Republicans Go After Susan Rice, Eric Holder. Is There A Racial Component Here?

[QueEx]

S.RES.588 -- Commending the 4 American public servants who died in Benghazi, Libya, United States Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, for their... (Agreed to Senate - ATS)

SRES 588 ATS


112th CONGRESS


2d Session


S. RES. 588​

​

​

Commending the 4 American public servants who died in Benghazi, Libya, United States Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, for their tireless efforts on behalf of the American people, and condemning the violent attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi.




IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES



<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">September 22</span> (legislative day, September 21), <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">2012</span>

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. REID, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ALEXANDER, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Ms. AYOTTE</span>, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BURR, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Ms. COLLINS</SPAN>, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. COONS, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Mr. GRAHAM</span>, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELLER, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. KIRK, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MANCHIN, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Mr. MCCAIN</span>, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. REED, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. SHELBY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WEBB, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



RESOLUTION​

Commending the 4 American public servants who died in Benghazi, Libya, United States Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, for their tireless efforts on behalf of the American people, and condemning the violent attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi.

Whereas on September 11, 2012, 4 American public servants, United States Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, were killed in a reprehensible and vicious attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya;

Whereas Ambassador Stevens--

(1) was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States;

(2) had spent 21 years in the Foreign Service;

(3) was deeply passionate about representing the United States through his diplomatic service; and

(4) was an ardent friend of the Libyan people;

Whereas Ambassador Stevens served as Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council in Benghazi during the 2011 Libyan revolution;

Whereas Ambassador Stevens was a dear friend of the Senate, having served on the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate in 2006 and 2007 as a distinguished Pearson Fellow;

Whereas Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith--

(1) was a husband and a father of 2 children;

(2) joined the Department of State 10 years ago after serving in the United States Air Force; and

(3) had served in the Foreign Service, before arriving in Benghazi, in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal, and The Hague;

Whereas Tyrone Woods was a husband and a father of three children, who, after two decades of service as a Navy SEAL that included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, began working with the Department of State to protect United States diplomatic personnel;

Whereas Glen Doherty, after 12 years of service as a Navy SEAL that included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, began working with the Department of State to protect United States diplomatic personnel;

Whereas the 4 Americans who perished in the Benghazi attack made great sacrifices and showed bravery in taking on a difficult post in Libya;

Whereas the <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">violence in Benghazi coincided with an attack on the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, which was also swarmed by an angry mob of protesters on September 11, 2012;</span>

Whereas on a daily basis, United States diplomats, military personnel, and other public servants risk their lives to serve the American people; and

Whereas throughout this Nation's history, thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives for the ideals of freedom, democracy, and partnership with nations and people around the globe.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) recognizes the dedicated service and deep commitment of Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty in assisting the Libyan people as they navigate the complex currents of democratic transition marked in this case by profound instability;

(2) praises Ambassador Stevens, who represented the highest tradition of American public service, for his extraordinary record of dedication to the United States' interests in some of the most difficult and dangerous posts around the globe;

(3) sends its deepest condolences to the families of those American public servants killed in Benghazi;

(4) commends the bravery of Foreign Service Officers, United States Armed Forces, and public servants serving in harm's way around the globe and recognizes the deep sacrifices made by their families; and

(5) condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the despicable attacks on American diplomats and public servants in Benghazi and calls for the perpetrators of such attacks to be brought to justice.


SOURCE: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.588:

​

______________________________________________



Interestingly, the Senate's resolution was adopted on September 22, 2012, one week after Ambassador Rice appeared on TV to comment on the attack, AND:

• The Senate's resolution specifically uses the phrase "swarmed by an angry mob of protestors" to describe the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi;

• The Senate's resolution does not say the Benghazi compound was attacked by terrorists, Al Qaeda or extremists;

• Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Susan Collins, R-Maine - have criticised Ambassador Rice for using the SAME language contained in the Senate's resolution; and

• Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Susan Collins, R-Maine - each VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION.

​

 

[Greed]

I don't agree that the structure of the highlighted sentence implies the Benghazi compound was also "swarmed by an angry mob of protestors."

Even so, this could still be an effective political attack if marketed correctly, which is the only thing that matters to people.

 

[QueEx]

I don't agree that the structure of the highlighted sentence implies the Benghazi compound was ["]also [<s>"</s>]swarmed by an angry mob of protestors."

You may not agree, but the words speak for themselves.

I don't know what the 50 U.S. Senators meant when they unanimously agreed to the language in the resolution, but if they meant something different than what the plain meaning of their words impart, I have to believe they would have said something different.

Even so, this could still be an effective political attack if marketed correctly, which is the only thing that matters to people.

All those people who believe that the truth and contradictons matter as well, notwithstanding.

 

[Greed]

You may not agree, but the words speak for themselves.

I don't know what the 50 U.S. Senators meant when they unanimously agreed to the language in the resolution, but if they meant something different than what the plain meaning of their words impart, I have to believe they would have said something different.





All those people who believe that the truth and contradictons matter as well, notwithstanding.

No one who values politics values truth and contradiction as well. If they did they would care about their own truths and contradictions and not just opposition's.

As far as the statement goes, I don't want to argue grammar, direct objects, or action terms. I don't think an objective person will see what you see.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I don't agree that the structure of the highlighted sentence implies the Benghazi compound was also "swarmed by an angry mob of protestors."

Even so, this could still be an effective political attack if marketed correctly, which is the only thing that matters to people.

No one who values politics values truth and contradiction as well. If they did they would care about their own truths and contradictions and not just opposition's.

As far as the statement goes, I don't want to argue grammar, direct objects, or action terms. I don't think an objective person will see what you see.

But Greed, that's exactly what it says. Not implies, says it outright.

 

[Greed]

But Greed, that's exactly what it says. Not implies, says it outright.

I don't think it does.

I think the statement only makes a reference to a mob in Egypt. I don't see this wording describing the same circumstance in Benghazi.

 

[QueEx]

No one who values politics values truth and contradiction as well. If they did they would care about their own truths and contradictions and not just opposition's.

Please don't try to re-characterize what I said to suit your opinion. As I said, there are many people who believe that truth and contradictons matter as well (contrary to your assertion that - - "political attack . . . is the only thing that matters to people"). But I agree, you should care about your own truths as much as you care about your opposition's.

As far as the statement goes, I don't want to argue grammar, direct objects, or action terms. I don't think an objective person will see what you see.

Why then are you arguing? Surely, Im not. I'm merely relying, for whatever its worth, on what the Senate itself said (not on what I think it said). The objective view is to look at what the Senate said and give effect to the plain meaning of the words. The subjective view is to tell us what YOU THINK it said.

 

[Greed]

I don't think it does.

I think the statement only makes a reference to a mob in Egypt. I don't see this wording describing the same circumstance in Benghazi.

You two have me studying that sentence now.

As I said I didn't want to do this, I think the "was" is the deciding factor. It's a reference to a singular event, not both events.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

You two have me studying that sentence now.

As I said I didn't want to do this, I think the "was" is the deciding factor. It's a reference to a singular event, not both events.

Okay but it's the word after "was" that says they're referring to Benghazi: "also". If there was no mob/protest in Benghazi, there is no need for the word "also". In fact, it wouldn't make any sense.

 

[QueEx]

Well, while you're studying, you may also want to find a way to rationalize why
the Senate (particularly McCann, Graham, Ayotte, and Collins) didn't also state
that the Benghazi attack was perpetrated by terrorists, Al Qaeda or extremists.



​

 

[Greed]

Please don't try to re-characterize what I said to suit your opinion. As I said, there are many people who believe that truth and contradictons matter as well (contrary to your assertion that - - "political attack . . . is the only thing that matters to people"). But I agree, you should care about your own truths as much as you care about your opposition's.




Why then are you arguing? Surely, Im not. I'm merely relying, for whatever its worth, on what the Senate itself said (not on what I think it said). The objective view is to look at what the Senate said and give effect to the plain meaning of the words. The subjective view is to tell us what YOU THINK it said.

My opinion of politics is based on empirical evidence. Truth and contradiction don't matter to people who care about politics. If you disagree with that, then you need to reconcile why their is so little truth and so many contradictions in politics.

Generally people can't reconcile it because they think only the guy they didn't vote for is the idiot liar. And their guy is some hero fighting an uphill battle against lies and irrationality.

He's a secret, you're all irrational as long as this non-substantive idiocy affects your day.

And I argued the statement for the same reason anyone argues anything on this board, why not.

 

[Greed]

Well, while you're studying, you may also want to find a way to rationalize why
the Senate (particularly McCann, Graham, Ayotte, and Collins) didn't also state
that the Benghazi attack was perpetrated by terrorists, Al Qaeda or extremists.



​

I don't know.

I would wonder how much it had to do with it being a bipartisan statement, and that's the kind of stupid shit that Democrats and Republicans argue over, so they left it out. But that's just an initial thought.

 

[QueEx]

My opinion of politics is based on empirical evidence. Truth and contradiction don't matter to people who care about politics. If you disagree with that, then you need to reconcile why their is so little truth and so many contradictions in politics.

If contradictions don't matter greed, there wouldn't be such a thing as one impeaching one's own testimony, the crime of perjury or the civil cause of action of fraud. What people say MATTERS. Why are you laboring to give a different meaning to what I said so plainly ? ? ?

Obviously, by the remainder of what you said:

Generally people can't reconcile it because they think only the guy they didn't vote for is the idiot liar. And their guy is some hero fighting an uphill battle against lies and irrationality.

He's a secret, you're all irrational as long as this non-substantive idiocy affects your day.

And I argued the statement for the same reason anyone argues anything on this board, why not.

You're in need of reconciling what I said, vis a vis what you THINK I said.

 

[Greed]

Okay but it's the word after "was" that says they're referring to Benghazi: "also". If there was no mob/protest in Benghazi, there is no need for the word "also". In fact, it wouldn't make any sense.

I think the "also" is what distinguishes Egypt from Libya. Both were attack and Egypt, which "was also" mobbed blah blah blah.

That's how I read it.

 

[QueEx]

I don't know.

I would wonder how much it had to do with it being a bipartisan statement, and that's the kind of stupid shit that Democrats and Republicans argue over, so they left it out. But that's just an initial thought.

See, there you go Ms. Cleo'n again. Why are you trying to read the minds of members of the Senate ???


`

 

[Greed]

If contradictions don't matter greed, there wouldn't be such a thing as one impeaching one's own testimony, the crime of perjury or the civil cause of action of fraud. What people say MATTERS. Why are you laboring to give a different meaning to what I said so plainly ? ? ?

Obviously, by the remainder of what you said:

​

You're in need of reconciling what I said, vis a vis what you THINK I said.

Your reconciliation doesn't take into account politics. A politician's attention-whoring statements to the media aren't under oath or subject to judicial review. I don't think statements made by politicians at hearings face accountability either.

Their ideal accountability comes from the voters who are just as bad as they are.

You may be mistaking politicians passing laws holding other people's contradiction to some standard with politicians themselves being held accountable.

I worded the post you're quoting with "in politics." Are you saying morality and legality work the same way for politicians and average citizens?

 

[Greed]

See, there you go Ms. Cleo'n again. Why are you trying to read the minds of members of the Senate ???


`

Why did you ask me why they did what they did if I wasn't supposed to answer without talking to 100 senators first?

 

[QueEx]

Your reconciliation doesn't take into account politics. A politician's attention-whoring statements to the media aren't under oath or subject to judicial review. I don't think statements made by politicians at hearings face accountability either.

Their ideal accountability comes from the voters who are just as bad as they are.

You may be mistaking politicians passing laws holding other people's contradiction to some standard with politicians themselves being held accountable.

I worded the post you're quoting with "in politics." Are you saying morality and legality work the same way for politicians and average citizens?

Whoa, whoa podnah.

I wasn't reconciling anything.

I simply put up the words of the U.S. Senate -- noting that certain of its members are criticising Ambassador Rice for precisely the same thing they said, themselves. Why are you so willing to delve into the speculative process of what politicians mean ???

 

[Greed]

Whoa, whoa podnah.

I wasn't reconciling anything.

I simply put up the words of the U.S. Senate -- noting that certain of its members are criticising Ambassador Rice for precisely the same thing they said, themselves. Why are you so willing to delve into the speculative process of what politicians mean ???

I was making a reference to what I quoted in that post regarding the nature of politics.

And I also think the Senate statement is extremely straightforward and plainly worded. I guess we're all good then.

 

[QueEx]

And I also think the Senate statement is extremely straightforward and plainly worded.

Thats what I thought, until you began parsing their words. If its not clear, let them who would now claim they mispoke, explain their apparent contradictions.

 

[Greed]

Thats what I thought, until you began parsing their words. If its not clear, let them who would now claim they mispoke, explain their apparent contradictions.

The only mistake I made was not googling the phrase first and seeing that's its all over the news. Now that I see that english is now political, it means there is no right or wrong, just sides.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The only mistake I made was not googling the phrase first and seeing that's its all over the news. Now that I see that english is now political, it means there is no right or wrong, just sides.

Stop this. This is the game the corporate media plays and it perpetuates the idea that all ideas are equal. There is right and wrong in politics, it's just that it's better for the bottom line of all parties involved to pretend there isn't.

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[Greed]

Stop this. This is the game the corporate media plays and it perpetuates the idea that all ideas are equal. There is right and wrong in politics, it's just that it's better for the bottom line of all parties involved to pretend there isn't.

Why do you excempt the Democrat/Republican rank-and-file from the status of one those parties?

The media and politicians are just a reflection of people's values, not the cause of them.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Why do you excempt the Democrat/Republican rank-and-file from the status of one those parties?

The media and politicians are just a reflection of people's values, not the cause of them.

Exempt?
I believe politicians are a reflections to a great extent but the media is more of a manipulator and shaper of perception than a reflection.

 

[Greed]

Exempt?
I believe politicians are a reflections to a great extent but the media is more of a manipulator and shaper of perception than a reflection.

Sorry, yes exempt.

Media isn't going to promote a position that doesn't make them any money. So they are going to promote what people already want to hear. I think they are in a reactive posture just as much as politicians.

People's tribal attitude regarding politics is the problem.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Sorry, yes exempt.

Media isn't going to promote a position that doesn't make them any money. So they are going to promote what people already want to hear. I think they are in a reactive posture just as much as politicians.

People's tribal attitude regarding politics is the problem.

If there wasn't so much blatant lying by some news/media sources, I would agree with you. But when your whole model is built on prevarication and purposeful misinformation, then it's not just people seeking out sources that play to their biases, it's actively seeking to misinform for their own political reasons.

I do think people's tribal attitude is at least part of the problem with the enablers being a major portion.

 

[Greed]

Why Susan Rice withdrew her name as secretary of State

Why Susan Rice withdrew her name as secretary of State

Republican senators had vowed a fight if Obama nominated Susan Rice to be his next secretary of State. Their opposition centered on her erroneous public statements about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

By Linda Feldmann | Christian Science Monitor – 2 hrs 16 mins ago

Ambassador Susan Rice stunned Washington Thursday afternoon by withdrawing her name for consideration as secretary of State. President Obama accepted her decision.

Currently the US envoy to the United Nations, Ambassador Rice was widely seen as a top prospect to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is retiring at the end of Mr. Obama’s first term. But her star was tarnished in September after she made erroneous statements on TV about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

High-profile Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had promised a major fight if Obama had sent her name to the Senate for confirmation. By accepting her withdrawal, Obama has avoided expending political capital in trying to get her through the Senate, and also avoided refocusing the national spotlight on what went wrong in Benghazi.

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive, and costly – to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” Rice wrote in a letter to Obama and obtained by NBC News. “That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country…. Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time.”

The White House released a statement from the president indicating that he had spoken with Rice, and accepted her request to remove her name from consideration. He lauded her service as “an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant.”

“While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first,” the president’s statement said.

At issue were her statements over what had precipitated the attack on the US mission in Benghazi. In a round of Sunday morning TV interviews five days after the Sept. 11 incident, she said it had resulted from spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic video and was not a coordinated terrorist attack, possibly linked to Al Qaeda affiliates.

In late November, Rice acknowledged that her initial explanation was partially inaccurate, but that did not mollify her critics. She met on Capitol Hill with Senator McCain and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte (R) of New Hampshire, but they did not back down in their opposition to her potential nomination as secretary of State.

McCain slammed the handling of Benghazi as either a coverup or incompetence. Fox News also kept up the drumbeat of pressure with in-depth coverage. The suggestion was that the Obama administration did not want to acknowledge a successful terrorist attack – one that led to the first killing of a US ambassador since 1979 – at the height of the presidential campaign.

In his statement, Obama indicated that Rice will remain as UN ambassador, and lauded her service.

“Already, she has secured international support for sanctions against Iran and North Korea, worked to protect the people of Libya, helped achieve an independent South Sudan, stood up for Israel’s security and legitimacy, and served as an advocate for UN reform and the human rights of all people,” Obama said.

“I am grateful that Susan will continue to serve as our ambassador at the United Nations and a key member of my cabinet and national security team, carrying her work forward on all of these and other issues.”

Now all eyes turn to Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts, another top prospect for secretary of State. Senator Kerry is an experienced foreign-policy hand, and has long been thought to want the job. But having him leave the Senate could cost the Democrats his seat.

Massachusetts’s other senator, Scott Brown (R), just lost reelection to Democratic firebrand Elizabeth Warren. But he remains popular in the Bay State and would be a strong candidate in a special election to replace Kerry. The Democrats don’t have an obvious choice – unless Gov. Deval Patrick (D) were to jump in.

Obama also must soon decide his nominee for another about-to-be-vacant post: secretary of Defense. News reports Thursday indicated that former US Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican, may have the edge to replace Leon Panetta, who has made clear his intention to step down.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-susan-rice-withdrew-her-name-secretary-state-224750584.html

 

[QueEx]

Re: Why Susan Rice withdrew her name as secretary of State

​

 

[QueEx]

Re: Why Susan Rice withdrew her name as secretary of State

They're Backkkkkkkkk

​

 

[QueEx]

Re: Why Susan Rice withdrew her name as secretary of State

They're Backkkkkkkkk

​