You're Either On the Bus, or Under the Bus

Tossing Susan Rice Under the Bus 

by Paul R. Hollrah

Trying to make some sense of the Susan Rice fiasco is like trying to make some sense of how the most incompetent and the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history managed to get himself reelected.  It probably can’t be done.  But, just for the sake of argument, it might be interesting to engage in a bit of conjecture about how Susan Rice got picked to go under the bus.   

First some background.  On Sunday morning, September 16, five days after an Islamic terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Barack Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all five Sunday morning network talk shows.  Rushing from one broadcast studio to the next, Rice appeared on ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press… and all within a time span of just two hours.  

The tale that Rice told at each stop was typical of what she stated on ABC’s This Week, where she said, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo… In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather – to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

So the question arises… and persists… why was the U.N. Ambassador chosen to deliver such a whopper to the American people when, in fact, she had no connection to and no responsibility for the consulate in Benghazi? 

The most logical pecking order of people who should have been called upon to answer for what happened at Benghazi is, in order: Barack Obama, President and Commander in Chief; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense; General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; Michael Morrell, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor; and General David Petraeus, former Director of Central Intelligence.

As the principal architect and political beneficiary of the Benghazi fable, Barack Obama was not about to go on record as the bearer of what everyone would soon know was a false narrative.  But because he had hopes of explaining away the Benghazi terror attack in a way that would not damage his “al-Qaeda-is-on-its-heels” narrative two months before the November election, he had to have a patsy to carry his tale to the American people who was not only credible, but also expendable.  The one person who fit that description was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  And who is the only person who could make that decision, and who is the only person who could tell her exactly what to do and what to say?  Ambassador Rice is not in Hillary Clinton’s chain of command, so the order could have come from only one person: that would be Barack Obama.

He couldn’t expect Hillary to play that role.  As soon as the Benghazi story made the headlines, Hillary packed her polyester suits, grabbed her attaché case and her “body woman,” and got the hell out of town.  In a brief statement issued from Lima, Peru on Monday, October 15, where she was presumably conducting nuclear disarmament talks with the Peruvians, Clinton said, “I take responsibility.  I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”

Then, after stopping off in Washington just long enough to pick up a few changes of “undies,” she was off again on an extended tour of Hawaii, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia, returning on November 8, two days after the November election, when her testimony could not damage Obama’s reelection chances.

Compelling diplomatic business?  No.  Compelling political business?  Yes.  If Hillary had been in Washington and available to the Congress, she would have had some very difficult questions put to her.  And since it was Bill Clinton who was most responsible for exciting the Democratic base and getting Obama reelected, the last thing Obama wanted was to see Hillary sitting before a congressional committee.  The only thing to do was to get her out of town.

But what of Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense?  In terms of an attack on a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, Panetta’s only connection would have been in relation to a military rescue operation or a military response to al-Qaeda.  But since it appeared as if he had disobeyed Obama’s order to “secure our people” in Benghazi, Panetta was keeping a decidedly low profile.  Obama didn’t want Panetta having to answer questions about why he and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey had disobeyed his order.  Or, worse yet, having Panetta reveal that Obama had not given such an order… Obama’s public pronouncements to the contrary. 

General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?  In his previous incarnation he served as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), an oxymoron if ever there was one.  Clapper's role in the Benghazi scandal shouldn't surprise anyone.  It certainly didn't surprise author Bob McCarty, who’s upcoming book, The Clapper Memo, will expose some of the DNI’s earlier exploits as USDI which are now “coming home to roost” in the form of so-called “Green-on-Blue” attacks in Afghanistan.

If there is a chief suspect in the effort to find who it was that rewrote the CIA talking points of September 12, which identified Ansar al Sharia as the al-Qaeda subsidiary responsible for the Benghazi attack, the finger would most logically point to General Clapper.  And since Obama must have known that his Director of National Intelligence was not a man to be trusted with the responsibility for carrying out an assignment of such strategic political importance… and get it right five times within two hours… he knew that General Clapper was not his man. 

Michael Morrell, the Acting Director of Central Intelligence?  This is the same Michael Morrell who in testimony before a congressional committee on Thursday, November 15, attempted to shield Susan Rice from criticism.  He told the committee that Rice had been provided with an unclassified version of the deadly attack in Benghazi that was incorrect. 

He failed to explain to the committee how or why, if the CIA knew on September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, that the attack was carried out by an Islamic terrorist group, they allowed the U.N. Ambassador to appear on five Sunday morning TV interviews four days later, carrying a totally false narrative.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon?  When the White House leaked classified information detailing the Navy SEAL methodology that brought Osama bin Laden to justice in Abbottabad; identifying the Pakistani doctor who assisted U.S. intelligence personnel in locating bin Laden; and providing details of the US-Israeli cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, it didn’t take then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates long to figure out who was responsible for the leaks.

As Jake Tapper of ABC News has reported, “… Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the (bin Laden) raid.

“ ‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend...’

“ ‘What was that?’ Donilon asked.

“ ‘Shut the f_ _ k up,’ the defense secretary said.”

Donilon’s credibility was so damaged by that episode that Obama didn’t dare send him before the five Sunday morning talk shows carrying a false version of the Benghazi attack.

And finally, General David Petraeus.  In the days following the Benghazi attack, Obama knew two very important things about his Director of Central Intelligence.  First, in spite of numerous denials to the contrary, Obama had to have known that Petraeus was under investigation by the FBI in connection with the Paula Broadwell affair.  In other words, he knew that his Director of Central Intelligence was in a potentially compromising position.  And finally, he knew that he could count on a man of Petraeus’s caliber to go only so far in parroting a false narrative in which politics trumped all other considerations.

Obama’s only choice was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, another incompetent hanger-on who had ambitions to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  Her ambition would dictate that she do what she was told without asking too many questions.  And with an ethically neutral mainstream media as watchdogs, there was a very good chance that they could pull it off.

Sorry, Obama.  Your luck just ran out.  There’s room for only so many “expendables” under that bus of yours and now you’ll have to pay the price.  Most importantly, if we’re lucky, and if we can find just a few members of Congress with the backbone to do what’s right, it appears all but certain that we’ll find an impeachable offense or two in all of this... just something to make your second inauguration a most memorable one.

Diplomatic Credentials Can Be Revoked-Personnel Can Be Escorted to Airports

Another good reason to remove the HQ of the UN from American soil and put it somewhere. How stupid do you have to be to not see the potential for abuse of diplomatic cover? Islamist extremists will not stop until they or we are defeated. These people are not spies gathering intelligence for a government; they are fanatical extremists planning to kill as many American citizens as they can.
This is reality.
These people are serious.
They actually believe they will go to heaven if they die in the act of killing innocents.

Wherever We Stand, We Stand With Israel

In a hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security last month, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the chair of the committee, sounded alarm bells about “Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists” operating in the United States. More disturbingly, investigators and officials at the hearing said their assessments included apparent surveillance missions of sensitive targets across the country being carried out by these individuals, some of them with diplomatic credentials linked to Iran and the UN.

An investigation by his (Rep. King’s) staff had determined that " Hezbollah terrorists" were in the United States…An alarming part of the officials' assessments focuses on the apparent surveillance missions that Iranian diplomats and possible Hezbollah operatives have been seen conducting at sensitive targets such as New York subways and bridges, and at nuclear power plants and tunnels elsewhere in the United States in the past 10 years…The renewed focus on Hezbollah - which U.S. counter-terrorism officials regard as the most potent and disciplined of Islamic militant groups, even more so than al Qaeda-comes amid a growing confrontation over Iran's nuclear program.…At least a handful of people in New York connected with Hezbollah have also undergone military training in Lebanon, the official said…One factor heightening U.S. officials' concern about Hezbollah-related attacks is the accumulation of accounts of alleged attempts by Iranian operatives to "case" potential U.S. targets.

This is disturbing news that did not make the national headlines when it was announced last month. For this reason it is now more important than ever that you hear exactly what intelligence officials know and believe Iran is capable of on American soil.

To further raise alarms, an annual CIA report released to Congress indicates what Israel already knows: Iran is enriching uranium to 20% at its underground fortress, the final step towards deciding to make weapons grade fuel. But the report also paints a disturbing picture of Iran’s other weapons programs and the consequences of these weapons falling in the wrong hands.

In the field of weapons development, the report claimed that Iran continued its work on long-range ballistic missiles, in addition to its development of missiles threatening naval vessels in the Persian Gulf;…Iran, in addition, is striving toward a completely independent ballistic missile assembly line…U.S. intelligence also estimated that Iran had maintained its chemical and biological warfare capabilities, as well as developing what could be offensive applications of these capacities

Wherever We Stand, We Stand With Israel

"Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

[Wednesday] the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie. ... To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

... I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time. In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come."

--Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu

How Long Did It Take?

Rich Carroll articulates the thoughts that have been on many people's minds. There's too much question surrounding Obama andMichelle's real ideology. Too many sinister associations make me suspicious. Also his past is still a blank. Have you ever thought about where Obama gets all his campaign money---more than Hillary or McCain put together in such a short span of time?

The Jihad Candidate

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'TheManchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level.
'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction. Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota?
The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit?
The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history.
Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.
Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too power ful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts.
Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work?
Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democratic candidate or that his church pre-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor, friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya)?
Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world? As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from main stream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is; Muslims killing Non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter.

WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood.

'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming toAmerica in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful.
Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd. Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-AmericanPresident in our nation's White House?
Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist runs for President at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?
Change for America? What change? To become another 'Nation of Islam'?
Keeping this to yourself does NOT get the word out to those who need to read it.
For THOSE to take over is for us to do NOTHING!!

Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

Once again, the folks at Family Security Matters have nailed it.

As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security.

Gregory D. Lee

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters.

Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors'
unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment.

And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy?

U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility.