Obama Concedes Defeat on Susan Rice

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


Yesterday, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice withdrew herself from consideration to be the next Secretary of State. In a letter to the president obtained by NBC News, Rice contended that her nomination process “would be lengthy, disruptive and costly–to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” she wrote. “The tradeoff is simply not worth it to our country.” Later in the letter she aimed an obvious jab at Republicans who opposed her nomination. “The position of Secretary of State should never be politicized,” she contended.

Yet it was Rice who put herself in the position to bear the brunt of GOP criticism regarding the debate in Benghazi. Five days after the attack, Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows peddling the administration’s initial lie that the murder of ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was the result of a spontaneous demonstration precipitated by the “Innocence of Muslims” video. “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video,” Rice said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

When that story fell apart, Rice contended that she had relied on the best information immediately following the attack, provided to her by the intelligence community. “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,” she said on November 21 at the United Nations.

By then Rice had already incurred the wrath of Republican Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). On November 14, they promised a Watergate-style investigation of Benghazi, and pledged to block her nomination, if Obama chose her to succeed Hillary Clinton. On the same day, the president angrily defended Rice against her critics. “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.” That statement engendered an obvious question: if Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, why was she the point person sent out to explain it to the American public? (An answer has not been forthcoming).

Other Democrats hopped on board, attempting to characterize all criticism of Rice as racist and sexist. “All of the things they have disliked about things that have gone on in the administration, they have never called a male unqualified, not bright, not trustworthy,” said Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “There is a clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments being made by unfortunately Sen. McCain and others.”

On November 27, Rice met with her critics in an effort to mend fences. It did not go well, with all three saying their concerns about her misleading statements had actually intensified. “The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before … about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya,” Graham contended.

Soon after that, other questions about Rice’s qualifications for the job began to be raised. The New York Times ran an article revealing that UN officials believe Rice is trying to shield the Rwandan government, and its president, Paul Kagame, from international censure, for their support of rebel groups precipitating “atrocities and brutal killings” in the Congo. The Washington Free Beacon reported that financial disclosure forms showed Rice had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in several energy companies known for doing business with Iran. Breitbart News ran a column entitled “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Susan Rice,” detailing a pattern of dubious behavior and lying going as far back as the Clinton administration. Highlights include Rice urging the administration not to call the Rwandan massacres genocide, fearful of the political impact on U.S. congressional elections in 1994; her efforts to block cooperation with the Sudanese government, even as they had offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden; her role at the UN, marked by chronic absenteeism and criticism of Israel; and, finally, her role in the Benghazi disinformation campaign.

Even as the truth about Bengahzi began to unfold, due to the tireless efforts of people like Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin, CBS reporter Sharryl Attkisson, Breitbart and countless others, the president continued to support Rice. Even as the White House announced that Rice withdrew her name from consideration, the president rose to her defense. “While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first,” Obama said. “The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country,” he added.

Far more likely is the reality that the president is trying to put a losing issue for his administration to rest as easily as possible and trying to portray himself as higher than the fray while doing it. As Fox’s Christian Whiton notes, it was “highly odd conduct” for the president to announce that Rice had withdrawn herself from consideration to be Secretary of State, “because Rice was never nominated. In instances like this, presidents usually just nominate someone else and decline to discuss discarded possibilities for appointments,” he writes.

He further contends that Rice likely would have been confirmed as Secretary of State because moderate Democrats “are long gone from Washington,” and “the partisan liberals who remain never break party lines on matters like this.” As for the Republicans, “the last thing they wanted was a confirmation hearing that inevitably would be construed by the media as unfair treatment of a black woman, even a demonstrably mendacious one.”

Despite that reality, he and others reach the obvious conclusion regarding why the president “blinked”: while Rice may have indeed been nominated, the distinct possibility that her confirmation hearings could have morphed into a full-blown investigation of the Benghazi debacle was likely a bridge too far for an administration that has, thus far, been enormously successful in keeping that debacle largely off the public’s radar. The clampdown has been so thorough that, as reported by Breitbart, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) reveals he has been “thwarted” by the State Department from seeing any of the Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering.

A high-profile confirmation would have changed that dynamic, especially for a mainstream media that has demonstrated a deplorable indifference regarding the deaths of four Americans, and the ever-changing narrative that followed. That would be the same mainstream media already characterizing Rice as a “victim” of right-wing “advocacy media.” “This was all driven, in many cases, by some conservative outlets who were making her the center of the Benghazi story,” said NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd. “She sort of became a victim of this.”

Nonsense. Rice is no victim of anything other than her own willingness to shill for the Obama administration during a critical moment during the presidential election campaign. And what Todd calls advocacy media bears a striking resemblance to something he and many other network hacks only practice when there is a Republican administration embroiled in a scandal: genuine, no-holds barred investigative journalism that leads wherever it leads. Right now it is inexorably leading towards a showdown with the White House–one the president desperately wants to avoid.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Ret. Marine

    Yeah we can't have the truth of this matter brought to the attention of the general public, now can we? It's a game to these people, it's not a game to me though, this is a very serious matter, we have a person, likely an illegal owrker for all intent and purposes, lies to the public of his role, about four murdered American citizens involved in the cleaning up of his mess, the transfere of military grade weapons the lybian Gov bought from the U.S. Gov, and going to the hands of State Dept.'s own described terrorist, or enemies of this Republic, and as usual truth be damned, oh, did I mention it was an election season so the one who lies everytime he opens his mouth, would not get blamed for his mess, while others are killed/murdered to hide his involvement into arming al-queda elements with U.S. weapons.Yeah we get it. It's just sad the low information voters never bothered to reconize our own pResident arming our enemies, but, hea, "foreward comrads", yeah that's the ticket.

    • kasandra

      I think you hit the nail right on the head. There's a lot more to this story (in which the media and, hence, the American people, are almost completely uninterested). It's not just how are people died that's an issue. It's why they died. And from things I've read you are right on point that this was all tied up with US running arms (by one estimate 40 million tons worth) from Libya to the Syrian opposition, many of whose members are al Qaeda or al Qaeda-like (I don't suppose a-Q gives out membership cards and secret decoder rings so it's probably a misdirection for the regime here to even talk about a-Q as if it's some coherent entity). Anyway, there is a big story here and it involves the U.S., Libya, Turkey, Iran, Russia, Syria and a cast of thousands. But, who cares? It's more important who the new judges are on American Idol.

      • Lucifer Dye

        Sounds familiar. Didn’t the sainted Ronald Reagan run arms to our enemy Iran during the proxy war between that country and our ally at the time, Iraq? As the French saying has it, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

        • kasandra

          Yes, and he did so to keep Iraq from conquering Iran and controlling the Persian Gulf and the oil states. You can argue the rightness or wrongness of that but there are good arguments on both sides. What's the good argument for putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of the entire Middle East?

          • Lucifer Dye

            Isn't the Middle East their territory? I'd hazard a guess that they have more business there than we do. I'm pretty sure they're not nice guys, but at least the Middle East is their own turf. What are we doing there?

            And, no, St. Ronald and his little helpmate, felon Ollie North, sold guns to our enemy Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Don't you righties ever read a history book? St. Ron wasn't the brightest crayon in the box. but even a twit like him knew it was in his interest to help Iraq contain Iran, even though he was playing both ends towards the middle by selling weapons to our proxy enemy, Iran. Twisted thinking, but then that's righties for you.

            You remember Iran in the 1980s, don't you Kasandra — they were those folks who imprisoned our embassy staff in Teheran and ousted the Shah in 1979. I guess you're entitled to your opinions, but, in the timeless words of Laurence O'Donnell, not your own facts.

          • kasandra

            Where did I posit my own facts? Exactly nowhere. The fact is that neither Iran nor Iraq were nice guys. As Henry Kissenger said, it was a shame they couldn't both lose the war between them. But from a geopolitical and economic affair, not your blinkered "well they're from there" perspective, we provided spare parts for Iran's U.S. weaponry in order to prevent Iraq from defeating Iran and taking over the middle east and the oil kingdoms, which would have been a disaster for us and the rest of the West. Oh, and by the way, I don't give a fig where Hassan Al Bana was from. It is simply not in the U.S. interest for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the Middle East. They were an illegal organization in their "own turf" (Egypt) for a reason – until Obama rehabilitated them by insisting that they be allowed to attend his speech at Al-Azhar University and engineered the removal of Mubarak. So you can try to be cute with your derogatory references to "St. Ronald" – the best president in my lifetime for sure – but, as I believe John Adams said, facts are very hard things and while you have invective on your side you certainly don't have the facts.

          • Lucifer Dye

            Hi, Kassie, who the hell is Hassan Al Bana? Perhaps Australian actor Eric Bana's brother? And much as you righties are compelled to worship at the shrine of St. Ronald, you must know that in your innermost heart of hearts, he did sell weapons to the very country (Iran) he was fighting a proxy war with. Call me naive — and I'm sure you will — but couldn't that kind of be considered treason, selling weapons to your country's enemy? Or are all the rules thrown out when Repugnants are bending them?

          • kasandra

            I'll tell you what I'll call you – stupid. You think you're being very clever but you're just being a jerk. Hasan Al Bana was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's only treason as a legal matter if you're at war with the country and we weren't at war with Iran. I'll tell you what, it's very depressing that people with as little knowledge as you seem to possess think that it's clever and shows your intelligence to insult and ridicule others and think that this substitutes for hard thought on difficult problems. In fact, your method of argument is well known in the theory of logic and is known as tu quoque – which, basically, is arguing not by reference to hard facts and reality but, instead, by saying "so's your old man." It's a very weak method of discourse. You can reply as much as you want. I'm not going to bother wasting any more time trying to discuss this matter with you. Bye-bye.

        • GIslef

          Setting the aside the fact that it doesn't sound familiar at all. Reagan isn't accused of lying to the American people, and Rice isn't accused of running arms to Libya.

          But when Republicans do something bad, Democrats criticize Republicans.

          When Democrats do something bad, Democrats criticize… Republicans.

          • Lucifer Dye

            And who do Republicans criticize when they do something bad?

          • Drakken

            Nice to know you support and defend everything and anything commi/left.

          • Ed Shick

            Any Friend of a Communist is not my Friend ,, includes John Cary , At one time I thought we were rid of the Communist party ,, They were hiding , now in Washington , they are back in force ,, How much did they pay to rig the voting machines ,,, there was at lleast one prson in Cleveland that voted for Romney ,, Ohio for "Right To Work"

        • Mary Sue

          Oh, Iran-Contra?

          Have you heard of playing both sides (Iran and Iraq are both bad) to keep either one from prevailing too much?

    • JacksonPearson

      " we have a person, likely an illegal owrker for all intent and purposes, lies to the public of his role"

      True dat. I de-constructed Obama's white house posted pdf birth certificate in Adobe illustrator, and Adobe Acrobat, and for one, it's a poorly done forgery. Second, besides being forensically examined by numerous other Adobe Software experts, Obama's BC was examined by a font expert, and it's impossible to place a blank form, in an old typewriter, and have seven to nine different fonts appear on the finished product.

      So far, Barack Hussein Obama II, has pulled off the biggest heist in history.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Over and over.

        And still Michelle sits in the white house with regular feedings.

        • JacksonPearson

          Nothings changed Roger. The evidence of his forged BC and other crap that he's covered up keeps getting stronger and stronger.

          There's currently 3 lawsuits pending against his eligibility (California, Florida, and the DC Circuit) and over 16 petitions filed to states "Secretary of State" attempting to block electoral college votes. Meanwhile, congress and the MSM knows all, but remains silent.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            It's not a 'news media' it's a 'propaganda machine'. It's just doing what it's supposed to do.

            And the opposition (the republicans) do nothing, that's who needs to be replaced.
            Well, among the long list of things that needs replacing anyhow.

          • JacksonPearson

            The GOP have been given tons of info on this illegal usurper and have pathetically done nothing, zero, nada. If they were honest, they wouldn't be negotiating trillion dollar budgets with him, he'd instead be in a federal prison awaiting execution!

  • mrstarry76

    “While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first,” Obama said. “The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country,” he added…..Whenever our President speaks just take the opposite position as truth. See, it's easy! What an evil, disgusting man!

  • carrie

    This highly dramatized incident totally excluded Rice's past .
    Her Benghazi lies could probably have been accepted by most republicans but they were also aware that Russia refused to work with her if she became SOS because she is "aggressive and belligerent ."
    In 2008 Obama pulled her off the campaign for upsetting the EU.
    Any there are many unanswered questions about her actions in Africa ,blocking of Albright's attempt to catch Bin Laden and her self interest / financial investments in Africa .

    • kasandra

      But she did have the one quality that is most dear to our President. The willingness to lie for him. That's why she'll be made director of the National Security Council. Besides, which would you rather be, NSC director with daily access to POTUS or the Secretary of State always having to fly off to conferences in various backwaters on agricultural development in the third world. I think the regime just used this to deflect the focus of the Libya story from what was going on in Benghazi onto Rice's TV appears. Plus, they were able to further solidify their female and minority support and demonize "old white males" by making her nomination a race/gender issue. So this whole thing has been a win-win-win situation from their standpoint.

  • kafir4life

    Did Stinky (BO) leave Suze in the dark about the weapons that Stinks was giving to his pals in al-queerda, that Amb Stevens was there to try to collect? I'm guessing not. Stinks has a history of gun running along with his pal Eric.
    Anybody ever figure out what Stinks had to do to that fat-bottomed Moochie in order to make TWO babies to fall out?? (credit for that line goes to president stinky's owner, bill maher)

  • pierce

    I do not think he gave up on Susan Rice. She knew that her confirmation hearing was not going to be a walk in the park, so Susan Rice pulled out. If she had told the truth from day one, she could have been confirmed. Susan Rice just plain lied to protect BO.
    Now comes the irony for Secretary of State. Sen. John Carey our SWIFT BOAT, VIET NAM HERO HAS TO GO THRU THE NOMINATION PROCESS. HAS HE OUT LIVED HIS SWIFT BOAT PROBLEMS? I, for one, am not impressed by him or his credentials. And he moored his yacht in little Rhode Island to avoid paying the MA luxury tax. Merry Xmas John Carey. Ho ho ho.

    • kasandra

      Oh, he hasn't given up on Susan Rice. She'll be his next director of the National Security Council, a post for which Senate confirmation is not required. Birds of a feather and all that.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        So she didn't get tossed under the bus with everyone else?

        Too bad, she's bad news.

        • kasandra

          Well, we'll have to see what happens but I'm betting she becomes his National Security Council director.

  • R.C.

    This is good–Susan Rice is an anti-Semite and otherwise evil!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      And no doubt a valued member of this administration for all of it.

  • STEVE CHAVEZ

    SUSAN RICE: THE GROOMING OF THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    OBAMA handing off the keys to the White House to Susan Rice is the only LOGICAL PATH for him to ensure another eight years of Democrat Party rule. This pick will guarantee another 92%, or more, of the Black vote, who spit on the ideals of Martin Luther King by voting only due to the color of a person’s skin and will gladly do it again. There will be gender racism too from women whose Dream is the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT. Some are saying Hillary and Obama would support her, A WHITE WOMAN. OVER RICE?

    THE SAVING OF SUSAN RICE: Now it’s racism to question her just like Obama. The Congressional Black Caucus was quick to label that any criticism of Rice was rooted in racism. The media is now blaming the Republicans as "picking on Rice" and people are believing them since they are masters at repeating their message over and over till the people are brainwashed on that point. "So what if she lied!"

    The Republicans will again be criticized as the White and RACIST PARTY and, of course, their “War on Women.” She will also get the minority vote. More importantly, a Black woman fits perfectly with advancing Obama’s BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY.

    JOE BIDEN: With every gaffe, he is proving that he’s getting absent minded. His debate with Paul Ryan proved that the man needs a psychoanalyst. The rigors of the job will also be too much for his age. Obama could throw him under the bus too and replace him with Rice, her stepping stone to the Throne.

    “R & R.” Romney and Ryan were a great team but Romney needed another “R”: RUBIO, who would have taken a greater percentage of the all important Hispanic vote. Even better, an Hispanic woman.

    How do we defeat SUSAN RICE? It surely won’t be done with a Chris, Jeb, Paul, Rand, Rick, Sarah, or anyone that is being talked about now. These people have ZERO PERSONALITY when the Presidency has been only on personality and popularity rather than experience and loyalty!

    Of course, VOTER FRAUD must be addressed, voter ID required, and all suspicions of cheating must be eliminated.

    Maybe RICE VS. RICE? Start grooming ours now people!

  • Jakareh

    The Republicans should filibuster the nomination of John Kerry as well–and of anyone else who appeases Muslims.

  • sononthe_beach

    The president says, "If they want to come after somebody, they can come after me." Looks like they did, and guess who won without a fight?

  • SoCalMike

    Republicans HIDE like cowards behind the calls for an investigation the same way they hid under Monica Lewinsky's skirt along with the rest of the press corps because they didn't want to touch Chinagate with a 100 foot pole.
    Now these cowards are doing the same because they don't have the guts or the vision to challenge the insanity of empowering and delivering whole governments complete with modern military to the MoBros.
    What a pathetic collection of dull witted cowards.

    • kafir4life

      President Stinky (BO is a big fan of the mobros. If he had a father, he'd look like morsi.

      I'm trying to find out if Stinks plans on using the Jefferson koran (ellison's book) for swearing in for the public inauguration, or just for the private one on Sunday.

      • Christian West

        "If he had a father, he'd look like morsi."

        Beautiful!!!

    • pierce

      Far far left Radical !!!!

  • alanjwinters

    susan rice was planned as a scapegoat. bo never expected her to be UN ambassador. Now he will nominate the one he really wanted…Kerry… the joke who ran for president.

    • kafir4life

      John (Lurch) Kerry made his money the old fashioned way. He married it. He's pretty much a useless piece of garbage (fairly common qualification for much of the Senate these days. He really posesses no skill set that would make him a productive member of society. PERFECT for President Stinky's (BO) pick.

  • Jim_C

    Yay! Benghazi-gate is back for a day! Welcome back, Benghazi-gate! I missed you the last couple weeks. Where you been? No doubt wallowing in corruption and obfuscation, under superserious investigation. No doubt the lid is going to be blown off you any day now–and then we can get rid of this treacherous usurper in chief once and for all!

    • reader

      Cute, but, as always, stupid. Given Obama's arrogance, the only rational explanation for Rice taking herself out of contention is that it really dawned on them that they would rather really avoid questions on CSPAN camera.

  • xkn

    Wow! It is remarkable that the so-called conservatives would put so much fight against the appointment of an ordinary apparatchik whose job was to essentially do what she was told by administration (yes, including lies). But when it comes to appointments to Supreme Court there apparently there isn't a marxist apointee "conservatives" would not approve. Obama could care less about Rice, he knows that he is within reach of overcoming the most important obstacle, the one which even FDR could not do, and that is packing a court with extreme left-wing ideologues. He gave up on Rice, but it is now gentlemanly for so-called conservatives to give-in to his next Supreme Court appointee. If you thought that "wise Latina" is bad, just wait for what is coming, you ain't see nothing yet.

  • Ghostwriter

    Thanks,Jim_C,for that idiotic bit of sarcasm. We don't know the full story about Benghazi yet. But when we do,I doubt the President is going to look good.

    • Jim_C

      If there was truly something we don't know yet that could possibly prevent that sad situation from happening again, there'd be no sarcasm.

      The ONLY reason you want there to be "more" to the story is to make Obama look bad.

      And that makes YOU look bad.

      • reader

        He already looks bad to everybody except for drones like you and those who don't even know what Benghazi is, because the media refuses to cover it. If Watergate happened under Obama, nobody but a handful of people would ever know what it was all about.

        • Jim_C

          Wrong. Most people have the decency to realize it was a tragic event. Decency–ever heard of it?

          • reader

            Tragic event is what happened in Ct, and decent people do realize it. When the US government sends the embassador to the Al Qaeda hot-bed, refuses his staff's requests for adequate security and, while the embassador and a handful of other americans are being slaughtered, gives stand down orders to military and intelligence personnel and assets in the area, this is not a tragic events. This is obfiscation of duty at the very least and treason at the very worst. And decent people deserve the full and thorogh investigation who did and knew what and when. We are being denied this investigation by the drones telling us that we are indecent. Really?

          • Jim_C

            If Obama were a Republican, you'd be saying what I'm saying. It's as simple as that. There were attacks on consulates during the Bush years. By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the significant differences in foreign policy between Bush and Obama. I have yet to hear a convincing argument.

            This is an event that, had it not been an election year, and seized upon as a possible opportunity to gain the upper hand in that contest, would have been immediately what it is now–a sane investigation into a tragic event.

            Why was the video insisted upon? I don't know–but it was precisely what the participants in the attack were reporting was the cause of their "protest." Were there other assets being protected? Was the video-as-cause excuse an attempt to make the planners think the trail was cold? Is something being hidden, obfuscated? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd be willing to bet that if there is, whatever it is wouldn't just make Mr. Obama look bad–which is why there's no significant push from Republicans on this.

            We know the ambassador feared for his safety–as would anyone in the position for which he volunteered. We also know the requests for additional security referred to Tripoli and not his outpost.

            Dereliction of duty and treason are such serious charges that for one even to make them, you'd think there'd be some groundswell of support, some evidence of action from places other than right wing opinion sites. There isn't. It's partisan wishful thinking under the shameful guise of "concern."

          • reader

            "Why was the video insisted upon? I don't know–but it was precisely what the participants in the attack were reporting was the cause of their "protest." "

            This presisely is a LIE. Everything else in your post is a usual tripe wasting space.

          • Jim_C

            It's a fact.

            As for your dismissal, it just means you admit defeat.

      • Christian West

        "If there was truly something we don't know yet that could possibly prevent that sad situation from happening again, there'd be no sarcasm."

        What CRAP!!!
        We know absolutely everything necessary to impeach the shamelessly lying bastard and send him to prison for criminal negligence, if not treason.

        "The ONLY reason you want there to be "more" to the story is to make Obama look bad."
        "LOOK bad"?!
        He is an utterly evil man. There is no need to try to make him LOOK bad.

        • Jim_C

          Lying? Criminal negligence? Prove something.

          I know–You just "have a feeling" about it, right! Good for you! Hey, you guys have lawyers and politicians, right?

          • reader

            1. He himself together with Rice lied for 5 weeks about the video
            2. His staff deliberatly changed the CIA talking points in order to support the lie number 1
            3. He and his staff lied about being misled by the CIA

            We already know this. And that is just a fraction of what we should learn about this whole thing, but we're being denied the full investigation.

  • JCS

    Hail Obama the hero for taking Susan Rice out of contention for Secretary of State. Rice should be grateful. Who would want to be SOS for an administration with the worst foreign policy in U.S. history?

  • Madeleine

    If you think Travis`s story is amazing…, 2 weeks ago my boy frends dad basically earnt $8356 putting in fourty hours a month in their apartment and the're co-worker's sister`s neighbour did this for 7-months and brought home over $8356 part-time On their laptop. follow the instructions from this site…… Bit40.ℂOℳ

  • Len_Powder

    What I don't understand is how could Obama be so obtuse as to consider Susan Rice for the Secretary of State position, given all the controversy surrounding Benghazi. A rational person would have wanted the entire affair to disappear from the public forum. Did he feel so confident that his administration's culpability in the American deaths was minimal or insignificant? Or that the mainstream propaganda media would suppress the story and cover his complicit back as usual? Or has his cockiness and arrogance, especially after winning reelection, morphed into a godlike self image, in which he is beyond accountability and harm? His psychology does not receive nearly enough attention because it is the wellspring of everything he believes, says and does. To defeat your enemy you must know him as well, or better, than you know yourself. Yet, after 4 years I continue to be astonished that many pundits and commentators seem to think that he is reachable or teachable, rational and sensible, open to correction and reproof.

  • Ekofo

    I always wander why the american conservative do no expose the evil that Bill Clinton and the democrat Administration have unleashed in the central African… for years the have trained and armed Uganda Led by Museveni and Rwanda Led by Paul Kagame to bring havoc in Congo(Zaire)… Those two leaders and theirs invaded Congo to plunder….They installed a puppet government, massacred millions congolese natives(autochtones), hiding their occupations behind the fakes rebellions and chaos.. Mr Kagame and Museveni backed by USA officials have committed genocide in Congo…. USA administration has been burying multiples expert report accusing those two governments over 15 years…. i'm from Congo… i am in the pain to believe how far United states government is so corrupted….even more with Obama and Clinton…

  • Ekofo

    I always wander why the american conservative do no expose the evil that Bill Clinton and the democrat Administration have unleashed in the central Africa… for years they have trained and armed Uganda (led by Museveni) and Rwanda l(ed by Paul Kagame) to bring havoc in Congo(Zaire)… Those two leaders and theirs well trained armies invaded Congo to plunder….They manage to establish a puppet maffia style government in occupied Congo…. massacred millions congolese natives(autochtones), hiding their crimes, mass rapped, plunders behind the fakes rebellions made up of rwanda soldiers , maintaining chaos in the purpose of carving out the East part of Congo.. Mr Kagame and Museveni backed by USA officials have committed genocide in Congo…. USA administration has been burying multiples expert reports accusing those two governments over 15 years…. i'm from Congo… i am in the pain to believe what the Obama administration is doing in central africa…. it's evil

    • slider96

      Stop wondering , the conservatives dont care either about your tribal slaughters. What YOU are doing to YOURSELVES is EVIL , unbridled evil .

      • ekofo

        Poor biggot and racist… stop being silly..don`t you remember your evil work in exterminating natif indien…or your short memory doesn`t tell you that some of your people finance the nazi machine… the congo tragedy has been conceived by the Bill Clinton adminstration in 1990`s… recruiting some evil guys to conquer power in those two countries and bringing havoc in my country… nothing to do with your stupid story of tribals wars….

  • slider96

    Obama Concedes Defeat on Rice ? Not really , the move is a good one . Why continue this totally partisan battle , and give it the intention it doesn' deserve ….so we get Kerry .
    IN THE MEANTIME , Obama kees the dspotlight where it belongs , on the Republican party , raising taxes and spending cuts , and the bargaining for both . Republicans are already percieved as protecting the rich , and stonewalling an agreement . They remain to be seen as the obstructionists whether we just go to the deadlne or actually go past it and over the cliff . Either way Republicans lose and Clinton's victory in 2016 will be assured . Better put your thnking caps on . Better try an find another diversion .

  • Flowerknife_us

    Americans died-Obama lied-Rice was the glue to make it stick.

    It turned out to be a Post-A-Note.

  • texasron

    Obama couldn't issue another Executive Directive as he did to keep the gun running information secret so he had to let Rice go. Actually, he threw under the bus when he asked her to go on the news programs and tell lies.

  • BobC

    I'm an economic conservative so I was disappointed when Obama was reelected. But I was looking forward to Susan Rice becoming Secretary of State because she's brilliant. Now she won't get the job because McCain and other Republican politicians were nitpicking about trivial things most people don't care about. Perhaps this is one reason why Republicans can't win elections.

  • Drakken

    BobC, Rice is anything but brilliant, she is an affirmative action poster child of incompetence and has done more damage by accident to our foreign policy than a traitor could ever do on purpose.

  • slider96

    then you should be glad to see her go , and welcome Kerry .

  • Moliminous

    Who would benefit from Ambassador Steven's death? Obama.

    Why would Sorterro/Obama want Steven's dead? It will eventually come out that Stevens was put in the position of brokering some "fast and furious"-type gun running from the US to the "Libya-freedom-fighters" to oust a not-too-friendly-to-Obama Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi. But those freedom-loving folks turned out to be Al Quaeda operatives–our supposed enemy. Oops. Then those same "freedom-loving" patriots moved those US-made weapons on a ship bound for Syria via Turkey. Being a moral man, Ambassador Stevens saw what had happened and called for a meeting with the Turkish Ambassador to warn him of what was coming his way. The two had dinner. Stevens was killed. And it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration. He was killed, but the Al Quaeda operatives who killed him were working for someone else in the west.

    Who had/has the power to cover all this up? Barry Hussein Barrack Obama.

    Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, logistical delays, generals of the army and supposed videos are all part of the smoke and mirrors used to hide, obfuscate, delay and deter any further investigation into Benghazi. Obama didn't concede anything. Despite his public and scripted rhetoric to the contrary, she was used very carefully in this on-going charade.

    Here's a case, just like in Connecticut, where heinous evil needs to be confronted head on.