Niagara Gazette — President Obama named Former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice as his National Security Advisor, this appointment does not need to be approved nor confirmed by Congress. This appointment stinks of “good old boy/girl politics.” The American people are being so duped by the president’s administration, that it is funny, but not in the ha-ha way. When has lying with purpose to the American People ever been the right thing to do? We deserve the truth no matter how much it hurts. I don’t feel lying is acceptable, unless it is during war or to prevent a war and is done in a effort to dupe the enemy. We the American People are not the enemy, this lie was to promote the President’s agenda and reelection efforts.
Just shortly after the Benghazi, Libya Terrorist attacks on our Consulate Mission and just before the 2012 November Presidential election; then Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday TV shows telling everyone that would listen, that the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi raids were a result of a spur-of-the moment response to a crude anti-Muslim film which had all Muslims up-in-arms, so they raided; not the consulate nor the embassy, but a little known (almost secret) U.S. mission house in Benghazi. The outcome left four Americans dead including our ambassador to Libya. The truth and the only reasonable explanation for the cover-up is the November Presidential Elections just a month away. The idea; cover-up and to not make any mention that this was a terrorist attack, because of the president’s boast that: Osama bin Laden was dead, al-Qaida was decimated. But by recognizing the attack as a terrorist attack, could possibly; develop into a required retaliation, the truth about terrorist not being as decimated as stated and if President Obama had to order a retaliation his campaign could possibly suffer at the poles. The risk of doing nothing, lying and keeping it covered-up until after the elections would be the safest and easiest. That is exactly what happened and the rest is now history.
The irony in this, it was the same ploy used by President Clinton’s administration in 1994 and involved Susan Rice. This lends history, shows a pattern and is an interesting situation about Ambassador Rice not calling “it what it really is.” In 1994, during the Clinton administration’s years, the North African Rwanda “Genocide” crisis was brewing very hot and our congressional elections loomed large.
President Clinton and his cabinet were purposely avoiding the use of the word “genocide” to the point that President Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term “genocide” until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public.
At the time of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, Susan Rice was Clinton’s assistant secretary for African Affairs until Clinton left office in 2001, reportedly Rice said, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November (congressional) elections?” Later she stated: “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.” She had sworn to a lie, after the Sept. 11, 2012 murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyron Woods and Glen Doherty (of the Global Response Team) in Benghazi, Libya she did on five different occasions on TV, denied that a “terrorist” was responsible for the attacks in Benghazi, that the attack was reactions to the Muslim riots due to a video defaming Muhammad. On May 8, 2013, during a House hearing, an unclassified email was read aloud by Representative Trey Gowdy, that was sent on Sept. 12, 2012 to Rice and the State Department which stated clearly that the attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists, no mention of an “angry mob” or protestors was contained in that email.
One can only conclude and believe that this was a ploy like Clinton’s 1994 follies, to not give recognition to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack, so as not to muddy the waters just before the November 2012 presidential elections. Did President Obama, maybe at the suggestion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, use this ploy, since it worked for her husband President Clinton in 1994? In her infamous words “what difference, at this point, does it make now?” To her words; I add, so that it will make a difference, please remember this in the 2016 presidential elections, let’s not be fooled again.George D. Van Hoose, CWO, US Army (retired), is a Lewiston resident.