LIEBERMAN FOR SUSAN RICE.

On an interesting debate on the Benghazi attack.

The debate on the Benghazi attack between two United States Senators on national TV showed how divided the country was over Ambassador Susan Rice's assertion that the attack has started as a "spontaneous demonstration".

While Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) was contending that the "...Republicans are taking a short-sighted approach by focusing on her public explanation of events." and emphasizing that "we are focusing on questions that are ... not the most significant. Of course, there was a terrorist attack.”

The other leading politician, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) was adamant on the point that "he expects Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify before the Senate about the attacks on the U.S. Consulate and a nearby CIA annex."

The two Senators appeared together on Fox News Sunday, a talk show hosted by Chris Wallace, who wanted to know why the Republicans were so keen on getting Rice in trouble.

Gen. David Petraeus has testified that the CIA talking points were adjusted to exclude "al Qaeda and terrorism" as a measure of security reasons, and that the original information was declassified for public announcement.

That was what Ms. Susan Rice has used in her appearance on the following Sunday to explain the Benghazi situation, and that she did not deviate in any way from the declassified material or version.

Yet, Chambliss was insisting that, "a key question is what did President Obama or other top administration officials tell Rice to say."

"The White House has defended Rice, saying she followed talking points based on the best available intelligence, with President Obama calling Republican-led attacks on her “outrageous.” and that should be satisfactory.

President Barack Obama has also maintained that Ms. Rice, though a member of the administration, was an innocent bystander, and that if the Republicans were going after anyone, they should "go after me", referring to himself.

The argument on the talk show could not be finalized as both senators stuck to their guns, making the strained relations on the Benghazi attack, between the Obama administration and the Republicans, to be more critical than it should be; and thus dividing the country.

The seriousness of that attack could not be downplayed, with four true Americans losing their lives, including that of U.S Ambassador Chris Stevens; and that as Sen. Lieberman said, "... there was a terror attack."

However, "the more important questions are why amid intelligence showing Al Qaeda other militant or terror-related groups coming into eastern Libya did the United States leave State Department personnel there without security. And why didn’t the Defense Department have nearby resources to come to their defense." he had continued. (Fox News, 11/19/12).

With regard to the "spontaneous" demonstration, there were a whole lot of them going on around the world during the week, in connection with an anti-Muslim film or movie that was made to denigrate Mohammad, the spiritual leader of the Muslim faith.

It, therefore, would stand to reason that the Benghazi attack would be associated with those demonstrations; but no, as Ms. Rice accusers were saying, that one did not have anything to do with the other, and so she has misled the American people. (WHAT?).

As mentioned, the Republicans planned to call her to testify before the Intelligence Committees of both Chambers of Congress, but how that would help to resolve the heated argument was in question.

They would block her nomination to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should the Obama administration offer the position to her (Rice).

However, many were hoping that Sen. Lieberman's argument would gain support and prevail, that the Benghazi consulate should have had adequate protection under the circumstances, rather than the Republicans pillorying Ms. Rice for no good reason.


Comments 4 comments

American View profile image

American View 3 years ago from Plano, Texas

"Gen. David Petraeus has testified that the CIA talking points were adjusted to exclude "al Qaeda and terrorism" as a measure of security reasons, and that the original information was declassified for public announcement."

That is not even close to what Gen. David Petraeus said. He made it real clear his report, a federal classified document was altered. There was a clear removal of information, important information at that.

Do you realize the implications? Someone made changes to a classified federal document, a major crime. Now think of the chain of command of such a document. That document would be copied to Homeland security, State Department and the DOD. The original would go to Gen. David Petraeus boss, President Obama. So now let's use some common sense. If any of the entities changed it, the original that went to Obama would not reflect the change. So the only one who could make a change to that document was Obama.

I guess Obama was right, we need to look at him.


owurakwasip 3 years ago Author

Hi American View,

A "classified" and "declassified" of the same information looked different, and it was done for privacy and/or security reasons.

That was what Gen. David Petraeus testified to at the hearing of the two Intelligence Committees of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; and so Ambassador Susan Rice was interpreting the latter.

However, whether the attack was coordinated on not, or whether an al Qaeda affiliate was involved in it (attack) or not, that did not change the two documents, except that some words or names have been precluded from the declassified version to maintain secrecy or to protect certain people; or, in the case of the Benghazi attack, the public.

It was more than obvious that the Republicans lost the 2012 presidential election and so, they were looking for a pretext "to hang their hat on", so to speak; because an announcement that did not include a word(s) or a name(s) did not alter a situation, particularly one as dire as the Benghazi attack in which four U.S. diplomats lost their lives.

Now, let us follow the argument of the Republicans that the attack did not have anything to do with the anti-Muslim film or movie; and if so, then what was the reason for it?

The word "reason" has been left out in all their (Republicans) statements against Ms. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., for making what they described as a controversial or " a misleading statement to the American people".

Why? Because they did not have any (reason) to link that charge to.

They were now engaged in poisoning the minds of gullible people (like yourself) with the slightest excuse they could find, and by using the Benghazi attack as a weapon to that effect.

They were thinking that they were being secretive of their main objective, but Americans were not stupid, as they were just waiting and watching where they were going to "unload" their accusation, but they knew that it would be on the president.

President Barack Obama has just defeated them in a legitimately democratic election, and they wanted to do him harm for that.

That would be the only "reason" why they were hanging on to the Benghazi attack, to damage him.

In other words, they were politicizing the issue, as it was pretty clear that they were not doing so for the sake of the diplomats, who were killed or their families. They were doing so for themselves and their party, the Republican Party.

If not, then why?


American View profile image

American View 3 years ago from Plano, Texas

Wow, you need to go back and re-read your own hubs. This is not a new story that occurred after the election, and the Republicans are not the ones who put out 3 timelines, non of which line up. Not to mention the bombshell you and the main street media failed to talk about from the defense timeline.

You are aware that Rice went on the talk shows 4 days after the attacks right? that was 36 hours later than when the intelligence community she claims she followed was saying it was an Al Qaeda planned terrorist attack. that was also 40 hours after the general David Petronius report was sent to president Obama.

The Democrats can spin all they want. Bottom line, the fact show that Susan Rice knew it was a terrorist attack and gave the interview using the talking points that president Obama told her to use. Remember it was president Obama by his own admission and said he sent her out to do those interviews.


owurakwasip 3 years ago Author

Hi American View,

He (Obama) did not say that it was a terrorist attack by al Qaeda; so what?

Do you remember (if you have any memory left or it was still active) that a whole lot of demonstrations were going on all week around the globe?

What were they about? They were about an anti-Muslim film or movie; and people lost their lives in those demonstrations too.

On the night of September 11th, 2012, the media were carrying the same report through to the Sunday morning that Ms. Susan Rice went on her rounds to make her announcement.

Why? Because that was the only report out there. So, there was no contradiction of any kind on her part from the declassified information that the Intelligence community and the White House had.

The question still remained as to where the Republicans were taking their complaint? Or what good would come out of the issue, if they continued to escalate it?

They were mentioning "Watergate", but Watergate had a whistle blower. Where was the whistle blower in the Benghazi attack?

In other words, they (Republicans) did not have a case, except to create trouble for President Barack Obama.

All they were after was a revenge for the defeat he had handed them; however, would they ever get the "vendetta" that they were after? Certainly not.

Their candidate, Mitt Romney, was a loser from the very start, and there was no way they could blame Obama or anyone else for his failure.

Their party has lost millions of dollars; and they could recoup that from his wealthy friends and backers.

    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