Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[Pens1566]

I just read some really stupid posts in here. Even by P&N standards. It's like all the usual trolls got together and formed the completely stupid voltron troll.

 

[Chiropteran]

Even the left leaning Bezos-owned washington post has turned on Rice, she is a lost cause!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cal-weapons-stockpile/?utm_term=.9235dca248ad

Bonus tidbit in that article shows just how BS supposed "fact check" websites are:

"Our colleagues at PolitiFact have already removed from its website a fact check that had rated this 2014 statement by then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry as mostly true: “We got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”"

 

[fskimospy]

Even the left leaning Bezos-owned washington post has turned on Rice, she is a lost cause!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cal-weapons-stockpile/?utm_term=.9235dca248ad

Bonus tidbit in that article shows just how BS supposed "fact check" websites are:

"Our colleagues at PolitiFact have already removed from its website a fact check that had rated this 2014 statement by then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry as mostly true: “We got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”"

That has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Pathetic flailing.

 

[Ackmed]

Former National Security Advisor for President Obama Susan Rice got caught telling one heck of a whopper, the Washington Post's Fact Checker pointed out today.

Looking at comments Rice made earlier this year on the removal of chemical weapons, the Post gave her statement 'four Pinocchios,' signaling it's as untrue as they come.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-four-Pinocchios-chemical-weapons-claim.html

Oh, so like I said, not to be trusted. So yeah, Susan Rice is who we thought she was.

 

[Chiropteran]

fskimospy, let's face it. And I'm not being funny. I mean no disrespect, but you're a wise and beautiful woman. You're a wise and beautiful woman now, and you've always been a wise and beautiful woman. And the only thing that's going to change is that you're going to be an even bigger wise and beautiful woman. Maybe have some wise and beautiful woman kids.

Please improve your vocabulary.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[fskimospy]

fskimospy, let's face it. And I'm not being funny. I mean no disrespect, but you're a wise and beautiful woman. You're a wise and beautiful woman now, and you've always been a wise and beautiful woman. And the only thing that's going to change is that you're going to be an even bigger wise and beautiful woman. Maybe have some wise and beautiful woman kids.

If you're going to try and insult me and have the forum software own you at least try and insult me in an original way. I don't care if you're an asshole, but at least don't be a boring asshole.

 

[Amused]

 

[Thebobo]

 

[Bowfinger]

Even the left leaning Bezos-owned washington post has turned on Rice, she is a lost cause!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cal-weapons-stockpile/?utm_term=.9235dca248ad

Bonus tidbit in that article shows just how BS supposed "fact check" websites are:

"Our colleagues at PolitiFact have already removed from its website a fact check that had rated this 2014 statement by then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry as mostly true: “We got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”"

"Turned on" Rice? No, but I understand your confusion. This is how legitimate journalism works. They gather the best information they can, then use it to write a news article. When they get more or better information, they update the article. If they get new information that significantly contradicts earlier information, they update the original article with a correction.

In contrast, the propagandized fake "news" sources you embrace start with a story they want to write. They then seek -- or too often invent outright -- "facts" to support that story. When those alternative "facts" are later refuted, they either ignore them or even double down with new fake "facts". Rinse and repeat for decades; we get malinformed cultists who earnestly believe all sorts of ridiculous nonsense.

In this case, both the Washington Post and PolitiFact relied on the best information available when they wrote their original articles. Those with first-hand knowledge of Syria's disarmament knew that all of Syria's declared chemical weapons stockpiles were destroyed. The news articles of the time reported this accurately. We now know that either Syria did not declare everything it had, or it has since acquired additional chemical weapons. Therefore, the Washington Post and PolitiFact are now correcting their earlier stories to reflect this new information. That is not "turning on" Susan Rice. It is reporting the news.


As an interesting side note, I'll remind you that under the terms of our deal with Putin, Russia was responsible for ensuring Syria was fully disarmed of its chemical weapons. Seems like your master dropped the ball.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Turned on" Rice? No, but I understand your confusion. This is how legitimate journalism works. They gather the best information they can, then use it to write a news article. When they get more or better information, they update the article. If they get new information that significantly contradicts earlier information, they update the original article with a correction.

In contrast, the propagandized fake "news" sources you embrace start with a story they want to write. They then seek -- or too often invent outright -- "facts" to support that story. When those alternative "facts" are later refuted, they either ignore them or even double down with new fake "facts". Rinse and repeat for decades; we get malinformed cultists who earnestly believe all sorts of ridiculous nonsense.

In this case, both the Washington Post and PolitiFact relied on the best information available when they wrote their original articles. Those with first-hand knowledge of Syria's disarmament knew that all of Syria's declared chemical weapons stockpiles were destroyed. The news articles of the time reported this accurately. We now know that either Syria did not declare everything it had, or it has since acquired additional chemical weapons. Therefore, the Washington Post and PolitiFact are now correcting their earlier stories to reflect this new information. That is not "turning on" Susan Rice. It is reporting the news.


As an interesting side note, I'll remind you that under the terms of our deal with Putin, Russia was responsible for ensuring Syria was fully disarmed of its chemical weapons. Seems like your master dropped the ball.

It's also important to note that chlorine never was defined as a chemical weapon in the original agreement. It's widely used in industrial processes, particularly water purification.

 

[zinfamous]

lulz. Chiropteran is a little less tolerable than herpes.

 

[brycejones]

fskimospy, let's face it. And I'm not being funny. I mean no disrespect, but you're a wise and beautiful woman. You're a wise and beautiful woman now, and you've always been a wise and beautiful woman. And the only thing that's going to change is that you're going to be an even bigger wise and beautiful woman. Maybe have some wise and beautiful woman kids.

Someone's feels are hurt. Maybe you should take some time to understand what you post so you aren't laughed at in the future.

 

[thraashman]

"Turned on" Rice? No, but I understand your confusion. This is how legitimate journalism works. They gather the best information they can, then use it to write a news article. When they get more or better information, they update the article. If they get new information that significantly contradicts earlier information, they update the original article with a correction.

In contrast, the propagandized fake "news" sources you embrace start with a story they want to write. They then seek -- or too often invent outright -- "facts" to support that story. When those alternative "facts" are later refuted, they either ignore them or even double down with new fake "facts". Rinse and repeat for decades; we get malinformed cultists who earnestly believe all sorts of ridiculous nonsense.

In this case, both the Washington Post and PolitiFact relied on the best information available when they wrote their original articles. Those with first-hand knowledge of Syria's disarmament knew that all of Syria's declared chemical weapons stockpiles were destroyed. The news articles of the time reported this accurately. We now know that either Syria did not declare everything it had, or it has since acquired additional chemical weapons. Therefore, the Washington Post and PolitiFact are now correcting their earlier stories to reflect this new information. That is not "turning on" Susan Rice. It is reporting the news.


As an interesting side note, I'll remind you that under the terms of our deal with Putin, Russia was responsible for ensuring Syria was fully disarmed of its chemical weapons. Seems like your master dropped the ball.

I love that I saw this as a Jhhnn quote before looking at the original post I was able to guess who you were responding to on the first try. Some posters are so idiotic you know their style by how people have to respond to them.

 

[alien42]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/intelligence-contradicts-nunes-unmasking-claims/index.html

should this BS thread be locked now?

 

[werepossum]

Show the proof already. Are you saying that there hasn't been a single leak, a single shred of evidence shown is normal?

Well, we know that Flynn was outed and Trump forced to kick him out. I don't think the names of the four Trump campaign aides have been leaked to the public, but the Pubbies aren't denying that the conversations happened and the Dems aren't denying that their names were unmasked within the Obama administration.

 

[werepossum]

Assange is a Russian now?

You are really bad at this conspiracy theory crap. At least make up something plausible.

BTW, which Trump person sold US uranium to Russia?

Oh wait, that was Hillary.

Um, point of order: Hillary never sold uranium to Russia. She merely took money to clear someone else selling an American uranium company to Russia. It's worth pointing out that Russia has oodles of uranium; this is just strategery to make American uranium less accessible to the market (or America), or to make sure it doesn't undercut Russian uranium prices.

 

[woolfe9998]

Um, point of order: Hillary never sold uranium to Russia. She merely took money to clear someone else selling an American uranium company to Russia. It's worth pointing out that Russia has oodles of uranium; this is just strategery to make American uranium less accessible to the market (or America), or to make sure it doesn't undercut Russian uranium prices.

When you say "she took money," you mean to say that her foundation received a charitable donation. And there is zero proof of any quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is just an assumption you and other conservatives have made. Indeed, the fact that numerous other agencies had to sign off on it makes any inference of a quid pro quo highly unlikely.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, we know that Flynn was outed and Trump forced to kick him out. I don't think the names of the four Trump campaign aides have been leaked to the public, but the Pubbies aren't denying that the conversations happened and the Dems aren't denying that their names were unmasked within the Obama administration.

I has also been shown that whatever unmasking took place was entirely proper. You know- Rice & the rest just doing their jobs as well as they could.

Righties have been going on as if Rice knew who she was unmasking before she asked for it to happen for her eyes only. There's no evidence she revealed it to anybody else, either.

Where did the number 4 come from, anyway? What makes you think even that might be true?

 

[werepossum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-four-Pinocchios-chemical-weapons-claim.html

Oh, so like I said, not to be trusted. So yeah, Susan Rice is who we thought she was.

I agree fully. Rice's principle job was always to lie at command. But some people (including Trump) are trying to leverage that into claims that Rice broke the law and even that Obama broke the law. All that is required for Rice to legally unmask Trump staffers' names is some doubt that they were accidentally caught up in FISA warrants and therefore should not have been recorded. I suggest that any political operative conversing with Russian officials does not meet that level. An example which would is a Russian ambassador speaking to an American pool cleaner about servicing his pool. Bottom line is that Rice lied to the American people, but unless she also lied to the FBI or under oath, she probably broke no law.

 

[werepossum]

When you say "she took money," you mean to say that her foundation received a charitable donation. And there is zero proof of any quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is just an assumption you and other conservatives have made. Indeed, the fact that numerous other agencies had to sign off on it makes any inference of a quid pro quo highly unlikely.

Of course. In fact, the presumption must be that whenever Russians give someone massive amounts of money, they do so for entirely altruistic reasons totally unrelated to their own strategic machinations which the recipient is uniquely positioned to derail. That is, as long as the people receiving the money are Clintons.

Face it, dude. If this were the Republicans, you'd be a gibbering ball of rage.

 

[werepossum]

I has also been shown that whatever unmasking took place was entirely proper. You know- Rice & the rest just doing their jobs as well as they could.

Righties have been going on as if Rice knew who she was unmasking before she asked for it to happen for her eyes only. There's no evidence she revealed it to anybody else, either.

Where did the number 4 come from, anyway? What makes you think even that might be true?

It's entirely appropriate that this statement begins with "I has also been shown".

 

[ivwshane]

Elite troll says what.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course. In fact, the presumption must be that whenever Russians give someone massive amounts of money, they do so for entirely altruistic reasons totally unrelated to their own strategic machinations which the recipient is uniquely positioned to derail. That is, as long as the people receiving the money are Clintons.

Face it, dude. If this were the Republicans, you'd be a gibbering ball of rage.

Actually, you're quite incorrect in your assumption. If the money went to a charitable foundation that had been audited with no indication that the money was being funneled elsewhere, I wouldn't be suspicious regardless of who it is.

The problem with your theory is that you assume Clinton would peddle influence to get more money for her foundation. It makes no sense to take that kind of risk for a couple million dollars more for your charity. Unless you're really, really stupid. This wasn't for her own pocket, her campaign or even a pro-Clinton PAC. At best the benefit she received was very indirect and not all that consequential.

 

[Zstream]

Actually, you're quite incorrect in your assumption. If the money went to a charitable foundation that had been audited with no indication that the money was being funneled elsewhere, I wouldn't be suspicious regardless of who it is.

The problem with your theory is that you assume Clinton would peddle influence to get more money for her foundation. It makes no sense to take that kind of risk for a couple million dollars more for your charity. Unless you're really, really stupid. This wasn't for her own pocket, her campaign or even a pro-Clinton PAC. At best the benefit she received was very indirect and not all that consequential.

If your deranged opinion is that it is of no consequence, than please tell me why her foundation donations have dried up? It's because you get favors for donating you nit.

 

[zinfamous]

If your deranged opinion is that it is of no consequence, than please tell me why her foundation donations have dried up? It's because you get favors for donating you nit.

have they? I haven't seen it. I know Trump's have dried up...but that's because his illegal "foundation" (er, slush fund) was shut down for....being illegal.

LoL. Trumpbots simply don't give a shit about honesty. 😀