The Beltway has been buzzing, concerning the announcement that Dr. Susan Rice, the “face” of Benghazigate, has withdrawn from the candidate list for Secretary of State.
Fox News reports
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has removed her name from consideration for secretary of state, saying she does not want to put the administration through a “lengthy, disruptive and costly” confirmation process.
The move followed weeks of controversy on Capitol Hill over the possibility of her nomination, with Republicans threatening to block Rice from the post over concerns about her September comments on the Libya terror attack. Some lawmakers continue to charge that Rice misled the American people when she said on Sept. 16 that the attack was the result of a “spontaneous” demonstration spun out of control.
President Obama, in a written statement Thursday, called those claims “unfair and misleading” but said he accepts her decision.
“Her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first,” Obama said.
Rice, in a letter to Obama on Thursday, said she remains “fully confident” she could have served as an effective secretary of state but suggested the confirmation process would have hurt the administration.
“That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country,” Rice wrote. She went on to say “I am saddened that we have reached this point, even before you have decided whom to nominate.”
Some of Rice’s biggest critics, in response, said they would continue to probe the Benghazi attacks — even if Rice may not come before them to answer questions in a confirmation hearing.
“When it comes to Benghazi I am determined to find out what happened — before, during and after the attack,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement.
Given Sen. Graham’s legendary reach-across-the-aisle squishiness, excuse me if I take his pronouncement with a grain of salt.
About that letter to the Preezy…Dr. Rice also wrote,
When discussing Benghazi, I relied on fully cleared, unclassified points provided by the intelligence community, which encapsulated their best current assessment. These unclassified points were consistent with the classified assessments I received as a senior policymaker. It would have been irresponsible for me to substitute any personal judgment for our government’s and wrong to reveal classified material. I made clear in each interview that the information I was providing was preliminary and that ongoing investigations would give us definitive answers. I have tremendous appreciation for our intelligence professionals, who work hard to provide their best assessments based on the information available. Long experience shows that our first accounts of terrorist attacks and other tragedies often evolve over time. The intelligence community did its job in good faith. And so did I.
I have never sought in any way, shape or form to mislead the American people. To do so would run counter to my character and my life of public service. But in recent weeks, new lines of attack have been raised to malign my character and my career. Even before I was nominated for any new position, a steady drip of manufactured charges painted a wholly false picture of me. This has interfered increasingly with my work on behalf of the United States at the United Nations and with America’s agenda.
I grew up in Washington, D.C., and I’ve seen plenty of battles over politics and policy. But a national security appointment, much less a potential one, should never be turned into a political football. There are far bigger issues at stake. So I concluded this distraction has to stop.
Translation: “Not only we’re they going to make me tell the truth about Benghazi, they would also find out my history of being a Muslim sympathizer.”
While Dr. Rice was working at the Brookings Institute, she co-authored a paper published in 2005, titled Can “Freedom Only” Secure Our Future? In this paper, she wrote,
…Some scholars argue that the absence of political freedoms, rather than lack of educational opportunity, motivate young men to join terrorist networks.
…Others hold that poverty and under-development create breeding grounds for terrorist foot soldiers.
…More significant is poverty’s contribution to fueling civil conflict and state weakness that terrorist networks and other predators can exploit.
…Absent conflict, low levels of income and development, particularly in countries with significant, but not necessarily majority Muslim populations may also facilitate terrorist operations.
…Promoting both development and democracy in faraway countries is a 21st century security imperative. We need a dual strategy. We must combine effective formulas for fostering freedom through building civil society and transparent democratic institutions with a determination to “make poverty history”.
Notice the terms “Jihad” or Radical Islamic Ideology are never mentioned.
Now, if she remains as UN Ambassador, as Obama expressed in his reaction to her announcement, that’s one thing. However, there is a serious rumor going around that she will be the next National Security Adviser.
The NSA is not a cabinet-level post, and those who fill it are neither appointed nor confirmed by Congress. The only constraints on the National Security Adviser are budgetary; there are very few statutes or laws regarding the position. In terms of a job description for the position of National Security Adviser, the reality seems to be: Whatever the president wants it to be.
So, this woman who lied to the nation, and the world, concerning the truth about the murders of four Americans, including an Ambassador, could be given a position answerable only to her buddy, the “Preezy”.
Now, doesn’t that make you feel safe and secure?
Until He comes,