It remains a mystery in my eyes, how liberals and Democrats fail to recognize that by constantly playing the race card in every possible scenario, it ends up being patronizing to the minority group that they are actually trying to defend.
Case in point – voter ID. Liberals would have you believe that getting a free photo identification from the local DMV, and making it necessary to vote in elections, would suppress the minority vote. Now, the only way you can possibly believe that statement is true, is if in your own little head, you actually believe that those minority groups are too incompetent to attain the proper identification necessary to vote. It’s the only way that statement rings true.
And now we have this…
Via Gateway Pundit:
First off, Rice’s actions amount to one of two things. She either knowingly lied about what had happened in Benghazi, or she was used as a puppet by the administration to feed the public their talking points. If she lied, then she is unfit to serve in her current post, let alone as a replacement for Hillary Clinton. If she was used to promote the administration’s lies, then they have also denigrated this African-American woman by using her as a tool rather than letting her do her job.
Second, to come to the conclusion that Rice is being attacked because she is a black woman, is to view her with a condescending level of tunnel vision. The very people that are criticizing her are doing so because they view her as Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations. The people that are defending her do not look at her in the same manner. Instead they patronizingly view her as a poor defenseless black woman incapable of standing up to her critics or defending her position.
When Susan Rice attained the tremendous heights that she has throughout her career, do you think she’d rather have been viewed as a successful overall individual, or do you think she’d prefer to be viewed as the career product of being a poor black woman?
There couldn’t be anything less racial about the entire Benghazi cover up. And yet Democrats feel they still have to play that card. The left consistently turns race into a political ploy. If you’re a minority, don’t you feel a little bit embarrassed every time they do it?
Clinton Getting More Security For a Wine-Tasting Event Than the Navy SEALs Who Were Killed in Benghazi
Seems Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can’t find the time to testify at the closed Benghazi hearings due to a ‘scheduling conflict’. This despite the fact that the Obama administration owes America answers as to what happened in Benghazi, and Clinton is certainly a prime player as to how events went down that night.
Nevermind America, she owes the families of the victims answers. Instead, she has a very critical meeting to attend in place of the hearings.
The scheduling conflict? A wine-tasting event with friends.
And she’s bringing along a security entourage that I’m sure the Navy SEAL’s who were told to stand down before they were killed would have greatly appreciated.
Here is her conflicting schedule via the Herald Sun:
Few details of Ms Clinton’s visit on Wednesday and Thursday have been revealed, but it is understood she will visit close friends, one whom is connected to the Carnegie Mellon University. It also believed that:
THE 150-strong entourage is likely to visit Penfolds’ Magill Estate for either a wine tasting session or private function.
THE entourage has booked more than 100 rooms over several floors at the Intercontinental Hotel on North Tce.
HEAVY traffic restrictions are likely from late Wednesday ahead of her anticipated arrival that night.
HER entourage will leave Adelaide on Friday morning.
While Ms Clinton will be protected at close quarters by her own US Secret Service detail, dozens of AFP protection officers and STAR Group officers will be involved in protecting her motorcade and any venues she visits.
Police are also likely to use helicopter surveillance to monitor her every move.
The operation will be larger than that mounted to protect Prince Charles and his wife Camilla for their five-hour flying visit to Adelaide on Wednesday.
Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler nails it:
Too bad Ambassador Stevens and the three others killed in the Benghazi attack didn’t have a fraction of the security that will protect Clinton in war-torn Australia.
The fact that a Clinton is involved in Benghazi all but assures that the families of the slain and the American people will never get answers and will never see any accountability.
Indeed, a 150-person entourage may have come in handy the night of the attack at the compound and annex, especially when the SEALs were calling Hillary and the White House begging for reinforcements.
Classified Cable Shows State Department Was Warned That Benghazi Consulate Could Not Withstand Coordinated Attack
No wonder Fox News crushes in ratings. They actually do the job of journalists.
A new secret cable has been revealed that shows Hillary Clinton’s State Department was warned less than a month in advance of the Benghazi terror attack, that security personnel at the consulate had deep concerns that they could not withstand a coordinated enemy attack.
Notice that they did not say that they couldn’t withstand a spontaneous protest over a video. But rather, they could not withstand a coordinated terror attack. Something in which four Americans fell victim to less than a month later.
Via Fox News:
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
The report then summarizes the implication in having this secret cable perfectly:
“It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.”
Biggest cover up in White House history?
Late last night we received word that Hillary Clinton – not President Obama – was accepting full responsibility for the security lapses that led to the successful assassination of four Americans in Benghazi.
Falling on the sword for the administration during a tough re-election bid, Clinton today told a CNN reporter “I take responsibility” for security ahead of the attacks.
Notice consistent use of the phrase ‘the buck stops with her’.
This is clearly an attempt to deflect criticism being aimed at the White House ahead of the second Presidential debate scheduled for tomorrow night.
Now, U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte have responded to the ‘laudable gesture’, pointing out the unlikelihood that the President was unaware of the rising security risks in Libya.
“We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.
“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.
“Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
Remember when President Obama was criticizing Mitt Romney about his responsibilities at Bain Capital, even invoking Harry Truman’s ‘the buck stops here’ campaign?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, here’s what I know, we were just talking about responsibility and as president of the United States, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you.
Now, my understanding is that Mr. Romney attested to the SEC, multiple times, that he was the chairman, CEO and president of Bain Capital and I think most Americans figure if you are the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what that company does.
Ultimately Mr. Romney, I think, is going to have to answer those questions, because if he aspires to being president one of the things you learn is, you are ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations, but again that’s probably a question that he’s going to have to answer and I think that’s a legitimate part of the campaign.
The buck stops with the President? He is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his operations?
Apparently that mantra doesn’t hold true when it comes to your administration’s conduct in dealing with the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
Today we found out the buck doesn’t actually stop with the President, but rather it stops with Hillary Clinton.
Falling on the sword for the administration during a tough re-election bid, Clinton today told a CNN reporter “I take responsibility” for security ahead of the attacks.
“This was a purely political move to give Obama breathing room tomorrow night. That’s it.”
If the State Department had solely been responsible for the lack of security leading up to the attacks, the White House would not have consistently covered up this attack with the fabricated ‘spontaneous protest’ story.
With the economy being blamed on Bush consistently over the last four years, and now these terror attacks being blamed on Hillary, one has to wonder can anything that happens under this regime be considered Obama’s fault?
… And it wasn’t Bubba.
This isn’t the Clinton we normally associate with wandering eyes, but then, we didn’t expect the hottest watercooler topic to come out of the first presidential debate to be Big Bird. Politics. It’s a crazy business.
In any case, while President Barack Obama was in Denver facing off against Mitt Romney yesterday, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was back in Washington, D.C., helping honor (well, that’s one word for it) Christina Aguilera.
Hey, eyes up here, Hillary.
The incompetence of the Obama administration in handling this attack grows ever more apparent.
Via the Washington Post:
More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.
Although the gates to the compound were locked several days after the attacks, looters and curiosity-seekers were free to roam in the initial chaotic aftermath, and many documents may already have disappeared.
No government-provided security forces are guarding the compound, and Libyan investigators have visited just once, according to a member of the family who owns the compound and who allowed the journalists to enter Wednesday.
Of course nobody is in a hurry to secure the crime scene and investigate the attack, Hillary has already said she’d like to hold off on finding answers until after the election.
On Monday, leaders from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (Darrell Idea and Jason Chaffetz) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking why requests for protection were denied to the consulate in Libya despite repeated attacks against U.S. personnel.
The letter outlined 13 specific security threats over a six-month timeframe prior to the deadly attack on September 11th, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.
The committee also indicated that they would be holding a hearing on the security lapses next week.
Clinton’s response was to urge the committee not to be so hasty in trying to find answers as to what killed our fellow Americans.
Clinton said that the State Department’s Accountability Review Board will begin work this week and the letter revealed the names of all five board members. In addition to former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, who will lead the board, the other members will be former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen (ret.), Catherine Bertini, Hugh Turner, and Richard Shinnick.
Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
Indeed, what is the rush here gentleman? We have to hold off this scandal at least until, say … November 6th.
But trust us, there’s nothing to hide.
Bombshell: Did the White House Cover Up Ambassador’s Murder Because They Were Warned of Attacks Months in Advance?
We know the Obama administration has been actively engaged in a cover-up as to why the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack on September 11th, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats. How else to explain the weeks-long campaign to convince people that the attacks were not terrorism.
Now we’re finding out more details as to why they may have engaged in such a wide-ranging cover-up.
Via the Telegraph (emphasis mine):
Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.
But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.
It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.
Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.
If indeed, Washington was warned about an “increasingly hostile and anti-American” environment in Benghazi on September 4th, it makes this State Department memo (since scrubbed from their website) on September 6th even more curious:
Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–
On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.
But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.
At the time that this was revealed, their had been reports that the U.S. knew of potential threats a single day ahead of the actual attacks on September 11th. But this latest report from the Telegraph demonstrates that the White House knew al-Qaeda was operating in the area in June, had specific reports of increasing hostility on the 4th, and then reported that there were no credible threats on the 6th.
That is criminal.
To have lowered security expectations despite their knowledge of threats is criminal.
This is a cover up of the highest order. The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected. The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.
And now, they are aware that there is evidence something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans. There was blood on their hands, and instead of admitting mistakes they’ve been trying to scrub the crime scene clean ever since.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney can say it:
“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling yesterday with President Barack Obama.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can say it:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it was a “terrorist attack” that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three others, and she says the U.S. will not rest until those responsible are brought to justice. Clinton told reporters Friday at the State Department that, quote, “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And she said the U.S. would track down, quote, the “terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
National Counterterrorism Center (CTC) Director Matthew Olson can say it:
During testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen acknowledged that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack. When asked by Senator Joe Lieberman about the deaths of four Americans, he said, “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our Embassy.”
But nowhere in his speech to the United Nations today will you see the President of the United States refer to the attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, as terrorism.
Why would we? The President is still clinging to the desperate notion that a video that nobody has seen is what sparked the ‘spontaneous’ attack that just so happened to occur on September 11th, in which protesters just so happened to be carrying rocket propelled grenades launchers.
An excerpt from today’s speech:
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
The biggest problem with blaming radical Muslim rage on a video, aside from the common sense evidence that indicates it played no role in the attacks, is that Ambassador Stevens himself saw other reasons to be concerned about his safety.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper recently explained, using Ambassador Stevens’ journal that, “Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”
The President went on:
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
Apparently however, the answer wasn’t enshrined in our laws just a couple of weeks ago, when the President’s administration was calling for YouTube to pull the controversial video.
The irony here is that perhaps the President’s unwillingness to stand up against terrorist attacks, and to stand for freedom of speech, may be what leads a person to say awful things about him.