« | »

Susan Rice = Distraction From Benghazi, Morsi

From an irony proof New York Times:

Big Issues Are Lost in Focus on Libya Talking Points

By SCOTT SHANE | November 28, 2012

WASHINGTON — Three days after the lethal attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya, Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, asked intelligence agencies to write up some unclassified talking points on the episode. Reporters were besieging him and other legislators for comment, and he did not want to misstate facts or disclose classified information.

More than 10 weeks later, the four pallid sentences that intelligence analysts cautiously delivered are the unlikely center of a quintessential Washington drama, in which a genuine tragedy has been fed into the meat grinder of election-year politics.

"Cautiously delivered"? Also, who made this political? The White House. The Obama campaign, who didn’t want the truth to come out before the elections.

In the process, the most important questions about Benghazi, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, have largely gotten lost: Were requests for greater security for diplomats in Libya ignored? Even if Al Qaeda’s core in Pakistan has been decimated, what threat is posed by its affiliates and imitators in other countries where they have taken refuge? How can crucial diplomacy be conducted amid the dangerous chaos that has followed the toppling of dictators across the Arab world?

Bear in mind this ‘outrage’ is coming from the New York Times. Which refused to cover Benghazi even after its own Public Editor openly criticized them for their lack of coverage.

The Times editors claimed Benghazi was too political, coming too close to the elections. A detail that did not stop them from covering Watergate or any other Republican scandal.

Instead, it is the parsing of the talking points — who wrote them, altered them, recited them on television or tried to explain them — that could decide the fate of a leading candidate for secretary of state, Susan E. Rice, currently the United Nations ambassador…

This is not an accident. It is exactly what the Obama administration wants. Ms Rice is not only a distraction from what happened in Benghazi, she is a distraction from what is happening in Egypt.

She also deflects any criticism from John Kerry, who is probably the real candidate for the Secretary Of State or Defense Secretary. Either of which should be a scandal in its own right.

For now, the focus of Congress and the news media is mostly on language. For weeks after the Benghazi attack, Republicans accused Mr. Obama and his aides of avoiding labeling it “terrorism” for fear of tarnishing his national security record in the weeks before the Nov. 6 election. Since his re-election, that issue has faded, and the debate has shifted to the talking points…

That issue has not faded. The problem is the White House and its minions lied to the American people in order to help Obama get re-elected. The talking points are only of interest insofar as they are proof of this strategy.

In fact, this is such a obvious truth that even the most obtuse moderate Republican has cottoned on.

As we learn via The Hill:

Sen. Collins: Rice played ‘political role’ in Benghazi response

By Julian Pecquet | November 28, 2012

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) emerged from an almost two-hour meeting with Susan Rice Wednesday morning unconvinced by her explanation of her role after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi and concerned about her role in denying security requests prior to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa.

“I continue to be troubled by the fact that the UN ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of a contentious presidential election … by agreeing to go on the Sunday shows to present the administration’s position,” the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee said…

And in support of the theory that Rice could just be a scapegoat, a handy distraction, who will be tossed aside when he usefulness has ended, we have this from the radical left OnEarth Magazine:

Secretary of State Candidate Has a Major Financial Stake in Canadian Tar Sands

By Scott Dodd | November 28, 2012

Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

Rice’s financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel — including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 — the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history…

Another 20 percent or so of her personal wealth is derived from investments in five Canadian banks. These are some of the institutions that provide loans and financial backing to TransCanada and its competitors for tar sands extraction and major infrastructure projects, such as Keystone XL and Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would stretch 700 miles from Alberta to the Canadian coast.

In 2010, for instance, when Rice and her husband held at least $1.5 million in Royal Bank of Canada, the institution was labeled Canada’s most environmentally irresponsible company by the Rainforest Action Network for its support of tar sands development. Public pressure from environmentalists and Canada’s First Nations tribes convinced the bank to stop funding tar sands projects earlier this year.

“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” said Bill McKibben, a writer and founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sands Action, which have organized protests against the Keystone XL project…

All of this information about Rice’s oil holdings has been public for at least three months, via Rice’s public financial disclosure form. But suddenly it has been discovered by the left, including the Politico.

Why is that, do you think?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, November 29th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Susan Rice = Distraction From Benghazi, Morsi”

  1. GetBackJack

    Distraction?

    Boy, howdy

  2. canary

    A true-life reality show called “Impeach” is what Americans need to get their brains off distractions.

    One show could focus on fashion, another on hairstyle, and have call in vote shows.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »