Bullying The Public Into Silence
September 11, 2012, on the 11th anniversary of the attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States is once again the target of a terrorist attack. This time it was against United States personnel and territory within the city of Benghazi, Libya.
During this attack four Americans were murdered. Two were State Department employees, including our ambassador, and two were ex-Navy SEALs who, showing extreme courage, went to the sound of gunfire to help protect American personnel and property.
Immediately after the country became aware of this attack, the Obama Administration and the media circulated the story that this was a spontaneous uprising caused by an anti-Islamic movie. For two weeks the administration and its representatives stuck by the story in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Only when their lie would no longer stand public scrutiny did the Obama Administration call the incident an act of terrorism.
Three days after the assault, on September 14, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on five television talk shows and stated that this attack was a spontaneous reaction by an angry crowd upset with a video that purportedly made fun of the prophet Mohammed. Eventually enough evidence leaked out to prove the attack in Benghazi was a well-planned and coordinated attack. The evidence also showed the Obama Administration was aware from the very beginning of this incident – that the attack was not only well-planned and executed but conducted by at least one terrorist group associated with al Qaeda.
As should be expected, questions about the attack, what caused it, the lack of assistance provided to the Americans on the ground and why the administration lied were asked. These are legitimate questions! After all Americans were murdered and American soil was attacked, even though it happened overseas. Some of these questions came from senators and representatives while others came from the media. In both cases the people asking these questions were doing their job. Since Ambassador Rice was initially the front person speaking for the administration on the Sunday morning talk shows, attention was focused on her statements.
As more information came to light, it was obvious the American public was given false information by the Obama Administration through Ambassador Rice, White House spokesman Jay Carney and others. Given these circumstances and others surrounding this incident, Congress started an investigation. As more attention started to focus on Ms. Rice and her role in what appears to be a massive cover-up concerning Benghazi, the liberal media and Democrat members of Congress closed ranks behind her and started casting aspersions on her critics.
The first salvo fired in defense of the Obama Administration and Ambassador Rice was aimed directly at the intelligence community. The accusation was that Ms. Rice only spoke from the talking points given to her by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Supposedly, nothing in those talking points mentioned the incident in Benghazi as being a terrorist attack. However, former CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, during his testimony on November 16, stated to the House and Senate intelligence committees that from the very beginning he believed Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He stated in his report that he used the phrase “terrorist attack,” but does not know when it was removed.
It is very easy to blame the intelligence community. By the very nature of what they do, there is little that can be said publicly to dispute such an attack by politicians hoping to gain political points. This gambit appears to be failing. With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stepping down and Ambassador Rice being considered as her replacement, another attempt at discrediting those criticizing her had to be launched.
Since Susan Rice is both black and female, the predictable liberal claims of racism and sexism were made against anyone who dared raise concerns about her comments, and any role she played in the administration’s cover-up. For instance, The Washington Post editorial published November 22, appeared to support claims by the Congressional Black Caucus that criticism of Ambassador Rice was due to her being an African-American woman. While the editorial claimed it don’t know what is in the hearts of those criticizing her, it did state many of those critical elected officials “are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.”
Then there is Rep Marcia Fudge (D., OH), who claims any time something goes wrong people want to blame women or minorities. She seems more concerned about Susan Rice’s race, sex and educational qualifications than she is about four Americans who were murdered due to incompetence on the part of the Obama Administration.
Politico reporter Joe Williams, while being interviewed on MSNBC, made the claim that any criticism of President Obama or his administration was the result of his being the first black president of the United States; in other words Racism. So basically any critique about administration policy or action should not be allowed based on the president’s color. It is certainly a good attempt at trying to bully people into silence.
What is abundantly clear is the lives of four Americans mean nothing to these people. The lies in the cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi mean nothing to these people. Being honest and telling the truth to the citizens of America mean nothing to these people. This is a travesty and should strike fear into the hearts of all Americans that these are the people who run our country and control our media.
Questions about Benghazi and Ambassador Rice’s statements do not constitute racism. However, is it possible attempts to squelch the search for answers is racism? Would the same claims of racism and sexism be made if the victims were black or female? Or is it possible that these claims are only made when liberals are questioned as no liberal complained when Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice were raked over the coals.