The politics of emotion: Benghazi-gate

Why did the Obama Administration choose Susan Rice to first spread its untruths about Benghazi? The answer to that is as obvious as the nose on your face. Photo: NBC Meet the Press

WASHINGTON, November 25, 2012 ― Nearly three months ago, four Americans died in an attack on a US diplomatic mission in Libya. This fact has been overshadowed by political controversy, which is unsurprising. What is (or should be, but unfortunately is not) surprising is that the controversy is not centered on the outright lie was told to the American people, but on who told the lie, the color of her skin, and the fact that it was a woman.

Independents like to consider ourselves free of the emotional and ideological blinders that are so firmly clamped on the heads of so many Americans. We are disgusted with the left, as they have completely forsaken the stance on civil liberties which was once the hallmark of their political ideology, and disgusted with the right, which seems to have forsaken its stance on anything, and instead hangs on the results of the latest polls.

Given the fact that billions of dollars were just spent to ensure that racial and gender tensions were at a level not seen in decades, Obama’s choice of a patsy to take the heat for the outright lie propagated to the American people was an obvious choice.

A black woman can almost act with impunity in today’s political climate. It was a calculated decision to send Susan Rice out to lie to us. The Obama Administration assumed, and rightly so, that she would be the most easily defensible when the lie was discovered.

The one slight complication, which was of course easily bypassed, was who came forward to publicly question Rice’s role in the cover-up. According to Obama, “John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others” were attacking Rice’s competence in the wake of her press conference and the five television talk show appearances she used to spread the lie. In fact, the “others” was just one person, Kelly Ayotte, who, being a woman, was relegated to “others” status.  

Unfortunately Obama’s play on the ignorance of Americans in general will work just fine. The charge of self-righteous indignation is being led by Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge. She started with the utterly predictable race and gender card. She also declined to notice that one of the three leading the charge against Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State is a woman, Ayotte again being relegated to the status of “other.”

Marcia Fudge is an embarrassment.

Obama said “the buck stops here.” Well, Mr. President, if that is true, please tell us this; Why did you send someone who had “nothing to do with Benghazi” out to tell an outright lie to the American people?

The answer to that question could not be more obvious. It was the best way to get away with it.  

 


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Politics from the Blue Collar
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Mike Shortridge

Mike is a former Marine who served in the Middle East. He is disgusted with both the Republican and Democratic parties, seeing them as two heads of the same beast. He writes from the conservative perspective, with a focus on making complex subjects easy to understand.

 

Contact Mike Shortridge

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus