So, how did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, widely expected to be President Obama's nominee as the next secretary of State, attempt to assuage the concerns of Republican senators that she knowingly lied in her public pronouncements about the circumstances surrounding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September?
By continuing to knowingly lie about those circumstances.
Ms. Rice repeatedly regurgitated administration talking points that a quite amateurish U.S.-made anti-Muslim film was the spark that led to a spontaneous riot that led to the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three others.
She knew better then; it was an orchestrated terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 with plenty of high-powered weaponry.
Yet in her Tuesday meeting with Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte — while admitting that initial assessment for public consumption was “incorrect” — she continued to say the real story of Benghazi only came to light later through evolving intelligence and that no one had misled the American public.
But again, as the facts show, that's a lie. In fact, CBS News reports that Rice was well versed in the truth from the get-go.
The Obama administration's response to all of this? Media “obsession” with a lying U.N. ambassador and prospective secretary of State is “misplaced.” In other words, pay no attention to the prevaricators behind the portieres. And in this case, in front of them, too.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.