Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
12-04-2012, 07:27 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2007
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
Does The Glamor Girl Susan Rice Have Blood On Her Hands?...........
Does The Glamor Girl Susan Rice Have Blood On Her Hands?...........
Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on December 4, 2012 at 4:17pm in Patriot Action Alerts
Glamor Girl Susan Rice Has Blood on Her Hands - YouTube
They say history repeats itself. The Western Center For JournalismWith the far less than illustrious career that Rice has endured over the years, It is clear that like most in the Obama administration, including the Anointed One himself, she is utterly unwilling to assume personal responsibility or accountability for the numerous gaffes she has made over the years and EXPECTS TO BE REWARDED FOR HER INCOMPETENCY!
This is best illustrated by the life of Glamor Magazine’s 2009 nominee for woman of the year, Susan Elizabeth Rice.
In the late 1990s, Rice was working for Bill Clinton as the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. The African continent was hers to rule, and she put her foot down on the necks of her rivals on more than one occasion.
One such foot to the neck was in regards to a little-known terrorist by the name of Osama Bin Laden. In the late 1990s, Bin Laden was living in Khartoum, Sudan. Although the Sudanese government was engaged in a long and bloody civil war, their intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, was exemplary and knew all about the terrorist activities of Bin Laden. They wanted to give the information to the United States and at one point wanted to turn him over.
Who overruled this? Who plugged her ears and refused to hear about Bin Laden?
How history has repeated itself is that Rice blamed bad CIA intelligence for not listening to the Sudanese. The CIA had wrongly stated that Sudan was sponsoring terrorism, so Rice refused to hear.
Again, with the Benghazi attack, Rice has blamed the CIA for feeding bad information to her: that it was the CIA and not her who pointed the finger towards an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video and subsequent “protest turned violent.”
Like her boss, she likes to blame others for her mistakes.
Susan Rice is in effect partly responsible for 9/11.
She let Osama Bin Laden get away.
She truly has blood on her hands.
I have very little real use for this congress but, they can go a long way in restoring some degree of lost credibility to themselves if they oppose and prevent the confirmation of Susan Rice as Hillary's Replacement, a position also COVETED by another useless but ambitious pretender in Senior Massachusetts Senator John Kerry; not that he would be any more competent but at least, he does not have the Benghazi Fiasco perched on HIS shoulder as Rice DOES!
We need more balance in government since to the average member of the intelligent and rational electorate, it looks as though the inmates are running the asylum but, there is little chance now of any immediate relief.
Perhaps Obama’s intransigence concerning his appointment of Rice against political expediency when so many are opposed to it will work to HIS detriment and display to him his MANDATE is a false one.
One can only hope.
I agree, she along with BO have blood on their hands, the next question is so what?
No one absolutely no one will do anything about it and if he is not removed from office, he will nominate her as Secretary of State and guess what, she will be the next Secretary of State.
There seems to be no way to stop him from destroying our country. Our Congress is a joke, they should demand his removal from office based on what is clearly defined in the Constitution.
Does The Glamor Girl Susan Rice Have Blood On Her Hands?........... - Patriot Action NetworkJoin our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
12-06-2012, 11:17 AM #2
Africa: U.S. Africanists Worry Over Obama's Next Secretary of State
5 DECEMBER 2012
Photo: Eskinder Debebe/UN
Susan Rice, Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN and co-leader of the mission delegation, addresses the Security Council.
Cape Town — As President Barack Obama decides whom to nominate to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state during his second term, Africa specialists in the United States are beginning to turn a critical gaze on the U.S. permanent representative at the United Nations, Susan E. Rice.
Amid speculation that Rice is on Obama's list for the post, a heated and partisan debate has been generated in Washington by her statements soon after the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, to the effect that his death was a consequence of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film rather than a pre-meditated attack by militants. Her explanation prompted vigorous attacks by Republicans, who said they would oppose her nomination as secretary.
Obama hit back angrily, suggesting she was being targeted for simply conveying intelligence she had received. He said he had not yet decided whom to propose to replace Clinton, but if he thought Rice "would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her".
Behind the domestic furor over events in Libya, some Africa specialists in the United States are questioning her suitability on the basis of her record on Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other east and central African nations, going back to the 1990s when she held posts in the administration of former president Bill Clinton.
Jason K. Stearns, a former United Nations official and director of a project of the Rift Valley Institute, charged in a recent blog post that "guilt over her inaction" on the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and "frustration" with Congolese leaders in the same era had led to Rice developing sympathies with the post-genocide leadership of Rwanda.
Stearns accused Rice of protecting Rwanda, then Uganda, during this year's controversy over a report by a UN Group of Experts which said the two governments were backing the DR Congo's M23 rebels. He alleged that "Rice has emerged as a holdout within American foreign policy, a sort of minority report to the prevailing criticism of Rwanda and the M23."
The latest contribution to the debate came from Howard French, an associate professor of journalism at Columbia University, New York, who was a New York Times correspondent in Africa during the 1990s. He has long been skeptical of reporting on the Rwandan genocide which treats the post-genocide government, now headed by President Paul Kagame, as the "good guys" of Central Africa.
In an article this week in the U.S.-based publication, The Atlantic, French portrayed Rice as perhaps the American government official who had played "a larger and more sustained role" than any other in shaping U.S. Africa policy in the last 20 years.
He too took issue with her attitude to Rwanda, and argued that although she was not the only person responsible, she had followed a Cold War approach of seeking African allies among authoritarian leaders with whom the U.S. could do business.
Citing Kagame, Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni and Ethiopia's former prime minister, Meles Zenawi, in his article, French quoted a former American official as saying Rice had "venerated" leaders who had become "repressive autocrats and despots who feel like they can manipulate the outside world to give them lots of space..."
If Rice survived the current controversy over Libya, French said, "understanding the details of her past work in Africa, and drawing her out about Washington's approach toward the continent in the future, should be a matter of serious national concern".