AMBASSADOR RICE vs REP. PETER KING.

King must be apologetic, as there was no rational of his attack on Ms. Rice.

The assault on the United States Benghazi Consulate on September 11, 2012, was a misfortune, not just for President Barack Obama, but for the country as a whole.

Benghazi was the first place of political activity, when the Libyan revolution in the Arab Spring to overthrow the erstwhile dictator of that country, Muammar Gadhafi, started; and it was rather unfortunate that the U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens, should die there.

The U.S. military and intelligence services, especially the CIA, have been instrumental, with the help of its NATO allies, to depose the tyrant and "the madman of North Africa", to the satisfaction of all peace loving people, and with a fervent expectation that Libya could look forward to a better future.

So, when the news first came out as a demonstration was taking place at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, against the movie that denigrated Muhammad, it was natural to expect that similar demonstrations would take place in many other Muslim countries.

Therefore the news about the Benghazi "incident" that had come almost at the same time as the report from Cairo, was not a surprise, until it was learned that "a U.S. Consulate employee has been killed." and that the demonstration has catapulted into an attack; and it was then that the picture in Benghazi changed.

The update of that was the consulate being set on fire, and that assault weapons have been used by the attackers, and the seriousness of the situation was becoming more clear, as to whether some militants have taken advantage to send a message to the U.S. and the world that the desecration of Muhammad was tantamount to an act of war in the eyes of people of the Muslim faith.

Further developments in Libya brought the news that the ambassador there has been one of the four diplomats that have died in the assault; yet, the indication that a mere demonstration would turn as deadly, all of a sudden, was far from anybody's mind.

The officials of the Obama administration tried to make some sense out of what was going on in North Africa, and said that the demonstrations were "spontaneous", in light of the movie that the people there found to be offensive and outrageous.

They supplied the information that was coming out, from both Cairo and Benghazi, as being the same type of happenstance, and they might have jumped the gun too early to separate the two events as being different; one as being a demonstration and the other to be a terrorists attack, respectively.

There was no intention of the administration to misinform or mislead the American people as a section of the media, particularly, FoxNews.com, was insinuating, that officials were engaged in a type of "cover up", by reporting false news.. What? Why would they do that; and for what reason?

The most shocking part of it all was Rep. Peter King calling for the resignation of Ms. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, with King saying that "someone must pay a price for what happened"; and, even if so, why should she be the one to get fired?

She was reflecting the news, as she has been given by the intelligence services; and should she be victimized for that?

Rep. Peter King, a nine-term Republican from Long Island, and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, should himself be the one to go; because, by virtue of his position, he should have had the report of what was going on in that part of the world at the same time as Ms. Rice did.

Yet, it never occurred to him to come out and correct what he knew was a wrong information, until waiting for so long after the event, and then trying to put the blame on someone else.

People like King always knew what was best for themselves, but for others, they couldn't care less as to what their fate was or should be. His attack on the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was baseless, and he should withdraw his idiotic statement and apologize to her, forthwith.

That would clear the issue for everyone to have a bit of fresh air to breathe.

The Benghazi attack alone was one headache that all Americans have been forced to suffer and endure, and adding more to it would be preposterous on the part of Peter King.

Comments 2 comments

American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

Interesting how the left wants their side to get a pass on "misleading information" but wanted to hang Bush over Iraq for sharing sharing information that later turned out to be inaccurate.

But there is a major difference between Bush giving information based on intelligence reports, the same one the left was allowed to read, and how the events of Egypt and Libya occurred. Despite your continued assertion this was about a film, you continue to ignore the facts that have come to light. It turns out it was known an attack was imminent, though they did not know where. The ambassador wrote many memos telling of Al-Quida building in Libya including heavily in his city. But his warnings we ignored. Leaks from high ranking state department officials show the administration knew something was up and knew the film had nothing to do with it.

When Susan rice gave her interview, it was 5 days after the attacks and it was well known the film was just a decoy, part of the attack plans. Yet she gave the false story. So yes she should loose her job. But she should not be alone, everyone complicit in the fabrication and continuing it should lose their jobs. Truly a shame since they were only following orders to give those false statements from the Obama administration, maybe from Obama himself.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

You did not give the reason why anybody in the Obama administration would, as you put it, give a "false story".

Both the attack on the Benghazi Consulate and the demonstration in Cairo, Egypt, that the media were reporting about on 9/11, 2012, were rather unfortunate.

The initial report gave the cause of the demonstration in Cairo, as the film that denigrated Mohammad, and by some coincidence, it happened that the two events were taking place at the same time, and it would take a magician, like yourself, to separate the two.

When Ms. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., spoke the Sunday after, the demonstration has spread to other countries; and not even the intelligence services knew what was actually going on.

The situations needed thorough investigations before any updates or any other comment could be given. So, they (intelligence services) were sticking to the same story as the Ambassador.

The investigation of what caused the Benghazi assault is still in progress, and until that is over, any comment can be viewed as hearsay and unsubstantiated.

The Republicans are desperate, because their candidate, Mitt Romney, is behind in the National polls, and so they are clutching on the proverbial "straw" to survive.

Nobody is saying that the Benghazi attack is to be downplayed in any way; but the Romney campaign and the Republican hot heads want to use it to criticize the president's foreign policy.

However, the American people know that any embassy or consulate anywhere can be attacked; and it is the responsibility of any government of any country to protect them.

At the moment, the Libyan government, as unstable as it is, does not have the capability to fully render that kind of protection or service.

What all patriotic Americans have to do is to pray that the same incident does not happen anywhere else.

For anyone to take issue of the Benghazi attack with the Obama administration in any way is stupid and shameful.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working