Obama Misplaced Outrage About Susan Rice

Outrage About Susan Rice

I admit that before Benghazi – I had never heard Susan Rice’s name. One reason for that could be because there wasn’t anything big and important in the news about the UN. That isn’t a glowing recommendation about her performance over the last four years.

Many of us saw the Obama press conference where he was “outraged” that people were questioning Susan Rice’s ability and qualifications to be Secretary of State.

Seems to me it would be nice to see him “outraged” about an Ambassador and 3 service men who were killed in Benghazi by terrorists.

Seems to me he should be “outraged” that requests for increased security were denied repeatedly.

Seems to me he should be “outraged” that someone in the administration changed the talking points to not protect national security, but in turn they were changed in a way that served to mislead the American people.

Just for a few things that should stir that kind of outrage in the president.

What do you think about his feigned outrage – and yes, I am drawing the conclusion that his actions at the press conference were a show for the cameras.

I just saw an interview with Richard Grenell – who was the spokesman for the UN Ambassador – so he is aware of the duties and responsibilities of her job. That puts him in a special position to critique her work at the UN.

Here is the intro and a link to the article. Feel free to share your thoughts.

30 REASONS WHY SUSAN RICE SHOULDN’T BE SECRETARY OF STATE

Ambassador Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, as President Obama told us, but she appeared on five Sunday political talk shows anyway. On those shows, Rice mouthed talking points that weren’t true. We now know that the talking points did not match the intel reports, which she had complete access to. While the national media debates whether or not she knowingly mislead the public on the Sunday shows, her failings and shortcomings before the Benghazi terrorist attacks have not received the attention they deserve.

Here are 30 reasons (that have nothing to do with Benghazi) why Susan Rice should not get a promotion.

1. failed to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council after the 2010 Haiti earthquake
2. skipped the Security Council debate and vote to add new UN Peacekeepers in Haiti after the earthquake
3. led the US during the most inactive Security Council since 1991 during her first year as Ambassador
4. held her first press conference with the UN Secretary General on the pressing international issue of texting while driving
5. failed to speak out when Col. Gaddafi’s Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Commission
6. waited 17 months before voting on the one and only UN resolution on Iran passed during her tenure

(Sadly- there is more – http://richardgrenell.com/2012/11/30-reasons-why-susan-rice-shouldnt-be-secretary-of-state/)

Photo – http://www.facebook.com/TheTeaParty.net/posts/384947934927654

 

Advertisements

Liberals Need to Put on Their Big Girl and Big Boy Pants

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice

Seems to me that its time for liberals and everyone else in this country to understand actions have consequences. If you want to have a powerful position in the government, then its time to figure out YOU ANSWER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. A woman on Facebook told me very clearly that anyone in government works for Obama and if they forget that, they can be replaces. Ummm…. NO!

Anyone who works in government is in a position to SERVE the American people and in particular, the people they represent.

Seems if people would grow a backbone and step up and take responsibility for their decisions and actions.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice made THE CHOICE to use the talking points even when they conflicted with information the Intelligence Agencies said they knew were facts – and made the choice to twist them when she spoke on 5 national talk shows. Either she didn’t do her due diligence to know the full story or she ignored the facts and followed the party line – which continued to put forward the Democratic line that AQ has been decimated. Any person who keeps up with the news and who considers the reality – knows AQ is not decimated.

I found this interesting article by Bernie Goldberg about how the media etc are treating people who oppose Susan Rice. My last thought – she is an adult, from reports I hear, she is very smart, so – she needs to step up and take responsibility for her actions and understand those actions can likely cost her the position of Secretary of State. If the people of America cannot trust you – then you should not be the person who travels the world to speak for the US…. or it would seem she believes that she only speaks the Obama party line….

When the Ends Justify the Meanness

 

Those old, angry, white Republican guys are at it again.  They just can’t control their worst instincts.  They see a black face and they go nuts.

Now they’re going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, not because she went on five Sunday news shows and told a fairy tale about why four Americans were killed in Benghazi, but simply because she’s a black woman.

At least that’s the story some liberals in the worlds of politics and media have come up with to counter GOP opposition to Ms. Rice, whom President Obama will almost certainly nominate to be the next Secretary of State.

Ninety-seven Republicans in the House recently signed a letter telling President Obama that, “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi affair.”  They want him to pick somebody else.  In the Senate, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are leading the effort to block her nomination.

This has riled many sensitive liberals who see in this opposition the twin devils — racism and sexism.  Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Ohio and the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus told reporters that, “It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they [Republicans] pick on women and minorities.”

And a magazine called The Week chimed in, opining that, “Republicans are trying to take the newly re-elected Obama down a peg by getting ‘Rice’s scalp.’ But in the end, Republicans will only compound their problems with women and minority voters if [Senator John] McCain filibusters Obama’s black, female ambassador over this ‘absurd’ criticism.”

TheGrio, an NBC News Web site aimed at African-Americans, ran a story that said, “The Republicans really need to lay off UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  The image of a party of angry old white dudes going after an accomplished black woman will not give them the image makeover they need.”

And the Washington Post went even further, with an editorial that read in part:  “Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman?  The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts.  What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.”

This is especially nasty.  After the mandatory, “we can’t know their hearts,” the Post says in essence, maybe we can’t but we know that those Republicans are white, that they’re male and that a lot of them came from states that had slaves way more than 100 years ago – and that’s all we need to know to convince us that they’re racists.  The Post should be ashamed but we all know nobody responsible for that smarmy editorial will feel the least bit guilty.

So there it is:  If you criticize Susan Rice for putting out false information – possibly to protect the president who was busy telling voters that thanks to him al-Qaeda had been decimated – you’re a racist.  Never mind that there is not so much as a shred of evidence to support the allegation.  In cases like this, facts don’t matter.  Opponents are bigots simply because they’re white and come from the South. The ends justify the meanness.

But this isn’t only about Susan Rice.  This is a sordid lesson in how liberals use race and sex to smear their opponents and render them illegitimate.

So, if you ever opposed, say, President Obama for just about anything, it couldn’t be an honest disagreement over policy – not as far as those good white liberals are concerned. It must be because you’re a bigot.  You think Eric Holder is doing a lousy job.  That proves just one thing.  You hate him because he’s black.

Former Newsweek White House correspondent and current MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe said as much, telling Chris Matthews that John McCain is leading a “witch hunt” against “these people of color, let’s face it around this president, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, now Susan Rice.”  When Matthews asked, “You’re saying that McCain is being driven by racial prejudice here?” Wolffe said, “There is no other way to look at this.”

Actually there is another way to look at this.  Why not accept that McCain and the others oppose Susan Rice because they disagree with what she did, and that her skin color has nothing to do with anything?  Why not accept that, since there is no evidence that any of them are racists?

Criticism of white politicians is perfectly legitimate, of course.  Just ask George W. Bush or any other Republican who has ever run for president.  But the same rules apparently don’t apply to African American public officials – if they’re liberal African American officials.  Liberal elites can say whatever they want about Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and (soon-to-be former) Congressman Allen West.  They’re black conservatives, which means they’re fair game.  It’s perfectly permissible to call them Uncle Toms, house Negroes and the like.  But utter a discouraging word about a black liberal and you’re in for a heap of trouble

Black liberals must be protected.  Their honesty and their competence cannot be questioned.  No criticism, no matter how reasonable and legitimate, is permitted.  And so, their detractors must be slandered as racists. Liberal African American officials – especially those of the highest rank — can’t be held accountable precisely because they’re African Americans.  You get the impression that simply being a black liberal is a kind of get out of jail free card? Oops, is that racist?

Is this what the most important movement of the 20th century — the great Civil Rights Movement — has come to?

To their everlasting credit, liberals were on the right side of the civil rights struggle.  So it isn’t difficult to understand their belief that racism lurks just beneath the surface, even in today’s America.  But what they seem not to understand is that racism is an ugly thing even when it’s the soft kind, pedaled by supposedly well-meaning white liberals who are too eager to look the other way when black politicians – like every other kind of politician – get into trouble of their own making.  Calling critics bigots is not progress.  It’s not even liberal.

Originally posted – http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/when-the-ends-justify-the-meanness/

Photo posted – http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/how-susan-rice-sees-the-world.html

 

Racism Claims Remind Me of the Boy Who Cried Wolf

We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf…

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, “Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!”

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

“Don’t cry ‘wolf’, shepherd boy,” said the villagers, “when there’s no wolf!” They went grumbling back down the hill.

Several times he cried wolf and they came running. But they stopped believing him – so when a real wolf showed up, they ignored him.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, “Wolf! Wolf!”

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn’t come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn’t returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

“There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, “Wolf!” Why didn’t you come?”

He learned a valuable lesson that day — if you keep crying “wolf” when there is nothing wrong, when there is a real problem, no one listens.

Seems to me — that is a lesson liberals and democrats need to learn. If you keep crying “racism” when it doesn’t apply, then it dilutes people’s perspective of racism and when there is a real instance of racism or racial bias no one will pay attention.

This is a lesson that Representative Clyburne (among many others) needs to learn. Last week he said,

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., says that the attacks on Rice have gone beyond her job performance. When asked about Rice on CNN’s Starting Pointon Tuesday, Clyburn said that words like “lazy” and “incompetent,” which have been used to describe black members of the administration, including Rice and President Obama himself, are reminiscent of language used to undermine minorities in decades past.

 “You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”

Now I don’t know about you, but when I call someone “lazy” or “incompetent” its not based on their race, gender, financial status, religion, or any other criteria like that. And I’m pretty clear about what I mean – there is no need to search for “code words”. To me, lazy means the person doesn’t work or has no motivation or ambition. And imcompetent means the person lacks the skills for a job and should be replaced. But that could just be me. That could be a man, a woman, a child, an adult, or a person from any ethnic background – the definition is the same.

Conservatives, white people, Southerners, Republicans, Tea Party members and others are frequently stereotyped as being racist or sexist – if they dare to disagree with another person. There is no question about why they disagree, just the assumption that the person is a racist or sexist. On the other hand – those same groups of people are frequently accused of stereotyping all people of a specific gender or ethnic group in a negative way.

Ummmm – seems like there is a real double standard at work….

What do you think? And if you think I’m wrong, please feel free to share your thoughts…

Article About Clyburne – http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/clyburn-susan-rice-criticism-is-race-based-20121120

Picture by Richard A. Bloom

Boy Who Cried Wolf – http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

Who is Using UN Ambassador Susan Rice

This evening I was reading a blog which said the GOP is using Susan Rice to hit Obama. Well —- didn’t President Obama and/or his administration choose to put her in the middle of something she shouldn’t have done? Like his feigned outrageous that her record was being challenged in his press conference last week. He even said she had nothing to do with Benghazi. OK – so Mr President, why did you and/or your adminstration decide that she was the person to go to the Sunday morning talk shows to give the party line about what happened?

By that time – each intelligence official has now told us they knew it was a terrorist attack. So, why put a hand picked spokesperson “out there” to spread the “video” story? After Petreaus’ testimony on Friday – it seems evident that the CIA put out the accurate information but then “someone-who no one can identify – changed the talking points. Seems the obvious question would be — who had approval or the authority to change the CIA report? This wasn’t just changing classified information to protect national security — this was a blatant disregard for the truth. The truth that many Americans understand, does not help Obama’s agenda and does not give any credence to the Democratic cry that “Al Qada is on its heels”. If anything – it is in direct opposition to that comment that the Democrats hammered home at every opportunity.

But back to the blog post — this paragraph really caught my attention —

Rice simply repeated the flawed and inaccurate intelligence information that she was given. The UN Ambassador has virtually nothing to do with securing embassies, assigning military or diplomatic personnel to them, or authorizing military operations against terrorist groups.  Likewise, the Secretary of State does not make foreign policy. The Secretary’s role is to advise, and consent, but ultimately their charge is to implement policies and directives from the White House.

  • To me – the first sentence implies that the intelligence information sent to the White House was inaccurate – I’ll leave that to you after the testimony given Friday.
  • However – it is a position where the person is representing the US worldwide and must have the strength and character to question things that look or feel wrong. They need the discretion to put out information that is truthful to the world and the United States citizens. In order to be approved by Congress – I would sincerely hope, that we could expect that we could trust the Secretary of State to look out for the best interests of the country — even if that meant standing up and getting logical answers to questions and THEN present the details to the people.
  • IF these responsibilities in this article apply to the US Secretary of State – then why didn’t our current Secretary of State appear on the talk shows? She was in town and could’ve done that – but for some unknown reason, she didn’t appear then and now she’s too busy with wine tastings in Australia.

What are your thoughts? Is Ambassador Rice being used by the GOP? Or should I ask, if you think Ambassador Rice is being used to the President and his administration?

Interesting blog post about reasons why Susan Rice is unqualified – besides the Benghazi debacle – http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/11/un_ambassador_susan_rice_has_a.html

Picture above, courtesy of http://roccosphere.tumblr.com/post/35725631462/if-un-ambassador-susan-rice-had-nothing-to-do

President Obama is Offended

Honestly – what goes through your mind when the president says things like —

He is offended that someone would say people in his administration screwed up in Benghazi

He is offended that people question his claims about Benghazi

Well Mr President many people in the US are offended that:

Your top administration officials have basically been missing in action before, during and after the Benghazi attack

When these officials do speak – their comments seem to have no sense of reality

Someone in the White House decided it was a good idea to send Susan Rice to the top Sunday morning news shows – to quote your words “she had nothing to do with Benghazi” — That is true, so who made the decision to send her and once that decision was made, why was she not at least caught up on the correct information

And most of all – we’re offended that 4 Americans who were in service to this country are dead and your administration seems to only care when the camera is on and the nation is watching.

Many of the people watching the debates – know you claimed to be offended in order to distract us. Well, while it seems to have worked with too many people – you didn’t distract ALL of us and we’re still watching.

On November 14th – we also heard it when you said you were ready for Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John McCain to have a talk with you. I did notice a suspicious hesitation in that comment – it seemed like you really wanted to say “I’m anxious for that… fight” but you did say “talk” into the mic.

We did check the transcript and we know you didn’t call the Beghazi attack a terrorist act. You said those words but not in that context….

You also said they shouldn’t go after Susan Rice – they should come after you. And yes, we heard that too…..

UN Treaty

There are many grievances that that American people have with President Obama and his administration. But given all the talk about and defense of Susan Rice this week – makes this even more interesting…. remember at the press conference yesterday, Obama heaped high praise on Rice. He seemed to be clear that she is one of the people he is considering to be the next Secretary of State – giving her very broad power to talk with and negotiate with foreign leaders. Do you want the person who must be in the middle of this project – representing the US throughout the world?

The  very day after the 2012 election — this past Wednesday — the executive branch,  led by Obama, resumed work on an illegal treaty with the U.N. to achieve  despotic gun control reforms that could not otherwise be achieved through the  legislature.

Treaties  to accomplish domestic policies — instead of properly  international matters — are illegal, and yet Obama pursued this very goal  throughout most of 2012, only to curtail his efforts during the campaign  and then eerily resume them the very morning after he had guaranteed  his continued tenure at the presidential seat.  Get ready to hold onto your  guns…but again, they’re mostly useless to vouchsafe rights in our republic  unless we get militias back (the other half of the 2nd  Amendment)!

(Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/a_declaration_of_grievances.html#.UKVIEqgeYOY.twitter#ixzz2CK9yBdNT)

This reminds me of  specific comments made by Obama –

He would have more flexibility after the election – overheard on a hot mic

He would do what needs to be done, with or without Congress….

It is way past time for more Americans to OPEN THEIR EYES!

 

 

UN Ambassador Susan Rice

For some reason I tuned into President Obama’s press conference today. Maybe I hoped to hear a different tone, something positive, new information on the number of scandals brewing in the administration. Well, that was a waste of time….

I did notice something interesting though –

When asked about UN Ambassador Susan Rice – he picked his words very carefully…

He was asked about her appearance on 5 Sunday morning news shows – where she very clearly said that the tragedy is Benghazi was caused by that stupid YouTube video. Anyone who has paid attention to the news reports – the researched news reports, has learned that the cause was NOT that YouTube video. It was an “Act of Terrorism”. The Obama administration has a hard time with that phrase – maybe its because the Bush administration started the “war on terror” and we know that Obama blames everything possible on Bush – but will save that for another day…

So – we all know Susan Rice was wrong. The question remains – WHY?

President Obama told the reporters and TV viewers that

But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

As far as I’m concerned – these questions remain:

  1. Who decided that Susan Rice was the “right” person to go on the shows?
  2. Why was she chosen over Hillary Clinton, Director Petraeus, or anyone else who was actually involved in the administration’s response to the attack?
  3. Who briefed her about what she was to say?
  4. Who decided to give her wrong information?
  5. Was this done to protect the president since we were close to an election?
  6. Was this done to distract the American people from the fact that the administration’s claimed about AQ are wrong?

Seems to me that the American people have a right to know the answers to these questions and many more.

What questions would you like to ask President Obama and his administration?

Aunt Sam

Read full transcription here – http://historymusings.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/full-text-obama-presidency-november-14-2012-president-barack-obamas-remarks-at-press-conference-in-east-room-white-house/