Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Evidently, you dont have a problem with the count of a House oversight committee of the Bush team lies about the threat posed by Iraq in 125 public appearances and 237 specific misleading statements about Iraqi WMDs and collaboration with al-Qaeda.

But you were so quick to jump on rumors and false accusations about what happened in Benghazi started by the right wing before the body of the honorable ambassador and staff were cold...rumors and accusations and allegations that now appear to be false.

No big deal, right, Ace?

 

I do not agree with your/their interpretation.

On the issue of WMD, there was uncertainty and Hussein purposefully attempting to mislead inspectors and the world. There is no doubt in my mind that he had the intent to fully reinstate a nuclear weapons program - he already had other forms of WMD and had shown a willingness to use them to kill innocent people.

People attempting to revise history is troubling. Hussein needed to be removed from power, period.

Read what I have written on this topic. The only conclusion I have come to it that we should now the facts from the US perspective by now. I have not accused Rice nor President Obama of wrong doing. I do think at this point there were errors in judgement and someone needs to be held accountable.

 

Right, Ace

No double standards for you, huh?

 

Or qualified Republican rice (Condi and the massive intelligence failure on Iraq WMDs) for Sec of State becomes mushy unqualified Democratic rice (Susan and a much smaller intelligence failure in Benghazi).
--- merged: Nov 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM ---
The double standards further exposed:

97 House members (who have no vote in the matter) oppose Susan Rice because she relied on talking points cleared by the intelligence community.

 

Demographics continue to tell the story:



Four new African-Americans -- all D
Ten new Hispanics -- 9 D, 1 R
Five new Asian-Americans -- all D
Twenty four new Women -- 20 D, 4 R
Five LGBT -- all D
First Buddhist, First Hindu, First Non-Theist -- all D
Four born in the 80s -- all D

Which party looks like America?

 

I understand the desire to look at people based on results and IF these newly elected representatives don't live up to expectations they should be turfed. That said, it is worth taking a moment to take stock of the results based on age, ethnicity, gender and religion. The fact that elected officials are starting to reflect the diversity of the population that elects them is a very good thing.

Given they are newly elected, one could argue that we are in fact judging them on their record. They won the election. That's a solid achievement.

Now to see what else they can do.

 

In some circumstances the ends do justify the means. Who determines when this is true and when it is not? Is your assumption everyone has the same moral code?
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM ---

Tell us about President Obama's votes when he was Senator on Bush's nominees. Double standards?

The real problem with S. Rice is she was hung out to dry by the administration - and she seemed to be a willing volunteer. If she is not accountable and does not take responsibility for what she says to the world how does that trump her other credentials? I don't think it does. Just my opinion - be clear about what people are actually saying about her and this issue.

President Obama has routinely thrown people under the bus to avoid PR problems. I don't respect this, if you do - to each his own.
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 9:48 PM ---

Identity politics! How about people simply being American. I don't vote based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age - do you?

Why, for example does a gay person need to make some special announcement about their sexuality? How about living in a society where people simply don't give a shit about who consenting adults have sex with!

 

I believe Sen. Obama voted for Condi Rice and never suggested that she was unqualified because she relied on the best information provided by the intelligence community at the time of her unfounded and exaggerated "mushroom cloud" remarks.

Throwing subordinates under the bus -- Harriet Myer, Scooter Libby, Michael Brown, Bernie Kerik (DHS nominee)

Charlatan and Baraka said it best.

I would only add that having elected representatives that experienced reproduction and women's health issues or discrimination based on race, religion or gender identity because they are not white christian males brings a valuable first-hand perspective to issues important to those communities.

 

When the law is unjust I can envision circumstances where leaders (more than just political) may deceive in order to garner support to break certain laws.

Whose law was broken? And whose law should one be held to account for?
What is deception? In a military context, deception is a common and accepted tactic. In nature deception is common in a offensive and defensive context. Deception is not inherently bad - however, in some contexts I find deception intolerable. I was not deceived by anything Bush said or did, perhaps you feel you were deceived - like I wrote many times I see the issue differently than many who post here. On the other-hand I do believe S. Rice was being deceptive - and I find her attempt at deception unacceptable - again that is just my view.
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM ---

Not much is more marginalizing than being measured by something as superficial as skin color. Genetic studies show that the superficial characteristics of "race" have nothing to do with a person's character, abilities or qualifications - we can all be traced to theoretical Eve in Africa and initial migrations out of Africa to the ME.
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 10:27 PM ---

Nothing comes close to comparing how President Obama handled Rev. Wright.

 

Was the WWII invasion of Germany illegal?
Did FDR use deception when committing the US to war during WWII?
What about Lincoln arguments for the US Civil War, any deception there?

Doesn't all this depend on perspective and interpretation? Or, what about emphasis? If I want X for a list of reasons, if I emphasize what is most important to you to get your support is that being deceptive? I would say no.

 

You mean the two bi-partisan reports of the Senate Intel Committee :

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence.

 

Or we could talk about mountains and molehills.

If Benghazi and the incomplete intelligence and poor communications with the public was a mountain as Ace believes, what would that make deliberately misleading the American people (per the Senate report) about Iraq?