Skip to main content

If the wackadoos decide to turn against the Republican members of Congress, they would have some great stuff to work with.

The undisputed facts are:

1) General Petreus is a Republican previously appointed by Bush;

2) Petreus was extremely valuable to the administration because his plans were backed by Republicans.

3) Eric Cantor, a Republican leader knew about the sex scandal for months;

4) The CIA was running some kind of operation at Benghazi.

5) Immediately after the attack, Obama made the obvious statement that it was a terrorist attack.

6) Days later, Susan Rice read directly from a CIA talking points memo that it was the spontaneous result of a demonstration.

7) Because Rice relied on what was indisputably presented as facts by the CIA, she and the administration were attacked politically.

So wouldn't the obvious conspiracy theory be that the republicans blackmailed Petreus to make the administration look bad before the election?   Makes more sense than any of the others I have heard.

 IT IS TOTAL BS OF COURSE, even though every fact I presented is indisputably true.

Next question, why do they still want to destroy Ambassador Rice?  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  why do they still want to destroy Ambassador Rice? (6+ / 0-)

    Because President Obama might nominate her for Secretary of State.  You can figure that anyone short of John Bolton would get similar resentment.

  •  They were ragging on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluezen, G2geek

    the idea of John Kerry too yesterday on Fox - yea anyone they put up they will bitch about

    A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

    by maddrailin on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:51:23 AM PST

  •  Partisanship. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    It's the nature of political parties that has one fighting against their opponents no matter what they do, or what is happening to them.

    The only problem with the parties is that one party has a media and entertainment industry that thrives off wild speculation and conspiracy mongering, and the other does not.

    For instance, they have the birthers, who get national media attention, can call press conferences, and include celebrities like Donald Trump.

    We have 9/11 Truthers.  We ban those guys if they come on here, they have no national presence (apart from crappy documentaries available on Netflix, but the birthers have those too).  Is any random celebrity a Truther?  Not as far as I know, and they don't have the ego-whore nature required to make themselves a big fool in public, at the very least.

    •  we also have Maher who is an anti-vaccination CTer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul Rogers, stevie avebury

      For which reason Maher has zero credibility in my book.

      9/11 CT doesn't kill people.

      Anti-vaccination CT does.  

      We got the future back.

      by G2geek on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 06:37:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maher is not a scientist. He's just preachy. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure I hear Bill Maher say that much, but I suppose I do have to give you that.  With this, I get the sense that it's rare, not every time it happens to be cold outside (winter).  Maybe Maher just hasn't ever talked to a medical scientist before.

        Anti-vaxxers don't get partisan respect the way a climate change denier does.  There's no equivalency among the parties here.

        But my larger point was more about how the right wing media is a factory for this kind of nonsense.  There's dozens of right-wing celebrities who sell books and do shows premised on repeating and building on all the crazy right-wing conspiracy theories out there, birtherism, global warming, creationism, fast&furious, new world order, sharia law, etc...  The media for them just cycles this stuff through and some things happen to have lasting appeal.  It goes through almost an anti-science peer-review process to find out what ideas have lasting appeal.

        Imagine if we had media and elected liberals talking about bigfoot, alien visitation, anti-vaxxing, Trutherism, thetans, etc...  There's a complete imbalance in the amount of lefty to righty conspiracy nonsense out there.

        As for zero credibility, I don't generally watch Maher much but I don't think he's ever been that out of touch with reality.  But the thing I find is that almost everyone believes something stupid or ridiculous.

        If someone happens to think a non-scientist is qualified to make claims contrary to what the scientific community accepts, then that's something stupid and ridiculous right there.

        Comedians aren't scientists.  And Maher's fairly preachy for a comedian.  Preachy people also usually suck at science.

        •  anti-vaxers encourage others.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul Rogers

          ... and give them rationalizations for not getting their shots.  The anti-vax memes spread at the grassroots, and along with them, the measles and whooping cough.

          Yes, the righties have a huge CT industry.  Its creative abilities are almost admirable;-)

          Anti-vax is bipartisan, as are Bigfoot and ET.  I suppose we could plead guilty to Thetans if you assume Scientology is largely a Hollywood phenomenon and Hollywood is largely leftish.  

          Most peoples' stupid/ridiculous beliefs don't cause children to get sick and die.  And whooping cough is a ride through hell for grownups who catch it too.  

          But there's one stupid/ridiculous belief that's more dangerous than all the rest: Growtherism, the belief that we can have unlimited economic growth on a finite planet.  If anyone out there can successfully map an infinite plane onto the surface of a Euclidean solid, they ought to be nominated for a Field prize.  Between now and then, I'll remain skeptical.

          We got the future back.

          by G2geek on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 08:12:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  In an honest 2-party system, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Farkletoo

      A guy like Kerry or woman like Rice would be judged on his/her own merits, not just the "He/She's an Obama pick so we must be against her."

      Back before Kerry ran for Pres, he and McCain were friends as fellow vets and voted together at times.  Once GOP villified Kerry with "Swiftboaters for Truth" (still one of the most horrendous smear campaigns in history - yet Kerry never expressed the kind of outrage many of us thought he should have toward it), any potential outward agreement was rendered impossible, "treasonous" to the GOP platform.

      This is so dysfunctional.  It reminds me of this Key and Peele sketch:

      "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." - Bodhidharma

      by hopesprings on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 06:47:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  McCain really stuck his neck out this morning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    From the part I heard, the interviewer on CBS was doing a great job asking him why he was attacking Rice when she was clearly reporting information that the CIA provided.

    His response was basically "four Americans died."  

  •  I think the administration wants the Rice battle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nuclear winter solstice, G2geek

    At first I was surprised they were floating her since it is a mess.  But then I realized they want the fight, because the Admin expects it to turn around for them, without them having to get down in the mud now.

    •  Rice has done a great job (0+ / 0-)

      and will continue to do great service for America in whatever her job may be.  I will miss Clinton(2016) at State by know that Rice will make it as seamless and professional as possible.

      Why do the new republicans want to destroy Rice? Duh, she is a woman and all these clods can do is try to beat them up.  It is always funny when the women kick them in their backsides.

  •  There's nothing quite like a good CT... (0+ / 0-)

    .... for hours of entertainment and debunking.  But it needs to be something relatively concise (one sentence is good), that you can say in such a manner that the debunking is evident from your tone of voice.

    For example, "Dick Cheney flew the planes into the buildings by remote control from his undisclosed location."

    Delightful!

    Now the question is, how can we cook up a nice juicy CT to plant in such a way that the nasties in Congress go around repeating it and making themselves look foolish?

    Here are a few possibilities:

    = Eric Cantor didn't disclose it to the media because he was paid off by the Obama campaign.  

    = Petraeus is nobly falling on his sword rather than give in to Obama.  (Give in about what, exactly, is left unsaid;-)

    = Obama did this so he could get more "homos" in the military.

    = The other woman was secretly paid off by Obama using black-budget money, so she wouldn't blab to the media before the election.

    = The other woman was a deep-cover plant working for Obama's secret Muslim conspiracy, to bring down a Christian warrior.  

    = Obama is actually a Gray (space alien) and Petraeus found out, so he had to be brought down so he wouldn't stand in the way of the Grays invading Earth and killing us all with Death Rays.

    We got the future back.

    by G2geek on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 06:50:26 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site