So Susan Rice comes out with a statement defending what she said on the Sunday talk shows on September 16. And it she’s lying. But is this any reason to oppose her nomination as Secretary of State?
Here’s what she said in her recent statement:
“When discussing the attacks against our facilities in Benghazi , I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers.”
(See transcript on the MSNBC website.)
Now we know that there were talking points that were drawn up that were in contradiction to what the intelligence community was providing. So she continues to lie about this. But I am also bothered by the thrust of this statement and how it contradicts the thrust of what she told the Sunday shows.
I listened to one of those Sunday show interviews, the one on Fox News Sunday. Here how that interview went:
First, Chris Wallace played a clip of a statement by White House spokesperson Jay Carney, in which he said, “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.” Wallace then asks Ambassador Rice: “You don’t really believe that?” And she answers:
“Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.”
Later in the interview, Chris Wallace brings up the question again, leading with a statement from a “top Libyan official” who said that the September 11 attack was “preplanned.” At this point, Ambassador Rice begins to qualify the statement. She says:
“The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.”
But the thrust of what she was saying was the opening statement – this was absolutely a response to the video. And that is exactly what Jay Carney was saying, as a spokesperson for the President. To come out now and try to imply that she was saying is that, well, we think this is a response to the video but we don’t really know yet – that is not honesty. It just isn’t.
However, she was just following orders. The real target here is Obama. Remember his statement in defense of Susan Rice, saying more or less: “Don’t attack the girl, if you’re going to come after anyone come after me.” We know, of course, that this is baloney like a lot of what Obama says. He has no intention of letting anyone ask him any probing questions about Benghazi. But if you’re going to disqualify a nominee for high office in the Obama administration for following instructions to lie, then you have to disqualify everyone he puts up for nomination, because he’s simply not going to nominate anyone who won’t lie for him.
The establishment media is corrupt. They’re upholding a corrupt regime, covering for them. The people believe the media and voted for corruption. Elections have consequences – the people are entitled to have what they voted for.
Senators, you confirmed a corrupt thug as Attorney General, a tax cheat for a Treasury Secretary, and a host of other high officials who believe that the ends justifies the means. Now you’re going to choke on a Secretary of State who goes along with institutional lying? No, I think you’re just going to have to let this one go.
Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.