Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Bengazi - Susan Rice protects Obama because of her nomination

Posted 6 years ago on Dec. 1, 2012, 7:24 p.m. EST by SteveKJR1 (8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Well, I finally figured out why Susan Rice decided to claim that the Video was the reason for the Attacks at Bengazi. Here is the way I see it:

Bengazi - Susan Rice protected Obama because of her nomination

Obama knew that Hillary Clinton was going to resign at the end of the year and he decided early on that Susan Rice would be her replacement.

So, when the incident at Bengazi happened, he thought it would be a good idea to put her in the limelite to let eveyone know that she had the capabilities to handle a crisis and would make a good Secretary of State.

Well, Susan Rice felt that it would be in her best interest to make Obama look good because he was giving her the job as Secretary of State.

So when she was in front of the public, she insisted that it was the "video" that caused the attack instead of terrorists to protect her nomination.

As you are aware, Obama claimed that terrorists were on the decline and if Susan Rice made such a comment it would definitely make Obama look bad and might have an impact on her being nominated for the Secretary of State job. Makes perfect sense -



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Protects Obama from what.? Seems to me you've hit him with everything you got and he still whupped you're candidate.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 6 years ago

Run Romney again. Galt Gulch personified. Or run Silent Jeb.

I'd vote twice for Biden/Warren.


[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Steve, the only reason repubs and their PR firm FOX news latched onto this and still insist on trying to squeeze a scandal out is because Pres Obama played down the terrorist element.

The right wing extremists need & depend on the 'war on terror' to keep their supporters scared and willing to give up rights, & vote for war mongering repubs.

Pres Obama doesn't even say 'war on terror'. This makes the right wing fear mongers crazy.

Pres Obama has said repeatedly that Al Qaeda has been decimated. Republican war mongers hate that cause they know this is Pres Obamas precursor to declaring end to the 'war on terror', & an end to repubs most potent tool to spend on defense and keep people scared enough to support repub candidates.

So repub fear mongers saw this tragedy being played down and they wanted to use it as a new reason to fear monger more support for 'war on terror' drone strikes, continued rights violations, & defense spending.

But those evil fear mongering repub fucks got smoked again! They are so goddamn stupid they can't even see it yet. But no matter, for the 1st time since repubs exploited the 9/11 attacks we have a glimmer of hope that we can step back from the 'war on terror' obscenities that repubs have subjected the planet to.

Simple. but certainly not about the great Ambassador Rice, Or her appointment to Secr of State. It's all about repub fear mongering 'war on terror' proliferation.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 6 years ago

So I guess 4 dead Americans isn't an issue because the Republicans and Fox news want answers? What I posted says it all - it was a cover up by Susan Rice to protect here nomination for Secretary of State and as a result she protected Obama - how hard is that to understand.

So if she decides to do that what the hell will she do if she is Secretary of State?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

What was covered up? Nothing.! You sound like a child. Repubs are just upset cause Obama didn't use the attack for the fear mongering repubs need to maintain the lucrative 'war on terror'.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3224) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 6 years ago

The CIA produced, edited the infamous talking points.

Shit happened. It was al quaida. Terrorists.

Security was lax. Probably no way to be 100 percent secure anywhere.


Impeach Obama. I'll take Biden.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 6 years ago

I dont' know if I want Biden - lets look at Hillary as another option - Biden probably couldn't stand the pressure - well if he continues to campaign like Obama I guess he won't be under any pressure.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3224) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 6 years ago

Biden is next in line, constitionally. I don't think impeachment can happen when we're at war, with the terrorists.

[-] 0 points by osamabinlaughin (0) 6 years ago

And that's why it's so important that we keep the Never Ending War On Terror Or Whatever It is We're Fighting going for another 50 years. Because we can't hold politicians accountable for anything they do until it's over.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3224) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 6 years ago

bring troops home.

Rebuild America.

"war" on joblessness, stupidity

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 6 years ago

I know but we can hope, can't we?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Another possibility is that the administration simply handed Susan Rice the filtered intelligence assessment and told her to push it to the media and the American people or her potential nomination for the Secretary of State job may be in jeopardy.

She might have known that it was not really a "spontaneous" demonstration but hey, the administration knew how to dangle the carrot and ensured the "proper" impression about what the Benghazi incident was before the Election.

It was very suspicious that after David Petraeus had agreed to testify before Congress, the CIA opened an investigation on him.

Really, anyone who had followed the Benghazi attacks closely would have wondered how Rocket-Propelled-Grenades could have been involved in a "spontaneous" demonstration. It strained my belief. Also the attackers breached the "Consulate"/Annex using sophisticated tactics. Again, "spontaneous" demonstrators would be hard pressed to come up with such schemes quickly.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 6 years ago

No, they didn't hand her "filtered info" she got it all - she was interviewed the last few days and it was reported that the interview was very disturbing because of what she claims she knew and what was actually put out for everyone who had the credentials to read.

I believe Senator Connlie was the one who made these comments with regard to the interview with her.

This was a cover up for her job and to make Obama look good so she wouldn't lose her Secretary of State job.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

It looks like a cover up. It smells like a cover up. As long as it is still covered up, we will never know for certain who got what when where how and why. There will be a chance to dig things up perhaps with a new administration. Maybe David Petraeus was thrown under the bus for his potential threat to the current administration because he knew too much due to his being on the ground in Benghazi investigating the 9/11/2012 incident.

Remember the files of Stasi, the KGB, etc. so we may eventually see the CIA in that list, too.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 6 years ago

Petraeus was thrown under the bus as a diversionary tactic - you know as well as I if he wanted to stay what happened in his person life would have been sequestered.

I mean look at Clinton and what he did. There were never any questions asked about him breaching security but they did with Petraeus.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Monica Lewinsky, in spite of her "big mouth," was an innocent young White House intern so she did not present any security risk with Bill Clinton guarding national security there for all of us.

Paula Broadwell and David Petraeus, on the other hand, were tailed by the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. director definitely knew more state secrets that could be very threatening to some if leaked.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33714) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

POTUS Knows Nothing?

[-] -2 points by freakyfriday (179) 6 years ago

He knows how to campaign, obsfucate, and has charisma. Guess he knows SOMETHING.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33714) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Ummm - yeah - I suppose - Though I was commenting on the speculation that slick willie new nothing of importance as compared to Petraeus.

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Precisely because willie is slick could he stand there to "gag" "that woman's" "big mouth" to stop any national security leak aside from that embarrassing one on the (in)famous blue dress.

Slick willie knew matter of importance about al Qaeda but his duty to stand guard to gag eventually turned out to be too overwhelming a task for him due to the American people's sexual uptightness and fancies. The little tail wagged the Big Red Dog so 9/11/2001 could happen because the matter of importance about al Qaeda was not handed over successfully by slick-willie administration to the Bush'ite administration.

In some sense, we were damned to experience the 9/11/2001 incident because of the stain on that blue dress.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've heard on this forum.

Especially since the Clinton Admin told Bush repeatedly and desperately that the Al Qaeda/Bin Laden threat was the most important threat we faced.

Bush brought in anti soviet cold warriors and fired anti terror analysts.

No sex scandals involved you moron.

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Subpoena slick willie to determine if he really GOT it in his Rhodes-scholar/Yale-Law-School brain with TWIN U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa that al Qaeda was the number one enemy to U.S. national security at the time of the Ken-Starr-independent-counsel probe into the "big mouth" incident at the White House and yet he (slick willie) could NOT do anything substantial to go after al Qaeda at the time aside from "lobbing a few cruise missiles" at al-Qaeda base in eastern Afghanistan because the U.S. populace was OBSESSED about the juicy SEXual drama unwrapping so that there was NO national will to root out al Qaeda. The stain on the (in)famous blue dress pinned down the little tail of the Big Red Dog so that it could not bite at al Qaeda, ergo 9/11/2001 had to happen. Of course, the arrogance/incompetence-to-listen of the Bush'ite administration in the aftermath of the extremely close Florida vote in the 2000 Election certainly contributed to 9/11/2001 because the Bush'ite administration was in CHAOS for many months. The animosity of the outgoing slick-willie administration did NOT help. There it goes again -- United we stand, Together we can, Divided we fall!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

You have lost all sense of reality. LMFAO.

There was no chaos in the 1st few months of Bvush admin. They were just incompetent. They were warned repeatedly, vehemently that AlQaeda was our #1 threat. Bush incompetence responded by refocusing on the coldwar era threats, and firing the terrorist analysts.

When the chatter came in that there would be attacks on summer the only thing they did was send Bush on th longest Pres vacation/trip out of dc in history.

Incompetent and cowardly. Bush & the RW have NO HONOR!

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

If heads of executive branch agencies and members of the Cabinet were not appointed or hired for months or if those in charge have their ears plugged up, eyes closed, wrapped up inside of a cocoon, and not attending to the important matters at hand, I call that CHAOS regardless of how "peaceful and silent" it actually was. There were also years of CHAOS in slick-willie's administration because the Big Red Dog's slick little tail had wagged around in many womanly uncalled-for places. The independent-counsel probe began with financial shenanigans that had led to the suicide of Vince Foster so yes MIRACULOUS financial gains by powerful people can come back to haunt the country if they were ill-gotten.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Your childish distractions regarding the repubs failed witchhunt against Pres Clinton, along with your weak unfounded excuses regarding non existant "chaos" in the Bush admin is ridiculous.

Bush ignored the advise of terrorist threats from the Clinton admin, and CIA/FBI chatter & instead redirected resources to old "coldwar" non threats.

Bushs incompetence and cowardice were at fault. Not "chaos". LMFAO.

Bush & the RW have NO HONOR!

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

There it stands. Let OUR people judge the Truth themselves. I especially call for those who have lived long enough, had sufficient memory, attention span, political consciousness, and media attention to speak the Truth as they see it. Verdict it shall be.

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 6 years ago

Oh, I thought you were comparing Betrayus to Obama. But my comment above works for slick willie, too

[-] -2 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

POT R US definitely stoned!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33714) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

YAY - PERSONAL CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good Industries to support as well.

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

These are the few truly high-potential high-growth American industries on our native soil.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33714) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Here is a real opportunity : HEMP PLASTIC | WELCOME TO HEMP

Green Energy should also be HUGE.

[-] -1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 6 years ago

Indeed it was a coverup in a pre election atmosphere, but the problem now is that eveyrone is focused on the Susan Rice lies. I would rather know why state had a secret meeting house AND CIA had a secret 'annex' in Benghazi. Just what are we doing there? Were there really 3 Libyan detainees at the cia compound as Broadwell stated in a speech promoting her book in late Oct in Colorado? Was Amb Stevens meeting with Turkish diplomats working out the logistics of smuggling guns and islamic jihadists to Syria? Would Americans (especially military families) be just a little pissed to learn we are handing weapons to same folks we are fighting in Afgjanistan and Iraq? THOSE are the questions of Benghazi. Obama is laughing his ass off that congress is fussing about some pawn he threw out pre election to lie about it since it keeps them from digging into the real meat.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

We were definitely doing "intelligence" work there or else David Petraeus would not have gone there himself to investigate. As Sergeant Hans Schultz would have said, "I see nothing! I hear nothing!" Case closed.


[-] 0 points by OccNoVi (415) 6 years ago

Susan Rice reported the version of the news that matched the first major incident, which occurred on September 11th 2012. That incident resulted in no fatalities and local people were interviewed by Al Jazeera. No mystery.

The second incident happened the next morning at the CIA building and resulted in two deaths, one of which was the ambassador, Christopher Stevens. At some point another two Americans, security contractors, were killed in a street confrontation with an unidentified mob.

Compare/contrast with Beirut in 1983. The front of the embassy there was pancaked with a thermobaric bomb killing 63. That happened on April 18, 1983.

Security was not upgraded for non-embassy assets. Then come October 23rd, 1983, two more truck bombs were set off leveling the Marine and French barracks -- 241 and 64 victims were killed. Another truck bombing hit Tyre, down the cost, three weeks later killing 30.

392 dead. That's official count. The count left out a janitor and his family -- total of 6 people -- killed at the French barracks. I'll stick with the official Department of State page on the bombings, but we know that the real total was 398.

The bodies of dead Arab employees and their families count. Even janitors.

How's that incompetence in 1983 count, compared to the odd events in 2012 in Benghazi ???

And betcha nobody in the RWNJ camp is going to admit that Reagan turned tail and abandoned Lebanon to allies of the Iranians. That failure is what led to creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon as a permanent interest group for the Iranians in 1984.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 6 years ago

we will see how she handles the questioning

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33714) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago


Wait a sec - was that Condi Rice as well?