Translate

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Susan Rice: More Confusion

Hat tip Daily Caller

"Who killed Cock Robin?"

Daily Caller has more information on the attempts to get the truth from Susan Rice as to how she got those mysterious (and false) talking points.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/28/graham-mccain-ayotte-demand-to-know-who-altered-rices-talking-points/

"Who hired Craig Livingstone?"


2 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Jack Sparrow.

elwood p suggins said...

With regard to Susan Rice, Gary previously posted the question “As a high-ranking official in the State Departement (albeit not connected to the specific incident) did she not learn from anyone in those 5 days that it was really a terrorist attack?”

Siarlys will continue to call this speculation/conjecture. Let him. As with terrorists/freedom fighters, one man’s speculation/conjecture is another man’s analysis. And as I have previously observed, absence of evidence is not necessarily, and in fact almost never is, the equivalent of evidence of absence.

Obama Himself has a former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, who therefore undoubtedly (or at least hopefully) has significant expertise relative to Africa, at his right hand. She is also a stone liberal Democrat who happens to be black and who therefore, one would thnk, almost certainly has great interest in matters African. She also happens to currently be his U.S, Ambassador to the UN, at his right hand (which he does), Obama would most certainly have called upon her for advice and input on the recent Benghazi mess. If this did not occur, seems to me that he would be incompetent/derelict.

Assuming he is not, then Ms. Rice necessarily communicated with some combination of Obama, Hillary Clinton, members of the intelligence community, DOD, and other administration officials in the Benghazi aftermath. Again, particularly given her long-time closeness to Obama, not to have utilized her knowledge and expertise would have exceeded incompetence/dereliction and would have at least approached, or bordered on, the “criminally negligent” which is being tossed around. So, it seems safe to assume she was at least partially, and more likely totally, in on the act.

And if she was, then as her brain was picked (briefing/debriefing are somewhat interactive), she would in turn necessarily have received information from others, particularly in the intelligence community, by osmosis if by no other process, which would have told her early on that this was in fact a terrorist attack and not a response to an offensive video, and would further have made it obvious to her that the subsequent “talking points” were inaccurate/invalid.

Which in turn, of course, then makes her statements relative to absence of a terrorist attack not merely a mistake or misunderstanding, but deliberate, calculated, and blatant lies for the sole purpose of partisan politics. It would be bad enough under any other circumstances; attempts to conceal the true story relative to the deaths of U.S. citizens and an atack on American soil are well over the top and are in fact unconscionable.