Wednesday, November 28, 2012
In case you missed this Washington Post Thanksgiving Post, they have decided that all this criticism of Susan Rice must be about….wait for it….race. Pres. Obama is clearly wanting to nominate Susan Rice for Secretary of State, and The GOP is a bit concerned over what seems to be her total incompetence on Benghazi.
Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.
The former Confederacy? Are you serious? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Calling southern states “the former Confederacy” is the new race card talking point. I guess the Washington Post got it from The Nation. Oh yes, Since the GOP overwhelmingly supported and loves former Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who happens to also be a black woman, one would think that that might prove that race has nothing to do with what is wrong with Susan Rice. But for those who play the race card over and over, evidence to the contrary means nothing.
It always good to throw in a bit of history here. Speaking of the Confederacy, the Republican party was founded specifically to abolish slavery and in its 9 point-plank platform, six of those were about civil rights, equal rights, and voting rights for freed slaves. It’s also good to remember that it was Democrats that established Jim Crow laws. The Democrats of today have successfully distorted race, history, and the GOP with lies, but the GOP has a lot to answer for by never defending itself in a real way. The GOP doesn’t have a “race” problem. Condi Rice, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, Ward Connelly, Ron Christi, Larry Elders, Shelby Steele, Vernon Parker, Star Parker, and Samuel Pierce attest to that. We care about what your values are, not your skin color. What the GOP has is a “reaching out” problem. But I digress.
The Washington Post just can’t seem to understand what the fuss is about. After the murder of four Americans, including our Ambassador, Susan Rice was simply repeating on the Sunday talk shows the intelligence she had at the time.
The only problem? The timeline simply doesn’t make sense.
Here is the timeline in a nutshell from National Review:
CBS News reports Rice was privy to both the talking points and the original assessment. The original assessment referred to the attack as an act of terror linked to al-Qaeda, yet Rice made no mention of terrorism or al-Qaeda when she appeared on five national talk shows.
Rice conveniently fails to address where her claim that the attack was prompted by a video came from.
Rice wishes she had “perfect information just days after the attack.” What the administration did have at the time she went on the talk-show circuit was information that (a) the attack was a terrorist act, (b) it had links to al-Qaeda, (c) it was not spontaneous, (d) it was not an outgrowth of a mob protest, and (e) it was not caused by a video. On September 16, Rice failed to mention a or b, and misled the American people on c, d, and e.
During the second presidential debate, President Obama claimed to have referred to the attack as terrorism the very next day. If he’s to be believed, he had sufficient information to know the attack wasn’t the product of a protest or demonstration. Yet Rice suggests that four days later, she was still in the dark.
Rice asserts the intelligence assessment “evolved.” But General Petraeus testified on November 16 that the intelligence community knew immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The only evolution, therefore, was from the fact that the attack was al-Qaeda-related terrorism to Rice’s fiction that it was a spontaneous protest caused by a video.
She stresses that neither she nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people. Yet the president proclaimed to the world that the attack was a mob reaction to a video, Rice did the same despite being privy to the original intelligence assessment, Hillary Clinton conveyed the same to Ty Woods’s father, and Joe Biden claimed no one at the consulate asked for enhanced security before the attack.
The only salient ”updates” the administration provided conveniently occurred after the election, and those updates were the same as the original intelligence assessments. They were, however, fundamentally different from the false narrative promoted by the administration for weeks.
Look, the Benghazi tragedy is pretty simple to explain. The Obama administration wanted the protest/video meme to be the MSM talking points so that they would not have to face an actual terror attack before the election. It’s immoral and disgusting, but it’s not an impeachable offense. That’s it. What led to the murders in Benghazi was pure incompetence. Period. If there is anything this administration excels in, it’s excuses. The timeline makes no sense, the obvious misleading is there, but there is probably not anything there that can be prosecuted legally. These people are good. This is Chicago politics. They know how to skirt the law or the rules, and they have the media who allows them to do it. It didn’t hurt that the MSM had the perfect excuse of a salacious sex scandal with Petraeus to avoid reporting more on Benghazi.
Susan Rice’s has met with GOP Senators McCain, Graham and Ayotte, and she still did not answer the questions they had regarding the obvious misleading timeline. After the meeting, the Senators are even “more concerned” and “significantly troubled.” But none of this matters. We are through the looking glass here. Rice will be confirmed.
Incompetence doesn’t seem to keep one from high office these days.