– by Dan Bubalo
It’s a safe bet that if the Obama administration had devoted as much attention to saving the murder victims in Benghazi as they are saving the sorry, inexperienced backside of marionette Susan Rice there would be no investigation of a cover-up to keep a sitting president from being perceived as an indecisive and immoral weakling. Clearly, she allowed herself to be used as a tool and showed the discernment of a trainee as opposed to an experienced ambassador when it came to selling deceased Americans down the river to protect her boss, and she slipped into defense mode as easily as most people slide into their favorite pair of sneakers.
Skin color matters not a whit with respect to her considerable missteps and opprobrious behavior for she openly distributed misinformation to protect the reputation of a man with a vaporous backbone who treats underlings like a mother rat, nudging its babies to eat the bait first to find out if it’s poisonous. While criticism of Ms. Rice is being deflected by knee-jerk defenders as racial, is it not richly ironic that the very man who sent her into battle naked is also black? Apparently mental malleability and weakness are not traits confined to race but rather a reflection of character, and regrettably, neither has any.
In order for us to believe Rice did not knowingly, willingly, and purposelessly mislead and LIE to the world in order to hide the cowardice and prejudice of her boss is to believe that she operates in a vacuum and was completely and totally unaware of the facts. Anyone, who would so despicably sell their soul for a quid pro quo offer of a nomination to a vital cabinet position to perpetrate fraud as a co-conspirator of the president is most certainly not of the mettle to be entrusted with the sophisticated and delicate demands of Secretary of State, and it is upon this basis that she disqualified herself as a viable candidate and NOT on the basis of the color of her skin or her gender, for she always held in reserve at all times to simply say “No”, and she instead said, “Yes, Massa.”
Give me a break with all this racial and gender crapola, will you? She’s pathetic and so is her boss, although they’re not alone. (Oh, and by the way, Mr. Obama? This isn’t the playground in the inner city in which you never lived, so quit pounding your chest to defend Ms. Rice as if she was your girlfriend……and not up for a big job for which you had slated)
Now let’s talk about Hillary Clinton, a woman with an absurdly inflated sense of self, rivaled only by the fawning media who once pronounced her the smartest lawyer in America.
Perhaps, after nearly 25 years of manufactured adulation, someone might think to cite a prominent case in which she participated so we no longer have to degrade the reputations of Messrs Belli, Civelleti, Gould, Jenner, and Liman, all of whom were her contemporaries while she was vaingloriously praised for no reason other than that of being in the spotlight and being married to Bill.
In fact, a case could be made that if she hadn’t married a lawyer who was ultimately disbarred, nobody in the upper echelon of legal circles would even know her name. So what prompted the “smartest lawyer in America” to go forward on behalf of the president and LIE and perpetrate the hoax in the same vein as Double-Down-Rice, who is making an even bigger fool of herself as I type?
A number of explanations come to mind, including unfounded arrogance, a lifetime of telling unchecked lies, (being named for Sir Edmund Hillary though he conquered Mt. Everest five years after she was born, being shot at in Bosnia, her daughter jogging near Ground Zero 9/11/01) and, perhaps, just perhaps, ignorance. I know more lawyers than I care to admit, but I’ve never met one who would go out and blatantly LIE again, and again, and again, and again to cover the tracks of a rudderless president.
Oh, my. I just described “Hillary Clinton squared.”
Lastly, we have the president addressing the U.N. and re-telling the cover-story of the cover-up to cover his ineptitude a full 14 days after the Benghazi slaughter and bowing to his puppet masters from the Arab world that a terrorist attack was caused by a video. He didn’t just suggest it, by the way; he reiterated in seven separate portions of his address.
Let’s not fall for the misdirection play involving the naïve and easily manipulated Susan Rice, who was promised a position for which she wasn’t qualified by parading herself in front of five different news shows to foment fiction. Let’s turn the focus toward the listless and disengaged leader, Barack Hussein Obama. Not only did he instruct members of his cabinet to lie, he assumed the lead and continued to perpetuate the false narrative himself.
This post was modified from its original form on 26 Nov, 7:02
Forget Petraeus and his infidelities. Sure he goes down as a skid mark in a tawdry soap opera, but he was nothing more than a smokescreen held in reserve to keep the posse off the trail. I guess that shows that one might be a great military strategist and leader while not necessarily having the brains of a baby turkey. Rice? Misdirection play. Hillary? Just another huckster shill who should have known better than to participate in the fraud. What’s it all mean?
We have an inept, cavalier, and yes, lazy president with unquestionable pro-radical Muslim sentiments, whom in his own words once pompously stated: I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. Well, baby, those winds they are a-changin’. Imagine FDR pledging allegiance to Hitler or Hirohito, or any other president except Carter kowtowing to Russia. The outrage would be thicker than a mushroom cloud and equally destructive.
Barry Soetero, aka Barack Obama, told the world the dog ate his homework, a flat tire made him late for work, the power went out and his alarm didn’t ring. Reality says he is a liar, and closer scrutiny says this is just another case of criminal behavior he is allowed to promote without check thanks to stacking the deck with enablers.
I don’t know about you, but nothing about this ship of fools says “leadership.” There is no Professor among them, although the boat is chock full of Gilligans.
<a href="http://mychal-massie.com/premium/saving-susan-rice/" >Saving Susan
Rice – by Dan Bubalo</a>
I think everyone is forgetting something key here. It was Rice, Shrillary, and Samantha Powers who pushed our involvement it getting rid of Gaddaffi in the first place and are responsible for the failure of the policy as we see with the instability in Libya, the use of Libya as a staging base for more instability in sub Sahara Africa, the transfer of more lethal weapons like anti aircraft missiles to terror groups, and even continued violence in Libya. She has a big hand in the failures so a big reason to go along with this absurd cover up. In addition, this provides another distraction from a whole host of unanswered questions on the Benghazi incident from why nothing was done to react to previous incidents, why security was so weak on 9/11, why there was no reaction to the attack at the time, why two senior military men were relieved of command who did wish to respond, why there has been no follow up response against those responsible, why was the ambassador there in the first place (with no security), why the large CIA activity in the area, and what was the administration really up to in Benghazi? We have had a series of diversions on this from the alleged "video", to the sex escapades of the two generals, and now the Rice racial slur to make sure we never do get to asking the questions in a serious way. The stink here is far greater than anything in any GOP administration and follows a pattern of very questionable and very bad decisions in the whole area as we are now seeing in Egypt. What is really the motive here and what is really going on?????
JohnC, I'm looking to you for the answers. I have no clue how so much corruption can exist in our White House.
Elaborate for me, John. Talk to me. Because I know you have many thoughts circulating in your head.
No, John, didn't forget but it is amazing that the Media has forgotten. I do so hope that they get rid of her. Please do talk to us; we would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions, too. The corruption has been there a long time; it is not new, I realize. But hnow to get rid of that; I would be interested in your thoughts.
Diane: This is really the most radically ideological administration EVER so it isn't really a question of corruption per se but a collection of actions taken to support marxist/fascist economic and social policy, islamist expansionism, and one world order utopianism. There is a bit of Chicago political crony corruption for the connected thrown in but that isn't the primary focus but the offshoot of the power grabbers supporting the maxist/fascist agenda and to some degree the utopians that feel they are "better" than us misguided peons. Those two groups are drunk on their own "intellectual and moral superiority" (although they are actually both intellectually and morally bankrupt) but this is part of a movement that has been around for a couple centuries in this form and has been in control in several administrations like with Wilson, FDR, and LBJ where they had this much power. It hasn't worked in the past to create their "perfect world" but there are forces in play today that make the three groups on a collision course with each other even though they are currently allies. One basic problem is the islamists are bent on their own "perfect world" and world domination and that will cause a conflict between the two groups in addition to the fact that creating an ideological "perfect world" is a much bigger undertaking than creating a "perfect" marxist/fascist society in one country. National take overs have happened in the past but attempts at expanding that to the whole world hasn't been successful (WW2, Cold War) since the number of those in control from that limited ideological basis will never be enough to bring that off. Now when you throw in a "religious" component as the islamists do that makes things easier since they just snuff out the opposition that are looked on as "evil". At sometime this conflict between "allies" will breakdown and the Left will find itself on the losing end. Right now you have that alliance as you can see with the Muslim Brotherhood being welcomed in many parts of the administration and the government as well as the furthering of radical islamists consolidation of power in the muslim world. At the same time there are all the ultra left wing academics and power brokers either in the government or in groups having influence on the administration like unions, radical ethnic groups like the NAACP and La Raza, and the left wing groups like Think Progress/Code Pink/militant gay groups/etc that are pushing the "progressive" programs. Some of their objectives like gay "rights"/women's rights/atheism/permissiveness in US culture are in direct conflict with islam at least as it is pushed by the purists. Others like reducing the US economy (and capitalism), the US military, and the US as a free society are objectives both agree on. With a totally feckless GOP "leadership", academia/media/most of the legal system/the entertainment industry in the tank with the "progressive" agenda, and too many in the clergy confusing "compassion" with government programs there really isn't any organized movement or group to stop what is going on. Not a pretty picture but the last election and the actions by the administration, the Demagogue Party, their "progressive" allied groups, and the islamists have been clear for a long time to those who can logically evaluate what is going on. The real question is which group does Dear Leader Obama belong to??? And who is pulling his strings??? There are strong influences of both marxist and islamist training and connections in his background. So which is dominate???? There is no question he is on a mission and an ego trip but the ultimate end is the big question!
John, very, very interesting and I can see what you are saying. Where, do you think, George Soros plays into this. He has been a big supporter of the Democrats and really came into attention with the Clintons, as far as I can see. I know that he is behind Obama. Any ideas why he jumped ship on Hillary and what are our thoughts on this, please.
Linda: Hate to be a downer but I'm not optimistic on a good solution soon. Those causing the problems ultimately will fail and some of those elements will come in conflict with each other but, unless there is a huge awakening in the dumbed down and diverted electorate, we are in for very hard and bad times since there is no political solution on the horizon. The culture, the education 'system", the rapid movement away from Constitutional limitations by all parts of the government and both parties, the development of "classes" and "interest groups" competing for government favors, the consolidation of power at the Federal level (that started with Lincoln!!!!), the tendency of the Left when in power to suppress opposition and limit freedoms, and the effects these have had on a couple generations or more who don't know what the US is supposed to be and was at one time make pulling out of this at best a long, long, long undertaking if it can be done with less than a critical upheaval. Sorry to be a pessimist but looking at what has been done to determine what happened at Benghazi, what went on in Fast and Furious, past abuses of power by Obama, and the current cave in by the GOP on the alleged "fiscal cliff" leads to the pessimism.
John, I have only begun to read and study more about Lincoln and realized that he was not quite what I have always thought him to be; disappointing. Do you have any suggestions as to books to read to gain more insight and understanding of this. I do know that the educational system took a real strong turn to Marxist-Socialism around 1917 or shortly thereafter. One huge university where they got an early stronghold was the University of Washington in Seattle and having been born and lived in that State for 60 of my 66 years, I saw the affects of this and how the West side of the state became liberal to an extreme; probably more so than a lot of other areas of the U.S. It was a toss up as to whether California fed Oregon and Washington or vise versa in this regard; but the west coast is extremely liberal and there is that strong radical-socialist leaning. So I know where things fit from 1917 to present, and you are helping me to better understand; but from Lincoln to 1917 would be a mystery for me to some extent. So help, please.
Great comments, Linda and John.
I will never understand California. That state needs to become a country and cut from the states.
I believe Susan Rice will become Secretary of State. All I have to offer is that she can't be any worse than Hillary Clinton. Over the past two years, Hillary Clinton looks tired, worn out and lackluster in her position. When she speaks, her voice is very slow and without any enthusiasm. She needs to step down and stay out of politics. I believe she knows her chances for 2016 are shot and I don't believe she is interested anymore.
Diane, I have a feeling that Hillary Clinton is actually sick; something that is maybe serious, too. She does not look or act well at all. Just a suspicion.
I hope you are right about Susan Rice, I don't see her any worse than HC. John is right about all three women, powers, clinton and rice having a huge impact on our foreign policy and leading from behind which is all part of the UN initiatives, e.g. giving more power to the Muslim Brotherhood.
I see what John is stating about the conflicts within re: those activist/militant and progressive groups being contradictory to Muslim indoctrinations. Obama WH is all over the place
and trying to appease all of them won't work in the end.
I don't think Lincoln was all wrong either, he started the civil war to save the Union. The states were unwilling to agree and there is no way that all of the states today can have total sovereign powers to do what they please. It would not work. The size of our country has changed drastically and implementing the original framework might not work either.
You cannot compare 2012 to 1776 or even 1865.
One has to factor in all of the changes, population growths, etc.
The immigration laws were changed with JFK and that was the intitial problem to what we have today.
I hope Hillary does not run in 2016; but I am not banking on anything. One never knows what the progressive democrats will do. I hope they are in just as much turmoil over the future elections as is the GOP. They may very well be and are just feigning success which hinges on economic recovery which is doubtful.
Linda: There are a number of articles on the web and several histories that detail Lincoln's use of and maybe abuse of power at the time of the succession as well a some of the abuses by the Radical Republicans (aka Carpetbaggers) in the South after the War as well as articles about the abuses of the 14th Amendment in many areas (including the fiction that an illegal alien mother who comes across the border to deliver her anchor baby makes that baby a citizen just by being born on US soil). However, that information needs to be put in context with some of the discussions prior to adoption of the Constitution in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers where the concern focused on a too powerful central government. Prior to the Lincoln administration the central government was still somewhat submissive to the states in most areas since they entered the union voluntarily. Four of the states that formed the Confederacy were original colonies and Texas was an independent entity prior to joining. In addition, it is helpful to read Jonas Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to understand how the "progressive" movement has built on the centralization of power in DC to actually diminished the rights and freedom of all of us from the actions making the Federal Government predominate starting with the Civil War. The reason why the Left loves Lincoln is more his extra ordinary use of Presidential power and diminishing of the power of the individual states rather than his freeing of the slaves. All you need to know about their feeling about the slaves and their decedents is the actions taken by Wilson after his election and the thoughts of "progressive thinkers" like Margret Sanger of Planned Unparenthood. If you look at some of the history of the Reconstruction period you will see how the carpetbaggers and scalawags used the freed slaves to dominate the political process to the determent of both the freed slaves and the former Confederates to make their fortunes at the expense of others. There was a significant degree of corruption after the War from the Radical Republican politicians in many areas at both the state/local level and the federal level as well. I have a problem with the uncritical praise some conservative commentators have for both Lincoln and the Radical Republican rule after the Civil War. To a degree the abolitionist movement and the Radical Republicans were the forerunners of the "progressives". One needs to keep in mind that there were some who were genuinely interested in reforms that were good ideas but the problem is the zeal of many of the leaders in these movements for total power to create utopias tend to make the real reforms fall victim to abuses in the long run.
John, this is very good information and gives me more to think about. I sure can tell it has been awhile since U.S. History in high school. Some of this I do remember. I do remember that the Union and Lincoln allowed things to happen to the people of the confederacy that should never have been allowed. It is hard to remember that the Republican Party of Lincoln's time was really what is the Democratic Party today and vise versa. It is time to get out the books and re-read. Thank you for the direction to take on this.
JohnC, your post is informative. I like the way you have brought all of the actions of several into why we are where we are today and to state that the radical republicans were the forerunners of the progressives is the most interesting. Many of us are not as astute in history as you are so keep 'em coming because you are sharing knowledge from your research/reading so that we don't have to.
Thank you very much.
Sheila and Linda, just judging by the way Hillary looks, drained of energy, letting herself go (hair make up clothes gaining weight) there appears to be something wrong. It has only been over the past year that her speaking publicly has taken on a much more deliberate and very slow pace. It's like she is a different person. Maybe Slick Willy has a new paramour.
Diane, I have a feeling it is something more personal such as an illness; possibly a mini-stroke or even heart issues. She doesn't have good color and she just looks and acts so different.
It rwould be health that would restrict her from running. Others have commented and relay it to being excessively tired. she is also very worried that Benghazi will taint her reputation and she is avoiding testifying before Congress and Senate committees.
It looks like a number of things, maybe some depression also as her dreams of breaking the glass ceiling is slipping away. Obama won by 350 million votes scattered within the battleground states and that is not a win card for next democrat. Their base is now reliant upon minorities who are becoming the majority soon.
by AWR HAWKINS
After today's meeting with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice regarding Benghazi, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), emerged more troubled than ever.
Said McCain: "We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get, concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate, [and] the tragic deaths of four brave Americans."
McCain said the degree to which Rice was prepped for her Sept. 16 comments was not clear, but what was clear was the fact that "the information she gave the American people was incorrect," when she described the Benghazi attack "as a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video." Added McCain: "There was strong evidence at the time that this was not correct."
Said Ayotte: "I can say I am more troubled today...having met with Ambassador Rice. Because it's certainly clear from the beginning we knew those with ties to Al Qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy...and that the information that was given to the American people was wrong."
Ayotte said Ambassador Rice was wrong, the CIA was wrong, and the President was wrong. And she added that neither the CIA nor the President have come out to admit they were wrong or set the record the straight.
Said Graham: "I'm more disturbed now than I was before. [Ambassador Rice's Sept. 16 statement] was a statement disconnected from reality."
He said he was perplexed because just "a little bit of inquiry and curiosity" would have shown that Al Qaeda was behind the attack from the start: "The American people got bad information on Sept 16 [from Ambassador Rice] and they got bad information from President Obama."
Graham says the scenario given by Rice and Obama was "unjustified" three weeks before an election. He says it would have been better had they said nothing at all.
Go to above to see more including video