The damsel in distress du jour

At one of his rare press conferences, today President Obama rode to the rescue of UN Ambassador, Susan Rice.  Let’s put this in perspective.

The Sunday after the attack on our consulate in  Bengazi that killed 4 Americans, the administration sent out our UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, to speak about it.  She told Americans (on 5 networks) that the attack was prompted by a video.  That was untrue then, and it is untrue now.

Since his reelection, President Obama has “floated” the idea of appointing Susan Rice as his new Secretary of State.

Enter, Senator Lindsey Graham (R. S.C.).  He has said he will oppose her nomination, should it be made.

When asked about this at today’s press conference, President Obama became somewhat “testy” and extolled Ms. Rice’s virtues.

Here is my take…either Ms. Rice actively lied to the American public during her Sunday morning TV  “tour”, or, she is so she is so unconcerned about making sure her statements are correct before she utters them that she doesn’t check. She just follows the party line.

Either way, Senator Graham is correct.  She has no business becoming Secretary of State.  If Americans can’t trust her, why would we think other countries could trust her?

Lost in all of this is a yet unanswered question. 

Our consulate was attacked, Americans were killed, and our UN Ambassador is explaining it all to the American public? 

How about someone from the State Department, or the CIA…but the UN Ambassador?  At least to me that is still a “puzzlement”.


8 replies
  1. essneff
    essneff says:

    Interesting that?without his faithful teleprompter guiding him, the president admitted that the White House supplied Rice with the?misinformation. He addded that?”she had nothing to do with Bengazi”. Then why the hell was she on 5 national Sunday?programs?spewing the video bs? Also,?it sure would have been nice if the president showed the same?anger for the 4 deaths?at Bengazi as he did in?defending his UN ambassador.??But then that would mean he would?have to take some responsibility and blame and he he is incapable of that.????

  2. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    General Petraeus needs to sing.? I fail to make the connection of his resignation disqualifying him from testifying… and yes, this seems to be an impeachable offense- not only standing idly but as four Americans got murdered but also the subsequent cover up.

  3. JBS
    JBS says:

    You covered that pretty well, essneff.?
    Obama without a teleprompter is . . . revealing. Four dead Americans are just “bumps in the road.” Not even worth a presidential mention. But, let his UN Amb get questioned? Ruffled feathers, phony bravado, and vainglorious challenges are the result.
    Will the press, the MSM, the interpreters of what is is, will they take up Obama’s challenge and “come after him?” (Bubble, blush, giggle, “Ooooooh, Mr. president, I’ve NEVER seen you lose.” So, not very likely to take the invitation? To spar, that is.)
    (Cue the crickets)
    LOL. Then, I think I am going to be ill.

  4. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    ?bama sure gets irate every time Benghazi or any associated people come up in the conversation, doesn’t he?? He certainly wasn’t irate enough to answer the question of whether he ordered any aid to those now dead Americans…
    Methinks he doth protest too much.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      “That is an important question.
      Next question!”
      Did anyone catch Brian and Andrea gushing over the prezzy’s presser? “Art” imitated by a liberal!
      Which beggs the question. Which script was he reading from?

  5. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    Defending Susan Rice,?Big Bird,?profligate spending, and?policies that unionize?thugs who frisk grandma?is easy- especially when the media are owned (fascism).? But defending Americans from al qaeda and the people you bow to- that’s the tricky part!

Comments are closed.