100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: U.N. Ambassador Rice's credibility problem | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was expecting women in the U.S. media to defend her, then Rice must be disappointed by Maureen Dowd's November 27th newspaper column pertaining to Rice's meetings with Senate Republicans.
In her column, Dowd describes the perspective of U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) and the questions that Senator Collins intended to ask Ambassador Rice during a meeting scheduled for November 28th. In short, Dowd reveals to her audience (perhaps unintentionally) that Ambassador Rice actually has a credibility problem pertaining to her role in the Obama Administration's spin on what happened in Benghazi. Dowd writes,"It seems as if it would have been simple enough for Rice to quickly admit that the administration talking points she used on the Sept. 16 Sunday shows about the slaughter in Benghazi were misleading. But she went silent." In her column, Dowd appears to tell her readers, "Hey, Everyone, Senate Republicans may have a legitimate complaint about Ambassador Rice." That message coming from a liberal New York Times columnist is perhaps the last thing that Ambassador Rice needs right now. To make matters worse for Ambassador Rice, in a November 28th news report titled "Who changed the Benghazi talking points?", CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson writes the following: Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation" on behalf of the White House five days after the attacks, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice did not directly say an al Qaeda affiliate was suspected or point to terrorism. She said the "assessment at present" was that the attacks began "spontaneously" in response to an inflammatory anti-Islam video posted on YouTube. She added that "extremist elements" then joined the effort. Tuesday, for the first time, Rice stated outright that there was never any protest or demonstration. Republicans who have read the same intelligence that Rice accessed say it's laced with references to al Qaeda and terrorism, and they're mystified as how she could have come away with a primary narrative about a spontaneous protest and a video. I don't know how others are going to respond to this soap opera, but I'm grabbing popcorn and settling down to watch the show. Here is my popcorn: No, I'm not sharing. You get your own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL..........you can have that popcorn, boobs are too small and she has no girth to her legs! Maybe if she was fed butter............lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL..........you can have that popcorn, boobs are too small and she has no girth to her legs! Maybe if she was fed butter............lol My doctor told me to go on a low-fat diet. I'm just following doctor's orders. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bengazi is still a thing? Republicans are just grasping at straws now. They are getting worse than the truthers after 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 11/29/12 09:46 AM
|
|
Hey Andy!
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bengazi is still a thing? The U.S. public was misled by its federal government about what happened in Benghazi. So, yes, being misled by one's federal government is a "thing". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bengazi is still a thing? The U.S. public was misled by its federal government about what happened in Benghazi. So, yes, being misled by one's federal government is a "thing". Really? It's not a new thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bengazi is still a thing? The U.S. public was misled by its federal government about what happened in Benghazi. So, yes, being misled by one's federal government is a "thing". Really? It's not a new thing. Even old thingies have a place.  Benghazi is pertinent and yes, Hussein should be held accountable. |
|
|
|
|
