http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/15/president-obama-silly-sexist-defense-susan-rice/ Looks like he is attention whoring again. Now they tell us. Don't pick on the little lady. Wednesday, President Obama bizarrely cast the U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, as some delicate flower the boys should stop picking on for her dissembling claims on five Sunday talk shows following the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi. But, there is no damsel in distress and Obama's paternalistic bravado in defense of a top administration official is going to come back to haunt him. "If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama intoned to the stenographers worshipping at his feet. The media had gathered for a rare "press conference" where Fox News' Ed Henry and ABC's Jake Tapper are usually the only ones who ever seem to ask a question that elicits anything other than filibustering presidential pabulum. (One "journalist" actually congratulated the president on his win and gushed about how she has never seen him lose an election.) Group hug! Obviously caught up in his own silly yarn about meanie Senators and helpless U.N. Ambassadors, the President complained, "When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me." Imagine George Bush saying that people criticized John Bolton because he was an "easy target." He wouldn't. It's absurd and chauvinistic for Obama to talk about the woman he thinks should be Secretary of State of the United States as if she needs the big strong man to come to her defense because a couple of Senators are criticizing her. - It's absurd and chauvinistic for Obama to talk about the woman he thinks should be Secretary of State of the United States as if she needs the big strong man to come to her defense because a couple of Senators are criticizing her. Believe it or not, Rice isn't the first potential Cabinet nominee to be opposed by members of Congress up on the Hill. Obama also left out the inconvenient detail that there is another senator who has Rice in the crosshairs: Sen. Kelly Ayotte. But perhaps a female Senator holding Rice accountable didn't sound menacing enough in the era of the "War on Women." But it gets much worse. As the president expressed outrage over the atrocity of members of Congress holding administration officials accountable, he said, "I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi?" Feast on those words for a second: The U.N. Ambassador had "nothing to do with Benghazi." At this point, the White House press corps should have flown into a frenzy, demanding to know why a person who had nothing to do with Benghazi was put on five Sunday talk shows as...the face of Benghazi! This was an issue that had people scratching their heads the day of the Rice interviews, and plenty of questions were asked as to where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was, and why Rice was put out instead. The administration at the time acted as though there was nothing remarkable about it, even though there clearly was. But now we know -- straight from the lips of the president of the United States -- that they sent out a person who knew "nothing" about Benghazi to explain an atrocious attack against the United States that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans serving their country abroad. No temper tantrum from the White House on the insult of being questioned about a terror attack against the U.S. abroad would be complete without their perennial favorite: the straw man. The conceit of Obama's argument is that people are picking on a helpless girl -- a lowly U.N. ambassador -- because they are afraid of the big bad president. Oh, please. President Obama, incredibly, claimed that he was "happy to have the discussion" about Benghazi. Really? Because every time anyone asks the president about Benghazi he claims he can't say anything because there is an investigation going on. The State Department actually said at one point that they would no longer take questions on the issue from reporters. Senator Graham's response to the president's revelations and accusations at the press conference was exactly right: He said, "Mr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi." The president says he is ready to talk about this? Great. We are all ears. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...illy-sexist-defense-susan-rice/#ixzz2CPS5HNJJ
It actually has nothing to do with that. Its from breaking bad. I changed it because it led to a lot of racial arguments in the other forums.
So, you change your name and post an idiotic editorial from a "news" source that is in desperation after losing again and again? You and your failure, Romney, need to give it up. You lost. Move on.
No, and that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just sad that I had to prove the other conservatives and clutch on this board correct. see: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=229020&page=10 I wanted to see how much uglier this would get, but this is enough. Many of the responses in this thread surprised me.
Why would you be surprised that when you post an incredibly stupid article, make an incredibly stupid thread title, and include no content of your own, people would mock you? What kind of response were you expecting?
It wasn't a stupid article, It was an article from the perspective of conservatives. The title of the thread was stupid, many people here probably just read the title of the thread and qued to an inflammatory post.
"D'Oh Bama" seems a little antiquated. It's so... First term. Lets try "Foe-Moe Bama." That just screams Second Term!
It's an incredibly stupid article. The President is an attention w**** and a chauvinist for defending his own employee from political attacks? What?
Obama is a liar who doesn't believe the American public can handle the full truth -- he thinks he knows best. Typical arrogance from him. It's insulting to the American people, and frightening for him to control the messaging and flow of information like this.
Wait - now you're shocked that if you post an inflammatory title, people will assume you are making an inflammatory post? If you wanted to test your "theory" of liberal intolerance, the way to do it would have been to post something rational and non-inflammatory and see if people were intolerant to it. Posting garbage and getting garbage as a response just shows that stupid is treated as stupid. The standard is pretty simple: make a stupid post and you'll be treated like an idiot. That's not a liberal or conservative standard: it's a common-sense standard.
I am not going to pile on OP, but that article is really just an opinion piece really lacking any substance... Very much a hatchet piece.
