration's agenda. Going on five Sunday talk shows and insisting Americans died in a "spontaneous" 9/11 attack would be a heck of an audition.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

If one of the demographics where the GOP lost heavily was with women, and another of the demographics where the GOP lost heavily was with minorities, then clearly the best thing to do next is try to use some transparent, lame excuse to attack an highly qualified minority woman.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Nik do you remember Condi Rice and McCain, Lindsey times?

If you watch this I believe you will re-think your position on talking point.

Here is a link that might be useful: McCain


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 30, 12 at 11:44

For those who will not bother to 'click' on Marquest's link, here is what McCain said about Rice.

McCain took a far different approach to another Rice in 2005. When President George W. Bush nominated National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the post, McCain defended the nomination, despite Rices central role in spreading the false intelligence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats held hours of hearing and ultimately confirmed Rice, but not before McCain accused the opposition of using politics to delay her confirmation and challenging her "integrity":

McCAIN: Condoleezza Rice is a great American success story. This is what America is all about. A young woman who grew up in a segregated part of America where Americans were not treated equally, to rise to the position of secretary of state. We should have been celebrating, I believe, this remarkable American success story.

Also, I thought that some of the remarks and Im not going to mention my colleagues names some of the remarks aimed at her during the hearings challenged her integrity. We can disagree on policy and we disagree on a lot of things, but I think it is very clear that Condoleezza Rice is a person of integrity. And yes, I see this, some lingering bitterness over a very tough campaign. I hope it dissipates soon.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ooops


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

Ohio, thank you for finding that link.

What amazes me that if anyone said say Demi, Nik or Msk is not smart, they would be offended but because it is someone from the party they support it is okay to speak of a educated, accomplished woman in that manner is acceptable. Even if she was not accomplished there is a expectation of respect for people male or female.

If anyone cannot see that I feel sorry for your thoughts that you have for yourself as a woman/your female relatives or a man that cares/should care about women or any other person male or female doing their job.

I wonder how he would feel if someone went on Sunday TV shows and said his daughter Megan McCain was not Smart.

I have no respect for this man or his band of merry men and his weak woman that is standing at his side. I hope NH remembers her actions next election.

Sad little puppets will defend anything.


 o
RE: Benghazi 4.0

What I find interesting is how the "anti Rice" crowd keep transitioning their argument from one issue to another as facts come out.

First she was guilty of being part of a cover up....when that was debunked she was guilty of deliberately lying to the American people....when that proved false she is guilty of not asking the CIA the hard questions to get at the truth...now it is because she showed imprudence by allowing herself to take a political role just weeks before the election.....

Coincidentally the "anti Rice" crowd here has the same arguments in the same order....FOX must lurk on HT !

On this forum some weeks ago someone mentioned her as a likely candidate to replace Hilary Clinton. At that time I said her involvement in Benghazi would make that a non starter. Now I really hope the President shows some brass and nominates her. This isn't about Benghazi , it's about Kerry's Senate seat!


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here