Republican senators troubled after Rice meeting

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 0


    Where'd they get the woman? - She must have been promised something big for joining this sorry team. (Good thing she's not a House member: Boehner just announced the GOP committee chair recommendations for the 113th Congress, and you guessed it: all white, all male.)

    They remind me a bit of Jake from the Blues Brothers:

    Elwood: It's got a cop motor, a 440-cubic-inch plant. It's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters, so it'll run good on regular gas. What do you say? Is it the new Bluesmobile or what?

    Jake: Fix the cigarette lighter.

    They will never be satisfied.

  • 0


    Rice was simply repeating what was reported to her. There was no selling. There was no incentive to sell. To those that oppose her: list a legitimate reason or get out of the way. Important items lay on the agenda.

  • 2


    Some Democratic lawmakers have said the criticism of Rice, who is black, has racial overtones.

    Then how do they explain Condi Rice? Same Last name, same ethnicity, same position.

  • 2



    "discuss her explanations of the deadly Sept 11, 2001 raid on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans"

    Was that not 2012?

  • -1


    "Then how do they explain Condi Rice? Same Last name, same ethnicity, same position."

    More to the point how do the Republican dinosaurs explain their lack of outrage of the lies and deception fed to the American people over the Repulicans invasion of Iraq?

    Fair enough McCain has senile dementia. But what about the others and their faux, partisan "outrage"?

  • -1


    Rice was simply repeating what was reported to her.

    To those that oppose her: list a legitimate reason or get out of the way.

    Legitimate reason number 1: Rice was simply repeating what was reported to her and from all appearances did not question any of it. Accepted it all on face value. One would hope that the qualifications for Sec of State would involve a little more than what amounted to being nothing more than a good parrot for the Administration and repeating the handed off topic points after they edited them to their liking.

    Legitimate reason number 2: After learning that the talking points she never questioned had turned out to be totally wrong as there was no demonstration in Benghazi, she has not shown any contrition at all for (and I will give her the benefit of the doubt any misleading was in fact truly unintentional on her part)....but no contrition at all for misleading the American people as the official face of the Administration after the facts became clearer.

    Bad judgement for not questioning the information at all on something this serious before going out before the public and compounded by not showing any humble retrospect after the information was found to be bogus doesn't reflect well on her for actually possessing the necessary qualities one would really like to see in a U.S as Sec of State.

  • 0


    Sail: Her job was to report what was provided to her as declassified information. CIA personnel and informants were still in the proximity while she spoke; would you have that she had gone off script and outed them? (Well - that is what the GOP eventually did anyway, so she would have only beaten the clock on it - either way, it is not good for American security.)

    Also: No demonstration in Benghazi? You must know more than American intelligence agencies do.

    At any rate, she was in no position for oversight of intelligence or diplomatic facilities or personnel in Libya nor in any position to receive first-hand information, as unclear as it might have been.

    Colin Powell, in his infamous UN address, put himself in a far more serious situation: while details of Rice's statements have required clarification, the entirety of Powell's address have been shown to be government propaganda specifically designed to further the Bush administration's drive to war. Rice is open to criticism for many reasons, but Benghazi is not among them, not in the least.

  • 0


    She's a wolf in sheep's clothing, and a tool, get rid of her and nominate a real diplomat for the position of Secretary of State.

  • 1


    Then how do they explain Condi Rice? Same Last name, same ethnicity, same position.

    Erm. Different people are opposing her. That's how I explain that. Just because they're willing to let someone work for them doesn't mean there aren't racial reasons for not wanting them to work for the other guy.

  • 0


    Simply put, it's a smear for political gain.

  • -1


    a smear for political gain

    What political gain, exactly? If you mean that they're trying to make Obama look bad, well yeah, they're always trying to do that.

    On the other hand, she is simply a repulsive individual, so there is no way she should be Secretary of State.

    In fact, I think she's a closet republican, and there's not a singe republican I don't despise after Eisenhower.

    If, on the other hand, Obama nominates this repulsive individual to be Secretary of State, that will cause me serious doubt about his overall agenda.

Login to leave a comment

  • Import and Export Trading Assistant

    Import and Export Trading Assistant
    ECO Resource、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M ~ ¥3.5M / Year 経験・前給与を考慮の上、要相談
  • 海外営業事務

    Salary: ¥220,000 ~ ¥400,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable

More in World

View all

View all