Skip to content
About these ads

More questions than answers after three Republicans meet with Susan Rice over the Benghazi terrorist attack

November 27, 2012

 After having voiced their disapproval of the prospect that Susan Rice would be named as Hillary Clinton’s successor as Secretary of State the three Republican Senators–John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, and Lindsey Graham–met with Susan Rice today and the consensus among these three was that the meeting left them with more questions than answers.

Said McCain: “We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn’t get, concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate, [and] the tragic deaths of four brave Americans.” 

Said Ayotte: “I can say I am more troubled today…having met with Ambassador Rice. Because it’s certainly clear from the beginning we knew those with ties to Al Qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy…and that the information that was given to the American people was wrong.”

Said Graham: “I’m more disturbed now than I was before. [Ambassador Rice's Sept. 16 statement] was a statement disconnected from reality.” 

  Susan Rice has stated that she didn’t intentionally mislead the American people and I am willing to take her at her word on this and am willing to concede this point at this time. (If an investigation proves otherwise I reserve the right to “evolve” my position and unconcede this point.)

  However, Barack Obama admitted it was the White House which sent her out to the television talking heads on September 16th with the talking points which she used and David Petraeus admitted UNDER OATH that the CIA’s talking points were edited before Susan Rice made her media tour, so the questions remain; who edited the talking points and for what reason were they edited?

  We don’t know the answer to the first question, it will be left up to an investigation to determine the answer to that question, but the answer to the second question appears obvious to me at this point.

  Barack Obama was running for a second term based in part on what he considers to be his successes on foreign policy; the fact that the Middle East is more stable than ever before and the fact that al Qaeda is on the run. However the CIA’s initial report punctured a large hole in both of those facts so a decision was made somewhere within the regime to downplay al Qaeda’s role in the attack by lying to the American people shortly before the election, and Susan Rice was sent out there to do just that and it worked for the time being.

About these ads
18 Comments leave one →
  1. November 27, 2012 9:38 pm

    Rice is doing and saying what her handlers want her to do and say, it’s THAT simple. She is an Obamabot and as useless as … well, she’s really useless.

    Like

    • November 27, 2012 9:46 pm

      She is more than useless, she is a useful idiot of the Obama regime.

      Like

  2. Bruce permalink
    November 27, 2012 10:40 pm

    Steve, you are more kind toward Ms. Rice than I am, by far. One of the reasons the left did so well in this last election is that they never concede a single point, not ever, no matter how wrong they are.

    Like

    • November 27, 2012 10:58 pm

      So very true Bruce, I am only conceding the point because I think it goes much higher than Rice. She probably knew she wasn’t telling the truth, but at the same time there are bigger fish to fry here and I hope this doesn’t become a bigger issue than what really happened over there or the fact Obama decided not to send help in after the attack started. Obama is hiding something big but our focus has been turned on to Rice and I think Obama likes it that way.

      Like

      • lou222 permalink
        November 27, 2012 11:02 pm

        Steve, it still boils down to “lie, deny and make them prove it”! I told you before, this should be this administrations motto! She knew what she was saying when she said it, that is pretty evident. She doesn’t belong in our administration, but she DOES belong in Obamas administration. Does that make sense?

        Like

      • November 27, 2012 11:04 pm

        It makes perfect sense to me Lou. Lie and deny works really well for Obama especially when he can use executive privilege to hide the proof as we saw with Fast and Furious.

        Like

  3. November 27, 2012 10:54 pm

    The situation in Libya is being politicized and the victims and there families being instrumented as a ruse to create doubt of Obama’s leadership. Public access to real facts is being whitewashed by this rhetoric while conservative hands paint the Blackface on our President. Watch them mix and apply the paints to his face in a portrait of Obama being Bamboozed by the Far Right at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

    Like

    • November 27, 2012 11:01 pm

      If you don’t think that Obama ignoring the warnings about an attack or the fact he refused to send in help after the attack are important then there is nothing I can say to persuade you to think differently therefor I will not waste my time.

      Like

      • Bruce permalink
        November 28, 2012 12:54 pm

        Brandt is a great example of what I was saying, NEVER CONCEDE, ALWAYS ATTACK no matter how wrong. Brandt refers to “access to real facts”. Under Obama, we have the same access to real facts that Orwell talked about in 1984, DOUBLE SPEAK! Big Brother will tell you what you need to know.

        Like

      • November 28, 2012 7:43 pm

        Exactly! It doesn’t matter how wrong the Democrats are about something, they never back down while the Republicans always seem to give in when they are pressured or attacked.

        Like

    • lou222 permalink
      November 27, 2012 11:04 pm

      Brandt, I assure you I have no doubt about Obama’s leadership…he has none.

      Like

      • November 27, 2012 11:07 pm

        Amen to that!

        Like

    • November 28, 2012 6:13 am

      I would challenge you to prove your points. Show us proof that the situation in Benghazi was not a complete and total breakdown of Obama’s leadership. Show us a single, legitimate reason why Obama should have let four Americans die, without sending help that was near. I’ll give you a hint. Protecting his reelection campaign doesn’t count.

      Like

      • November 28, 2012 6:54 am

        People are all too willing to protect Obama on this by claiming it is being done for political reasons, they care more about Obama’s image than the people who died or their families.

        Like

  4. November 28, 2012 6:14 am

    I think it’s pretty clear we aren’t going to hear anything differently from Susan Rice. You’re right, in that this goes far beyond her pay grade.

    Like

    • November 28, 2012 6:56 am

      It sure does, she might have known she was lying but she didn’t do this on her own. She was told to go out there and lie and we need to know by whom.

      Like

  5. bunkerville permalink
    November 28, 2012 7:33 am

    Rice has far more problems then this. I just wish her failures and philosophy were included in the conversation that this band of three has taken on.

    Like

    • November 28, 2012 7:45 pm

      I hoe that these issues will come up if she is nominated for Secretary of State but I fear the Republicans will back down because they will be called racists and sexists so I am not optimistic.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,435 other followers

%d bloggers like this: