Rice meets with Republicans, fails to win them over

Comments (4)
RSaltyDog wrote:

It would not matter what this woman did the GOP answer is no. It’s about the GOP always saying no. It’s about the GOP hoping Obama will select Kerry and then a Senate spot will open. Obama should nominate John McCain. McCain has the loudest complaints. Let McCain prove he can do better. Or Obama could nominate Huntsman who has experience and it would be bi-partisan. Regardless of what Rice or Obama do the GOP is to obstruct. Congress no longer functions.

Nov 28, 2012 8:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

They are pushing for Kerry because they think they have a shot at his senate seat… This whole thing is nothing but a polictical boondoggle. It is very funny how this event caused all of this public outrage and they were all silent when cheney was outing a cia operative and the ‘w’ admin was using falsified documents to push us into a war that cost a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. And they are worried now about Americans ‘trust’ in their govt? What a joke.

Nov 28, 2012 8:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

Yeah right, the repubs are against Rice because of the Kerry chair, sure they are. I thought it was because she is black. Or a woman. Or, or, or a black woman.

How about the fact that the last time she was involved with deaths in Africa there were 800 000 bodies instead of just 4?!? Her hands are dirty and stained with blood. You don’t think that twice being involved in a cover-up as a wee bit questionable? Of course you don’t. The African people however consider her promotion to secretary of state as unimaginable due to her involvement in doing nothing while genocide occurred.

But hey, you lefties keep thinking she’s opposed because of Kerry’s seat, or that she’s a black woman. Pathetic, sad, deluded degenerates seeing the big, bad, old white man everywhere. She’s scum.

Nov 28, 2012 9:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

Collins is right: Rice doesn’t deserve the appointment, unless further information is provided, satisfying these genuine concerns.

> “Republicans have openly criticized Rice for initial comments after the Benghazi attack that suggested it was a spontaneous event arising from protests of an anti-Islam film rather than a planned terrorist strike.
> “Intelligence officials said later the attack was possibly tied to al Qaeda affiliates.”
— Republicans criticise rightly.

Americans charitably gave Obama the benefit of the doubt on this at the election, but they are gullible if they continue giving the administration a free pass on this scandal now.

“This year’s attack in Benghazi “echoed” [attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998]“.

To say that the US State Department didn’t give the Libyan embassy (a CIA station situated in a country that had just emerged from civil war with a wide range of militants awash with high-powered weapons), extra protection on the anniversary of 9/11 (when Al Qaeda is known for marking anniversaries); is simply inexcusable.

> “He also risks looking weak if he seems to give in to criticism from the party he just defeated to win re-election.”
— Nonsense. I generally support Obama in his presidency, but Obama will look totally pathetic if he persists in pushing a compromised candidate. He needs to resolve the concerns, rather than simply telling us:
“Susan Rice is extraordinary…” — whatever that means! Why should Obama use all of his political capital on this? If Obama doesn’t resolve the genuine concerns before pushing her candidacy again, it will appear as though he is repaying favors of some sort…

Nov 29, 2012 1:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.