The Washington Post’s Bizarre Attack on Rice Critics

Reading the Washington Post editorial “The GOP’s Bizarre Attack on Susan Rice” you would assume that the Post had given op-ed space to another left-wing loon looking to accuse the Republican Party of being the second coming of the Confederacy. But no this crazy mess of lies and bizarre accusations comes from the Washington Post editorial board, even if it was slapped together by a homeless bum over lunch for 5 bucks and a pizza bagel.

Washington Post Lie #1

“Drawn up by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the letter alleges that “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public” about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But as congressional testimony has established, Ms. Rice’s comments on several Sunday television talk shows on Sept. 16 were based on talking points drawn up by the intelligence community.”

Actually Congressional testimony established that the CIA talking points mentioned Al Qaeda. Those talking points were later edited by administration appointees to eliminate Al Qaeda. But as the ODNI Spokesman had pointed out, in any case, Rice did not need to rely on the talking points and had access to the same intelligence that Obama did. Claiming that Rice spent days lying about the attack because she couldn’t see past heavily edited talking points, even while having access to intelligence that any halfway competent official knew pointed to a terrorist attack is to argue that Rice is completely incompetent and unfit to hold any officer higher than dogcatcher. And possibly not even that.

 

Washington Post Lie #2

She was acting as an administration spokeswoman; there was nothing either incompetent or deliberately misleading about the way she presented the information she was given.

Aside from claiming that a terrorist attack was just a movie protest, when there was no protest, but there was a terrorist attack.

But if Rice was acting as a spokeswoman for the administration, instead of in her official role, then she was representing Obama. And the media has claimed that Obama always acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack. And if that’s so then she wasn’t doing a good job of representing Obama either.

People, people. Pick a lie and stick with it.

 

Washington Post  Lie #3

But if there was a White House conspiracy to cover up the truth, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of it

Is repeatedly lying to the American people, the United Nations and anyone in sight evidence of a conspiracy? It’s evidence of lying anyway. And lies usually have a motive of covering up the truth.

Will we ever get an audiotape of Obama, Rice and Clinton deciding what lies to tell? Probably not. Not even email, considering that Obama officials use fake email addresses to dodge FOI requests.

 

Washington Post Lie #4

Nor was her account of what happened as far off the mark as Republicans claim. Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.

Rice’s claim was that there was an angry movie protest. The reality is that an Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist group consisting of Jihadists from across the region carried out a planned military assault on the mission and the annex.

So the Washington Post would like to claim that Rice’s movie protest lie was “mostly right” because there’s no evidence that an attack was ordered by the Al Qaeda leadership.

This isn’t just a lie. It’s pathological Clintonian insanity that rises to the level of a mental illness.

If we take the Washington Post’s bizarre (movie review/local militant assault) theory seriously then every single Al Qaeda attack in Iraq was not really an Al Qaeda attack because there’s no evidence that it was ordered by Osama bin Laden, instead AQI appeared to have differences with OBL.

And if a Bush official had then claimed that an Al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombing of a Shiite mosque was really a response to the latest Keanu Reeves movie, then he or she, would be considered to be not so far off the mark.

 

Washington Post #5

Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo.

Really? A planned assault, complete with heavy weapons and checkpoint, complicity with Libyan security officials and local security guards, targeting two US compounds, complete with waves of attackers from different countries… was thrown together in a few hours?

The Washington Post’s lies are reaching the point where the only response to them is to ask, “Have you at last no shame?”

 

Washington Post Lie #6

Republicans claim that Ms. Rice “propagated a falsehood” that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video?

Wait folks. The media can prove that Rice wasn’t lying by resorting to its own reporting!

But let’s see if the Washington Post can figure out the difference between the motive and planning required for a large scale assault, and the motive given by assorted looters who were drawn along in the wake of an Ansar Al-Sharia assault on the US mission?

How many of those interviewed were members of the militia that carried out the assault? But no such pesky questions need be asked. The media can clear Rice.

 

Washington Post Lie #7

What’s even stranger is the singling out of Ms. Rice, a Rhodes scholar and seasoned policymaker who, whatever her failings, is no one’s fool.

Apparently questioning the competence of a top administration official who spent days lying to the American people is “strange”.

But do you know what’s even stranger?

Insisting that Rice was misled by a set of talking points into lying to the American people for days… and then claiming that she’s no one’s fool.

Come on Washington Post editorial board. At least try to keep your lies consistent in one paragraph. Either Rice is no one’s fool or she’s a naive lady who was misled by CIA talking points that didn’t come from the CIA. One or the other. It can’t be both.

Either Rice is incompetent or a liar. You choose.

 

Washington Post Lie #8

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.

Theory 1. Republicans are concerned about an administration official who misled the American people being elevated to a top position.

Theory 2. The Republicans hate Rice because they support the return of the Confederacy. But wait, wasn’t the last Rice black? Didn’t she speak at the Republican National Convention?

Theory 3. The Washington Post editorial board consists of liars who make up bizarre insane lies to cover up for the bizarre insane lies of the government officials they support.

  • Mary Sue

    There's more race cards being played out there right now than at OJ's trial. That's what they do when they have nothing else.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "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?"

    I seem to remember back in the 1990s when people wondered if "OJ" would allow his lawyers to "play the race card." What I'm saying is that for some time, it was considered a bit undignified to do so. Not that it didn't happen frequently, but it normally only frequently would be used by Sharpton and other non-English speaking "Americans."

    Now? Thanks to Obama, playing the race card is standard operating procedure for anyone on the left. It works forever. It's the gift that keeps on giving. They don't even need any factual basis.

  • Donna M.

    Mr. Greenfield has it exactly right! He pinpointed the sleazy, lying methods of the WP Editorial writer, again using the race card and other underhanded tactics they too often resort to. No wonder the useful idiots at the WP adore Obama so much – soulmates always recognize and promote each other.

  • patron

    Racist:
    Saying the words 'Chicago' or 'Apartments'
    Countering the Obama "recovery" by showing food stamps have increased
    Holding officials accountable when they setup four Americans to get raped and murdered by al-Qaeda because of political convenience.

    Not racist:
    Disgusting bigotry towards Mormons
    Winning the presidency with class warfare and supporting anti-Semitic anarchists to deflect blame
    Spread lies about conservative women calling them dumb and irrational

    • Larry

      Don't forget "golf".

  • jakespoon

    It's sad how Reverend Dr. King's dream has turned into a cartoon. As one who grew up in the 60sand early 70s, I remember the "I have a dream" speech. The Reverend King had no pride ,or he would not have let people spit on him and worse,BUT,he had more dignity than anyone of his day. That's why when he said "judge by the content of my character,not the color of my skin". That says it all. Today's civil rights leaders are all about pride and false dignity,and insist on being judged by color. I think Dr.King would be appalled.