Today, nearly 100 Republicans called on the President not to nominate Susan Rice as Secretary of State, The Hill reported:
In a letter to Obama, the 97 Republicans said the credibility of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has been gravely wounded by her account of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
“Though Ambassador Rice has been our Representative to the U.N., we believe her misleading statements over the days and weeks following the attack on our embassy in Libya that led to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans caused irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world,” Republicans wrote in their letter, which was led by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and sent to Obama Monday.
I strongly suspect Susan Rice is already off the short list because the White House doesn’t need the focus of any of his nominee confirmation hearings to be on Benghazi. But, we are dealing with a brazen administration that thinks (knows) it can get away with anything with impunity, so who knows.
The elephant in the room of course is if Susan Rice has lost credibility at home and around the world, where does that leave the President and his team in the White House, who are the ones who gave her the bogus talking points?
Until Friday, there were two possible explanations for why the White House failed to immediately call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. One was incompetence, the other was worse.
Now there is only one, and it is the worse one. Based on the persuasive testimony of ex-CIA boss David Petraeus, it is clear the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to mislead Congress and the American people.
The repeated claim that the attack was spontaneous and grew out of a demonstration against an anti-Islam video — a claim made by the president and secretary of State as they stood next to the bodies of four dead Americans — was a monstrous lie. It was vile and done for the basest of reasons.
Because we now know the truth of what happened — CIA reports were edited to remove the names of al Qaeda groups involved in the attack, Petraeus said under oath — we also know the motive. It was political self-preservation, meaning the president and his team put politics first.
So what are Republicans going to do about the fact that, like his stooge Susan Rice, this President has “lost credibility at home and around the world?”
I can tell you what Democrats are doing about it. Not so stupid and blind that they don’t know the truth, they’re circling the wagons, in full cover-up mode per usual. MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, for one is more than up for the job:
Last I checked, Watergate didn’t have a body count. All of Obama’s ‘gates do.
And via Weasel Zippers, self avowed Communist, Van Jones pretends that the reason conservatives object to him (and his fellow travelers) has something to do with his skin tone, (as opposed to the fact that he’s – you know – a commie):
Hmmmm, gee Hoss – maybe it has more to do with the lying, stonewalling and abject corruption so often seen in left-wing, totalitarian regimes? Of course, he knows better, but the truth is sort of inconvenient, and this constant, toxic race-baiting has been working out so well for them, why stop, now?
Meanwhile, Kelly Ayotte, racist bully that she is, picked on Susan Rice and the President, this morning on Fox and Friends:
“We know that General Petraeus testified that they knew it was a terrorist attack right away,” said Ayotte, “that Al-Qaeda was involved and that that was removed, those references were removed from the talking points apparently provided to Susan Rice, that she testified that she talked about five days after the attack on every major news network. But here is what’s more troubling: It wasn’t just Susan Rice who did that. If you recall, the President went not only on Letterman, Univision, the day after the CBS interview and then 14 days later before the United Nations, he did not call it a terrorist attack, nor did he reference it as connected to Al-Qaeda or an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group. In fact, the only reference he made to Al-Qaeda in that UN speech to the world was that Al-Qaeda had been weakened and Osama Bin Laden was dead. So I think this raises additional questions. It goes beyond Ambassador Rice. First of all, why were the talking points changed? It doesn’t make any sense to me that we were trying to dupe Al-Qaeda. That doesn’t pass the laugh test. But also, why was the President out 14 days later and still fail to go call it a terrorist attack to the world?”
The good news is, Republicans are really determined to get to the bottom of this. There is a there, there, and it’s going to take persistence and tenacity to get to it. Rep Frank Wolf of Virginia appeared on Fox to discuss his call for a Select Committee on the Benghazi Attack:
Sometimes diplomats go to dangerous places and sometimes they get killed, see.
(Psssst… Silly question: why was it so dangerous for them? Because al Qaeda hasn’t really been vanquished by Obama, (in fact, they’re multiplying like roaches all over the Middle East and North Africa), and for some inexplicable reason his State Dept denied requests for more security? Answer: Shut up, racist.)
Guy Benson has a good summery at Townhall of the regime’s errors that led Republicans to the point of calling for a special committee to investigate this kafkaesque scandal:
Rice appeared on all five Sunday morning shows on September 16, five days after the deadly 9/11 attacks. She advanced three core assertions for public consumption:
(3) Our security presence at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “substantial.” (The fact that the consulate was sacked — and four Americans, including a sitting ambassador, were murdered in the process — is clear evidence that our security measures was unforgivably and demonstrably insubstantial. To try to say otherwise is outright insulting. To say nothing of the various subsequent revelations that Amb. Stevens and his team begged for more security on numerous occasions, but were denied. The State Department actually reduced its American security presence in the country; this, in spite of glaring warning signs that our interests were far from protected.
Obama’s primary defense of Rice was that she simply articulated the talking points she was provided “at the request of the White House:”
“As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her,” Obama said at the press conference, defending the statements the ambassador to the U.N. made regarding the Benghazi attack.
And it was completely, purposefully wrong. The Regime knowingly lied to the American people in order to protect the naked emperor from (I can’t even say “bad press” because that would entail an impartial media broadcasting the bad news, not trying to protect their Precious from it) the awful truth getting past the media gatekeepers. That’s why it’s a “scandal”, Friedman – ya big dope, ya.
But if you’re a Democrat, or even most Americans, these days – it doesn’t matter if a President lies to your face on a daily basis, as long as the MSM goes along, the ends justify the means. That is the lesson we should all take from this – that is the new normal in ObamAmerica, today.
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!