President Obama and Congressional Democrats have gone to great lengths to defend embattled U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s role in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Ms. Rice’s defenders claim that her initial public assessment that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest in reaction to a supposed Anti-Islam film on YouTube was based on bad intelligence.
Congressional hearings have revealed that the CIA, under its former director David Petraeus, knew through intelligence on the ground and from assets overhead that this planned attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda. It would appear that Ms. Rice was part of a coordinated effort by unknown elements within the White House to downplay the terrorist aspect of Benghazi attack, which happened on the 11th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and with less than eight weeks to go before a Presidential election.
Many people on both sides of the political spectrum are well aware of Ms. Rice’s history of political cronyism and her tactic of twisting truth to protect the political fortunes of the administrations in which she has served. While Congressional Democrats have sought to portray the investigation into Ms. Rice’s role in the Benghazi cover-up as a witch hunt based on racism and sexism, some of these same Democrats have had their own concerns about Ms. Rice’s cronyism in the past.
In a quote for a 2002 book written by Samantha Power, Ms. Rice stated, in her attempted defense of the Clinton Administration’s inaction in response to the genocide that was taking place in the tiny African Nation of Rwanda in 1994, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?” It was later revealed that President Clinton, along with Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, Warren Christopher, and Ms. Rice were all part of a coordinated effort not only to block U.N. action to stop the genocide, but to work behind the scenes to craft public opinion on the issue by removing words such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from official State Department and CIA memos.
In 1997, when President Clinton sought to promote Ms. Rice to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the appointment based on her history of being part of the Washington Elite Class. This is the same Congressional Black Caucus who is now in 2012 attempting to defend her with trumped up charges of racism and sexism. Even as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, many inside and outside of Washington questioned Ms. Rice’s tenure, as she worked with certain African dictators with questionable records, reaping praise herself for doing so.
As President Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Ms. Rice has come under fire several times in the past. She has missed key votes, and she has not opposed nations with questionable human rights records heading key U.N. committees. Rice seems to have taken “a go along to get along attitude” at events like the U.N.’s weak response to the Iranian Election Protest of 2009, the ongoing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, as well as China’s muscle flexing in the East China Sea. Now it would seem that, with President Obama’s reelection behind him, he is preparing to reward Ms. Rice with the position of Secretary of State (as Ms. Clinton said she is not interested in serving a second term) as she helped shape early public opinion on the Benghazi Attack.
If Ms. Rice does receive the appointment of Secretary of State, it will be with even more blood on her resume, as President Clinton rewarded her after misleading the public on the issues of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Africa. This time, her record of shameful political cronyism is now covered in the blood of four Americans, and that is why her defenders are trying to make this about her race and gender – because loyalty to the public is trumped by loyalty to a President and his party.