UN Ambassador Susan Rice's emergence from the shadows does not quell the mystery of who did what, when, why and how!
Readers will recall that the Obama Administration put UN Ambassador Susan Rice forward as the Administration spokesperson on all five Sunday news programs in the wake of the September 11th attacks that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya. Her selection was a curious choice given that Obama later claimed Ms. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Still, out Rice went and repeated the now debunked fiction that the attack in Libya was a direct result of a protest gone bad and that any claim it was a terrorist act on 9/11 was unfounded.
In the wake of that whooper the Administration has fallen all over itself to either change the story or attack those who dare to ask questions. Particularly obnoxious was the charge by elected Democrats that criticism of Rice was sexist and racist. Funny, but I bet they didn't say the same thing when their side was attacking Condi Rice throughout the Bush Administration.
Ambassador Rice went to Capitol Hill to meet with senior Republicans who would be called on to review her qualifications if Obama nominates her to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The meetings did not go well. Since any comment from white males would be sexist and racist, I point readers only to the comments of Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Sen. Collins said she was "“troubled [Rice] decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of a contentious presidential election campaign."
Both Collins and Ayotte said that many unanswered questions remained about the Administration's handling of this issue. Sen. Ayotte summed what what many GOP leaders, not just white males, believe is the problem when she said "We are disturbed by the Administration's continued inability to answer even the most basic questions about the Benghazi attack and the Administration's response."
But apparently the White House, still in campaign mode, does not share those concerns. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was "not particularly concerned" if Rice's original presentation was misleading. Carney went on to say that "there are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearances on Sunday shows, and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community, those questions have been answered."
And Obama has stated that "We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information."
Yet with all that information the White House claims to have provided, we still do not know why Ambassador's Chris Stevens' requests for more security were ignored. We don't know whether Obama actually ordered any relief to the besieged consulate as he claimed. And we don't know who changed the intelligence assessment that Susan Rice used for talking points in spreading the myth to the American people that an Internet video was to blame for all this.
That last bit is becoming the biggest farce of all. Fingers keep getting pointed in all directions with the story changing hourly. First it's the CIA's fault. Then the FBI. Then some vague interagency process. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News, in a story that like the rest of the Benghazi cover up won't see much, if any, airtime, describes the sad farce in detail.
Will we ever know the truth about what happened and why in this sad episode? That's unlikely as long as the news media blackout which protects Obama remains in place. It's also a shame that Mitt Romney let the matter drop during the campaign. But then, had he continued to raise the issue he would have been accused of being a racist and a sexist.
What we do know with absolute certainty is that four Americans, including our Ambassador, are dead and that the Obama Administration is either incompetent, corrupt or both!