Why was Susan Rice asked to talk about Benghazi when she knew nothing about it?
The charitable view: The White House wanted to see her in a high-profile position as something of a tryout for her possible appointment as secretary of state in a second term.
The less charitable view: Because Rice had no independent knowledge of what happened, she could be counted on to do nothing more than recite administration talking points. And because Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, there was no risk that she would disclose just how much of the intelligence pointed to a coordinated, planned al Qaeda attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi…
Obama administration officials were not trying to provide an accurate picture of what happened in Benghazi on September 11. They were trying to obscure it. Notwithstanding the president’s claims to the contrary, it appears as if the goal of the White House in those early days was to hide the truth from the American people. That’s why you send out a spokesman who “had nothing to do with Benghazi.” It’s why you give her talking points that include a debunked story about a protest that never took place.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Are you familiar with the term “yes man?”
CurtZHP on November 17, 2012 at 8:33 PM
One could ask why Barackabama was elected (and “re-elected”) for the very same reasons.
SouthernGent on November 17, 2012 at 8:35 PM
Because as Rush said, “She’s the least likely to be challenged on it. We’ll just leave it at that.” Or something to that effect…
elfman on November 17, 2012 at 8:35 PM
For the same reason Colin Powell was asked to talk to Congress about WMD? In fact, what if Obama used that as a template, to be prepared for any kind of criticism? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Paul-Cincy on November 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM
I, for one, am not feeling charitable these days.
rbj on November 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM
In addition to this, she was in possession of the adequate gender and skin color as to make any point she had, an unassailable one. Any counter to her talking points could be dismissed as both sexist and racist rather than legitimate criticism. It’d be hard for Tom Donilon et al to fit that role, eh?
ted c on November 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Door #2…..
BallisticBob on November 17, 2012 at 8:46 PM
When the black congresswomen, AKA water buffalo, cows, got up to disparage John McCain and anyone else for deigning to criticize Susan Rice, a woman of color, in any way, shape, or form, we got a taste of what it meant for Obama to win a second term. We won, we got our black President for a second term, this is the race-baiting United States of Obama, in your white face.
Paul-Cincy on November 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM
I’m sure Rice had a hand in the Obama led Arab Spring rebellion in Libya. She would know who the rebels were. She would have been the go-between for other nations and Obama on the rebellion. If the rebels were the consulate attackers, she would have been eager to cover up the fact. Same for others, but just saying that might be where you’d find her knowledge of Libya. There might be other nations she needs to cover for on the matter to keep relations happy.
Buddahpundit on November 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM
Q: Why was Susan Rice asked to talk about Benghazi when she knew nothing about it?
A: Because she knew nothing about it and, therefore, as the designated voice of the White House, could never be called a liar.
I believe the military term for this is “C.Y.A.”.
Tuning Spork on November 17, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Because the first twenty people Obama asked said “You are one crazy dude if you think I’m gonna do that”.
fogw on November 17, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Because in politics no one can challenge the veracity of a black female. There- I said it. What do I win?
Scotsman on November 17, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Fried chicken? Obamaphone?
arnold ziffel on November 17, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Obama had no problem by passing congress and sending the US military to aid the rebels in overthrowing a non threat if not a luke warm ally in Gaddahfi, but could not bring himself to send support before during and after the deaths of four American heros.
This is the real tragedy, this is where treason charges and impeachment should arise!
Who screwed who, who said what after and when and why is all a smokescreen.
As Usual the Repunks play the game on the Rats turf, according to thier rules, and when they say they will play.
These Rats must be laughing themselves silly.
Its all a smokescreen for the unauthorized use of the US military under control of the United Nations and then the denial of use of same to defend our own citizens.
ConcealedKerry on November 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Like a loyal company man, she protected the head honcho, the Big H. In turn, Big H took a fall for the Big O. The media, of course, played all this up as virtue. Under Dem cronyism, taking a fall is periodically necessary for keeping up the illusion of propriety, and is rewarded. In fact, it is one of the major means of climbing the ranks.
paul1149 on November 17, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Because she is a perfect dummy.
Schadenfreude on November 17, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Susan Rice was paid to lie – she and obama both got what they wanted.
Pork-Chop on November 17, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Obscure it? Yes, but that’s only part of it, maybe the less important part. Perhaps more importantly, they fabricated and pushed a lie designed to undermine our First Amendment rights.
petefrt on November 17, 2012 at 11:06 PM
I like Hayes, but he and other conservative journalists need to stop sugarcoating it. It appears? Hide the truth? Spit it out: they’re lying.
Let Obama and black congresswomen cry race. It’s time that the GOP declared war on the race card.
MLK said he wanted his children measured by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Well, color ain’t got nothing to do with this. This is all about character, and Obama et al. haven’t got any.
BuckeyeSam on November 17, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Gender and race politics trumps reality, sanity and veracity?
profitsbeard on November 18, 2012 at 2:32 AM
Great comment. Every single one of them is afraid to use the L word. They will say mislead a dozen times, but never the word liar. Unlike Mitt they aren’t running for office, but they too are afraid of the power of the Corrupt Media, which is the permanent enemy of truth and decency.
I don’t believe for a second that all of them didn’t know the truth. Rice was picked as the chosen liar because Clinton and the NSA refused, Biden couldn’t get his lines straight and Al Franken was unavailable.
Basilsbest on November 18, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Correction:
The lying liar Al Franken isn’t black and female.
Basilsbest on November 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Send out a willing stooge that doesn’t know a damn thing. And, tell the stooge what to say. Of course it will be even be better if it is a woman of color, so when the @#$p begins to fly, you can you can say you are attacking both a woman and a person of color ………… further obscuring the truth of what happened at the Benghazi consulate.
SC.Charlie on November 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Why was Susan Rice asked to talk about Benghazi when she knew nothing about it?
To create a puzzle to argue and ruminate about, while things progress behind the scenes.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Mimzey on November 18, 2012 at 9:16 AM