Maureen Dowd on Susan Rice

A tip of the Editor’s hat to Gretchen for the story.

Is Rice Cooked?

By  | Published: November 17, 2012

(Washington) Our Rice is better than your Rice.

That’s the argument Democrats are aggressively making against Republicans.

And it’s true. Condi Rice sold her soul. Susan Rice merely rented hers on the talk shows one Sunday in September.

Ambitious to be secretary of state, Condi jilted her mentor, Brent Scowcroft, who publicly opposed the Iraq invasion. In 2002, she bolted to the winning, warmongering side with W., Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, helping them twist intelligence and getting Foggy Bottom in return.

Ambitious to be secretary of state, Susan Rice wanted to prove she had the gravitas for the job and help out the White House. So the ambassador to the United Nations agreed to a National Security Council request to go on all five Sunday shows to talk about the attack on the American consulate in Libya.

“She saw this as a great opportunity to go out and close the stature gap,” said one administration official. “She was focused on the performance, not the content. People said, ‘It’s sad because it was one of her best performances.’ But it’s not a movie, it’s the news. Everyone in politics thinks, you just get your good talking points and learn them and reiterate them on camera. But what if they’re not good talking points? What if what you’re saying isn’t true, even if you’re saying it well?”

As one would expect, Miss Dowd got her facts wrong. She wrote that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld “twist(ed) intelligence” concerning possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as though it is some sort of established fact. As it happens, your Editor bought and reviewed the book by Valerie Plame Wilson, the exposed CIA operations officer, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, and in it noted that the CIA agent who had the greatest reason to hate President Bush and his Administration told the readers that in her branch, the Counterproliferation Division within the Directorate of Operations, the Agency believed that Iraq had WMD at the time.1

But Miss Dowd’s article gets more amusing as it goes forward. She had tried to claim that Dr Condoleezza Rice had “sold her soul” to obtain the job of being Secretary of State — ignoring the fact that she was already the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a top-level job, that there were two more years left in President Bush’s first term, and that the then-current Secretary, Colin Powell, was not about to be fired — when it turns out that the President and his minions were busy hanging Ambassador Rice out to dry.

Some have wondered if Rice, who has a bull-in-a-china-shop reputation, is diplomatic enough for the top diplomatic job. But she would have been wise to be more bull-in-a-china-shop and vet her talking points, given that members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities and sources in news accounts considered it a terrorist attack days before Rice went on the shows. (The president and his spokesman also clung to the video story for too long.)

Rice should have been wary of a White House staff with a tendency to gild the lily, with her pal Valerie Jarrett and other staffers zealous about casting the president in a more flattering light, like national security officials filigreeing the story of the raid on Osama to say Bin Laden fought back. Did administration officials foolishly assume that if affiliates of Al Qaeda were to blame, it would dilute the credit the president got for decimating Al Qaeda? Were aides overeager to keep Mitt Romney, who had stumbled after the Benghazi attack by accusing the president of appeasing Islamic extremists, on the defensive?

The lovely Miss Dowd then tells us that the President has both harmed Ambassador Rice’s reputation, and may feel compelled to appoint her to succeed retiring Secretary Hillary Clinton, just to prove that he can’t be pushed around. “Their” Dr Rice would probably be better served if she declined such an appointment, because if John McCain and Lindsey Lohan Graham, two of the more centrist Republicans in the Senate, and members of the so-called “Gang of 14” are inclined to filibuster her nomination, she will not be confirmed.
__________________________

  1. This is documented extensively in the linked book review.

36 Comments

  1. The truth of this story has yet to be revealed, even after the testimony by Petraeus to Congress behind closed doors:

    “The fact is, the reference to al-Qaida was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community … We need to find out who did it and why,” said Republican Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who attended the first of two back-to-back hearings with Petraeus. (The second was with senators.) “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda … He completely debunked that idea,” said Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of the very same meeting.

    Therefore, jumping to conclusions by partisans is as yet unjustified by the facts, which remain obscure.

  2. You ought to have noticed: it was a Democrat who claimed that “there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda.”

    Well, someone changed the story given to Ambassador Rice, and there sure weren’t any Republicans in a position to do so; perhaps you think it was possibly edited by gremlins?

    Why, one wonders, would the facts “remain obscure” on this, if there really was no political agenda? The President has been re-elected, and that can’t be changed now, so why not just come out with the truth, in public, and get it over with, if there wasn’t something smarmy at the bottom, of it all?

    Face facts: when even a liberal partisan like Maureen Dowd believes that Ambassador Rice was sandbagged by the White House, it isn’t just us wicked Republicans.

    You, of course, believe anything good about the President because you want to believe everything good about the President. As far as I am concerned, he is a lying sack of [insert vulgar slang term for feces here], and this is just more evidence of it.

    The election is over, President Obama won, and will never face the voters again; he can actually afford to tell the truth now. One wonders why he doesn’t.

  3. When Barack Obama and his WH team of unindicted co-conspirators cynically concluded that a coordinated PR campaign of lies and deceptions would succeed in passing off the preplanned and coordinated Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi on 9/11, which resulted in the murder of a sitting US Ambassador and 3 others, as the inevitable result of an obscure and mysterious anti-Muslim video tape (at least, that is, till the elections were over) they committed a gross violation of the trust of the American people, and in the process disqualified themselves from holding high office, elected or appointed. Barack Obama arrogantly opened the door to his own impeachment trial.

    Incarceration not Inauguration!

  4. Why, one wonders, would the facts “remain obscure” on this, if there really was no political agenda? The President has been re-elected, and that can’t be changed now, so why not just come out with the truth, in public, and get it over with, if there wasn’t something smarmy at the bottom, of it all?

    What, the god-king admit that he failed? or, worse yet, lied?? That will happen when the proverbial pigs start flying …

  5. Maurine Dowd gives no credible evidence for her opinion, nor do you Mr Editor. Let us wait patiently for the partisan smoke to clear, before jumping once more to the version you prefer.

    Here is where we are right now with this story, and with Representative Chaffetz’s (R-UT) unsubstantiated allegations: Two Pinocchios:

    Chaffetz’s MSNBC comments suggest he has a slam-dunk case proving a cover-up against the Obama administration. What he really has are a lot of questions for the president, who promised during his first post-election news conference to be forthcoming with information about the Benghazi attack. We’ll see how well he sticks to that pledge.

    The Benghazi hearings and investigations could potentially prove Chaffetz right, but the congressman has no conclusive evidence yet that the Obama administration misled the public or knew right away that the assault had little or nothing to do with protests over an anti-Islam video. He earns two Pinocchios for suggesting he knows for sure what the administration knew about the Sept. 11 attack.

  6. The FACT of the matter is that it was blatantly obvious that the attacks were terrorism — al Qaeda-inspired. Yet, the WHITE HOUSE insisted that the YouTube video be made the scapegoat. The White House.

    The question is … why? We’ve yet to get any straight answers, and the “answer” that it “was the best intel we had at the time” is utter horse crap.

  7. How very unfortunate for your excuse-making:

    Intelligence officials: We knew attack in Benghazi was terrorist act from beginning

    By Andrea Mitchell, NBC News

    Top intelligence officials told NBC News Monday night that they have known the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate was a terrorist act from the beginning.

    White House and intelligence officials meanwhile are denying charges by Republicans that there was an attempt to whitewash the origins of the Benghazi attack to protect the president politically. In the months since the attack, Republican lawmakers have focused on comments by Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who said what transpired was a “spontaneous reaction to a hateful and offensive video.”

    The attack in the Libyan city resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

    Officials said that although there was no question that the attack was terrorism, they did not know whether they were spontaneous or planned long in advance. They also did not have the suspects’ identities.

    That’s why, they said, they kept their unclassified talking points for Rice vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings.

    NBC has been in the Democrats’ pocket for decades, so when even NBC tells you that the President and his Administration were lying through their scummy teeth, you ought to believe it.

    Of course, unless President Obama himself stood up and said, “Yeah, we lied, to protect the campaign,” you’d never believe it, and you might not even believe it then.

  8. Even if “they kept their unclassified talking points for Rice vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings,” why did they send Ambassador Rice out to tell the world that we did know what was going on, and that it was a reaction to some wicked ol’ filmmaker’s work? Why couldn’t they have said, “We aren’t certain yet” or “We don’t know for sure?” As I said before, as far as I am concerned, he is a lying sack of [insert vulgar slang term for feces here], and this is just more evidence of it.

  9. That’s exactly what I don’t get, Editor. It would have been MUCH easier to just claim “We don’t know yet — we’re still looking at all the evidence” than to blame that silly video over and over and over again.

    To any clear-thinking people, it’s obvious that Dictator Obama wanted to avoid ANY perception that his Libya policy was a shambles, and that al Qaeda isn’t exactly decimated.

  10. Our Editor continues:

    As I said before, as far as I am concerned, he is a lying sack of [insert vulgar slang term for feces here], and this is just more evidence of it.

    You’ve made your belief crystal clear, Mr Editor, as you attempt to express your ideological impulses and post-election emotions.

    The NBC quote you posted indicates that there may have been strategic reasons for the way the administration (and Ambassador Rice) handled this Benghazi disaster. Moreover, it is a fact that Candidate Romney intended to make a political issue out of this incident well before any more than the first sketchy details were known, and Republican opponents of the administration have continued to expand/politicize this issue, without all the pertinent facts being known.

    Here is what a prominent House Republican said on Meet the Press this past Sunday:

    However, House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) said Sunday morning on the program that the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning and some have questioned whether the administration withheld calling it a terror attack for political reasons. Rogers stopped short of an outright accusation as to whether Rice’s talking points were deliberately changed, saying instead that it is dangerous to make those charges. “I know the narrative was wrong and the intelligence was right. Now, getting between there and there, I think you have to be careful about making those accusations.

    I understand that you deeply distrust and probably even hate President Obama, but that does not give you license to substitute ideologically based fantasy for the facts, before said facts have been made public!

  11. I understand that you deeply distrust and probably even hate President Obama, but that does not give you license to substitute ideologically based fantasy for the facts, before said facts have been made public!

    Uh huh. I recall similar things being said about President Nixon.

  12. Perry, the facts are these: Either the administration is grossly incompetent, such that one hand didn’t know what the other was doing, and this went on for weeks, or someone was lying. Either they knew it was the video (which it clearly was not) and they didn’t know better, or they made the whole thing up.

    Also, there are the free speech implications of this. To appease radical Muslims, they threw an innocent filmmaker under the bus (and in jail) just because he had bad taste. What happened to the old liberal principle of “I may hate what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it”?

  13. WW, every time you try to make excuses for the Obumble Administration, the news cycle advances and drags your excuses through the toilet. In your zeal to defend our indefensible President, your memes keep failing.

    James Clapper Edited Out Terrorists From Talking Points.

    Just out from CBS, sources are saying that the Director of National Intelligence was the office responsible for editing the talking points.

    CBS News) WASHINGTON – CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

    Clearly CBS is trying its best to insulate Obama from culpability and deflect the real issue to make it sound like this is really not a scandal. CBS does not do that good a job at that with this news:

    However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

    “The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to.

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of “standard procedure”.

    read more

    Let us parse this a bit as I parsed denial previously. CBS is first providing cover for the administration. They, as Obama has before, are laying blame for the lies on the intelligence. What CBS conveniently leaves out is that while the DNI edited out terrorists from the talking points, the DNI is not being blamed for editing IN the idea that a protest occurred and violence was the fault of a video. Petraeus made it clear last week that the CIA knew there was no protest and the violence was not related to an escalating protest due to the video. The CIA knew from the beginning that this was an organized terrorist attack. CBS also makes it clear that even Rice was aware the CIA suspected it to be a terrorist attack.

    All the media is trying to do here is again change the subject. The subject is why security was pulled from Libya, why the Ambassador had to go to Benghazi (a known terrorist hot bed) without security to meet a Turkish official, and why the administration blamed a video that no one in the intelligence community ever blamed.

    The fact that no heads have rolled over all of this – no firings, no resignations – is infuriating.

  14. What CBS conveniently leaves out is that while the DNI edited out terrorists from the talking points, the DNI is not being blamed for editing IN the idea that a protest occurred and violence was the fault of a video.

    Precisely! If the admin was so zealous not to jump to conclusions, why the haste in blaming a video which in no way was to blame??

  15. CBS story is questioned:

    A congressional source familiar with the testimony delivered Thursday by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says that, in his testimony, Clapper was insistent that he did not alter the Benghazi talking points to remove references to al-Qaeda or terrorism. That raises questions about the latest CBS news report indicating that the talking points were edited in Clapper’s office. It was there, according to CBS, where ‘al-Qaeda’ and ‘terrorism’ disappeared from the unclassified version of the document that later found its way into the hands of UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and onto five Sunday morning news shows.

    Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also made statements on Fox News Sunday that call the CBS report into question. Chambliss told Chris Wallace that, in Thursday’s hearings, “every leader” in the intelligence community was asked if he knew who changed the talking points. Nobody knew. “The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there,” Chambliss said, “was the White House.”

  16. And, BTW, if “reliance on the intelligence at the time” is Perry’s standard, it’s ironic (no, not really) that this standard did not exist when George W. Bush relied on “the intelligence at the time” to justify his invasion of Iraq. Indeed, in that case, President Bush was LYING!!!!!

  17. The Dims have deemed anything said about Susan Rice is RACIST. MLK said to judge by the content of their charater, not by the color of their skin 40 years ago. Today’s Dims say any comment about a person of color is racist. Just ask Debbie Does the DNC about it.

  18. Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also made statements on Fox News Sunday that call the CBS report into question. Chambliss told Chris Wallace that, in Thursday’s hearings, “every leader” in the intelligence community was asked if he knew who changed the talking points. Nobody knew. “The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there,” Chambliss said, “was the White House.”

    So by process of elimination, according to Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, it was the WH which changed the talking points. No competent lawyer would ever make such a conclusion by process of elimination. This is not evidence, except to a nasty ideologue.

    In addition to Ambassador Stevens and his companions who lost their lives in this disaster, the other victim, made so by rabid Republican idiots, ends up being UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who merely went forward with the information she was given by our intelligence people.

    I’m looking for an apology from Republicans, especially John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

    And by the way, James Clapper is not the White House!

    The bottom line to date is that

  19. The bottom line to date is that

    Yes, considering how much “sense” you were making, not to mention outright ignoring the very legitimate questions posed above, your ending line perfectly encapsulates your thinking processes: ceasing in mid-function.

  20. I’m looking for an apology from Republicans, especially John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

    You always look for such. And never offer any of your own.

  21. WW wrote:

    Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also made statements on Fox News Sunday that call the CBS report into question. Chambliss told Chris Wallace that, in Thursday’s hearings, “every leader” in the intelligence community was asked if he knew who changed the talking points. Nobody knew. “The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there,” Chambliss said, “was the White House.”

    So by process of elimination, according to Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, it was the WH which changed the talking points. No competent lawyer would ever make such a conclusion by process of elimination. This is not evidence, except to a nasty ideologue.

    Actually, any competent attorney would make such an argument. The information given to Ambassador Rice was changed, and only a limited number of people could have changed it. Senator Chambliss noted that everyone who was in a position to have made the changes was there, testifying, with the exception of White House staff.

    So, who did deceive Ambassador Rice? (And yes, deceive is exactly the right term.) Directors Petraeus and Clapper both testified, under oath, that they did not. The Secretary of State wisely stayed away. Either one of the Directors perjured himself, someone high up in the White House made the changes, or somehow gremlins sneaked in and did it.

    There are your three possibilities; there really are no others. At this point, you have to be in denial to defend the White House on this one. And the truly sad part is that you know it just as well as Eric does, just as well as I do.

    In addition to Ambassador Stevens and his companions who lost their lives in this disaster, the other victim, made so by rabid Republican idiots, ends up being UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who merely went forward with the information she was given by our intelligence people.

    This is the most hilarious thing I’ve seen yet. Susan Rice wasn’t given false information by the Republicans, and Susan Rice didn’t go out and spread the Administration line at the behest of Mitt Romney or Mitch McConnell. Ambassador Rice was put on the firing line by the Obama Administration, quite deliberately, and then given a false story to tell everybody who watched. The people who victimized Ambassador Rice were the people who set her up with a knowingly false narrative.

    Your position is ridiculous. Susan Rice was sent out to deliver the Administration’s story, she was deliberately given a lie to tell, and you are blaming not the people who lied to her, but the people who caught the fact that her story was a lie.

  22. What difference does it make what Progressive changed the wording. All you need to know is bimBO is Terror adverse. Remember, he got Bin Laying, therefore the man made disaster is over. No amount of proof is accepted that terrorism still exists, and bimBO is in total denial. But then again everyone who voted for him, and every mechanic that rigged a ballot machine for him is in denial too.

  23. Your position is ridiculous.

    No Mr Editor. What is ridiculous is the behavior of your side of the aisle on this issue, beginning with Candidate Romney’s decision to politicize the event before any significant information was available. You’ve made fools of yourselves. Well it backfired, all the way down to John McCain’s and Lindsey Graham’s vilification of Susan Rice, the messenger. But this is what you people do, such that a majority of American voters have rejected your approach. You folks have yet to learn that lesson. Let us now see what you do about the fiscal cliff, taxes, and crazy Grover Norquist.

  24. Wagonwheel wrote:

    Your position is ridiculous.

    No Mr Editor. What is ridiculous is the behavior of your side of the aisle on this issue, beginning with Candidate Romney’s decision to politicize the event before any significant information was available. You’ve made fools of yourselves. Well it backfired, all the way down to John McCain’s and Lindsey Graham’s vilification of Susan Rice, the messenger. But this is what you people do, such that a majority of American voters have rejected your approach. You folks have yet to learn that lesson. Let us now see what you do about the fiscal cliff, taxes, and crazy Grover Norquist.

    So, when it was pointed out that your position, that we somehow don’t know that Ambassador Rice was lied to by the White House, was ridiculous, you change the subject. :)

    Of course, it turns out that we were right: since the events, we have learned that top military officials were watching, in real time, and did nothing. Since the incident, we’ve learned that the CIA knew, virtually immediately, that it wasn’t some sort of demonstration run amok, but a planned terrorist strike. Since the incident, we’ve learned that the high-ranking dupe sent forth by the Obama Administration to tell the story was deliberately deceived.

    But, it certainly worked for just as long as it needed to work, until after the election. The American people were lied to, and, unfortunately, the lie worked.

    So, what of the participants? Secretary of State Clinton? Retiring. Secretary of Defense Panetta? Retiring. General Carter Ham? His relief named early, and, not being appointed to another O-10 position, forced to retire. Director Petraeus? Resigned. Only the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will remain in his position for any length of time, and I’d bet that, rather than the traditional re-appointment to a second two-year term, he’ll be retired as well.

    The only one of the participants remaining? President Obama. Kind of amazing when you think about it.

  25. So, when it was pointed out that your position, that we somehow don’t know that Ambassador Rice was lied to by the White House, was ridiculous, you change the subject.

    That’s all Perry has left, Editor.

    Notice that Perry continues to avoid what has been asked/brought up in this thread:

    1) Who, exactly, told Ms. Rice (and everyone else who claimed it) that the YouTube video was to blame for the attacks?
    2) If “terrorism” wasn’t used because we “were waiting” until all the intel was in, then why — again — was the YouTube vid so quickly blamed?
    3) For Perry, Obama et. al. made statements and acted “based on what the intel agencies told them.” Of course, when the previous administration did just this, Perry and other radicals the country-over claimed that the president was lying.

    Instead, we read the GOP’s behavior has been “ridiculous,” and have been “made fools.”

    Let’s face it: Had Dictator Obama admitted from the start that this was an al-Qaeda-inspired attack, he would have opened himself up to a potential political attack from Romney that the president’s claims about al-Qaeda “being on the run” and “decimated” weren’t entirely true. That, and an attack on his “budding democracy in Libya.” However, it is highly doubtful this line of attack would have made much headway. Americans recognize that we’re in this “war” against radical Islam for the long haul. There would have little political danger in stating exactly what took place in Libya; indeed, had Obama reacted more forcefully in response to what really took place, and admitted precisely what occurred, he’d have no hassles now. The American people aren’t going to blame an administration for a radical group’s attack (see as far back as Reagan and Beirut), but they can smell bullsh** a mile away.

  26. Is it not about time that we deal with the truth, instead of the fictions that the right-wing media, press, and blogosphere are intent on screaming and yelling?

    From the LA Times:

    If the fog of war obscured what actually happened at Benghazi on Sept. 11 — even now, investigators are trying to reconstruct the events that led to the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — then the fog of politics continues to distort the picture of how and why the administration characterized the events the way it did. Most of the obfuscation has come from Republicans.

    It’s now clear that Rice’s comments in several TV interviews on Sept. 16 faithfully tracked “talking points” that were assembled by intelligence officials and only slightly edited by the White House and State Department. (A reference to the Benghazi site changed from “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” hardly evidence of a political cover-up.) The talking points said that there were indications that “extremists participated in the violent demonstration,” which “evolved into a direct assault.” But they didn’t indicate that officials had begun to suspect that groups affiliated with or modeled on Al Qaeda were involved.

    Should the talking points have included that information? Perhaps, but in her appearance on “Face the Nation,” Rice did say that “it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were Al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or Al Qaeda itself, I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

    Both Rice’s comments and the talking points on which they were based apparently erred in portraying the attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous reaction to the protests in Cairo. But the charge that she knowingly misled her interviewers or the country is, as President Obama rightly said at his news conference last week, outrageous and utterly unsupported by any evidence.

    The facts, to the extent that they are known, do not warrant outrageous statements like this from our Editor, similar to those of Senators McCain and Graham:

    So, when it was pointed out that your position, that we somehow don’t know that Ambassador Rice was lied to by the White House, was ridiculous, you change the subject.

    Of course, it turns out that we were right: since the events, we have learned that top military officials were watching, in real time, and did nothing. Since the incident, we’ve learned that the CIA knew, virtually immediately, that it wasn’t some sort of demonstration run amok, but a planned terrorist strike. Since the incident, we’ve learned that the high-ranking dupe sent forth by the Obama Administration to tell the story was deliberately deceived.

    No, we weren’t “lied” to by the White House, and Ambassador Rice is not a “dupe”. But this is your narrative, in black and white, and you’re committed to stick to it regardless of the facts as they become available. Your comments say more about you than they do about the WH or Ambassador Rice, and it is not very honorable looking at this point in time.

  27. Is it not about time that we deal with the truth, instead of the fictions that the right-wing media, press, and blogosphere are intent on screaming and yelling?

    Indeed! And the questions/points continue to remain unanswered. Why is this, Perry? Why do you refuse to address them? It apparently must be repeated time and time and time again (just like previously posted cites, it seems):

    Notice that Perry continues to avoid what has been asked/brought up in this thread:

    1) Who, exactly, told Ms. Rice (and everyone else who claimed it) that the YouTube video was to blame for the attacks?
    2) If “terrorism” wasn’t used because we “were waiting” until all the intel was in, then why — again — was the YouTube vid so quickly blamed?
    3) For Perry, Obama et. al. made statements and acted “based on what the intel agencies told them.” Of course, when the previous administration did just this, Perry and other radicals the country-over claimed that the president was lying.

  28. Quit offering excuses and obuscations, Perry. And quit pretending that Susan Rice is a poor, innocent “Victim” in all of this. She’s an adult woman in a high level government job, quite ambitious by reports and eager for an even higher level government job, Secretary of State. She can stand on her own, thank you very much, which means she should take full responsibility for her role in this affair.

    The facts are obvious. She and the Obama Admin peddled a lie about the Libya attack. The lie was about the video and they continued to peddle it for weeks, including Obama at the UN, even long after they knew (or should have known) that it was a terrorist attack. The question on the table is – why did they lie, and for so long? Neither you nor any of your left wing cohorts has an answer to that.

  29. Rice lied her ass off to get Obama past the election. She knew exactly what she was doing and she knew it would probably blow-up in her face, but she did it anyway because Obama needed cover.

    He was desperate, Hillary wouldn’t take the fall for him and he couldn’t face the voters with the blood of 4 dead Americans on his hands. He had arrogantly refused to authorize the use of military force to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi, and everyone in the Situation Room knew it.

    So, like a loyal partisan Susan Rice exchanged her integrity for the promise of the appointment to head the State Department. Hillary was finished and the job would be open soon anyway. With Obama’s back against the wall, Rice might have even got it in writing.

    Now, if people would just stop asking silly questions and move on.

  30. Citation please, because your opinion cannot be trusted, Eric! I’ve already provided credible citations.

    No you haven’t. Your citations fail to ask/note just what Editor and myself have asked about — namely WHY was the YouTube video immediately (and constantly) blamed if “the intel was still coming in” and more importantly: WHO made the YouTube vid the “culprit?”

    So stop with the BS and address these questions. Otherwise, you’re just boring the hell out of us.

  31. WW wrote:

    No, we weren’t “lied” to by the White House, and Ambassador Rice is not a “dupe”. But this is your narrative, in black and white, and you’re committed to stick to it regardless of the facts as they become available. Your comments say more about you than they do about the WH or Ambassador Rice, and it is not very honorable looking at this point in time.

    OK, here are the facts, which even Wagonwheel cannot deny:

    1. The consulate and staff in Benghazi were attacked on September 11, 2012. The CIA knew almost immediately that this was the work of a terrorist group, not just some crazed Muslims urinated off about a movie.
    2. Ambassador Susan Rice was the designated Administration spokesman for the Sunday interview shows. Dr Rice was not present during the decision-taking process while the attacks were occurring, and thus had no first-hand knowledge of what happened. On September 15, she was given her “talking points,” which made “no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault.”
    3. On Sunday, September 16, Dr Rice made the rounds of the Sunday interview shows, and claimed that the attacks were the result of spontaneous anger on the part of the outraged Muslims.

    Ambassador Rice presented the Administration line, which the President and his minions knew to be false. This leaves two, and only two, possibilities:

    1. Ambassador Rice was given information the Administration knew to be false, and believed it when she gave the Administration line on the Sunday shows; if this is the case, then she was knowingly duped by others in the Administration; or
    2. Ambassador Rice was given the accurate information, but still delivered the Administration’s public line, knowing that it was false; if that is the case, she is a liar.

    So, was she a dupe, or was she a liar? Pick one, or pick the other, but there is no third alternative.

  32. On a related issue, Senator John McCain had the following to say:

    I am somewhat surprised and frustrated to read reports that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was responsible for removing references to Al-Qaeda from the unclassified talking points about the Benghazi attack that Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used in the early days after September 11, 2012…

    I participated in hours of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week regarding the events in Benghazi, where senior intelligence officials were asked this very question, and all of them – including the Director of National Intelligence himself – told us that they did not know who made the changes. Now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. There are many other questions that remain unanswered. But this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so frustrated with, and suspicious of, the actions of this Administration when it comes to the Benghazi attack.

Comments are closed.