Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has demanded the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in the wake of the Benghazi attack and presumed White House and State Department cover-up..
King told CNN Friday that Rice’s reasoning for “such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership” and “such a misstatement of facts” led him to the belief that the ambassador should resign.
He is joined by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney who also accused the administration of dishonesty.
Romney made it more succinct:
“I think it’s pretty clear that they haven’t wanted to level with the American people. We expect candor from the president and transparency,” he told Fox News.
Meanwhile the Obama administration’s explanation of the events as they unfolded in Benghazi has evolved numerous times since the September 11th attack on the U.S. Consulate.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, under heavy attack from Republicans, issued a statement Friday that “explained” just how officials learned about the fatal assault on Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.
At almost the precise time, Ambassador Rice provided her own account of events leading up to her now challenged public statements.
Here’s how her account goes:
Shortly after the attack, the White House (administration) believed it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video ridiculing Islam Prophet Muhammad. That in turn sparked mob rioting in U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
But now the story has done a 180 turn. Since the loud protestations have become deafening, no thanks to the mainstream media’s coverage in the beginning. the new version has the attacks carried out by al-Qaida militants – the same organization a week before the attacks the Democrats were labeling as “finished” at the Democratic National Convention.
More than likely the true reason for the change in stories is the administration’s embarrassment to such activity so close to the election. The White House did not want to admit its policies had failed to defeat al-Qaida, and quell anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.
Pure and simple.
The growing suspicion is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, no stranger to political misfires, sensed the initial explanation from the White House was a cover-up. As the immediate superior of Ambassador Rice, she sent Rice to explain the bizarre story to the press as her surrogate.
At the same time, a spokeswoman for Rice also sought to explain comments that Rice made early in the investigation saying there was no evidence the Benghazi attack was premeditated.
Ambassador Rice’s comments on September 16th were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was under way. That alone would provide the necessary and definitive account of the Benghazi attack.
The final results of that investigation, performed by the FBI, a branch of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder, will most likely be sent via a slow boat from China arriving sometime after the November 6th election.
Thus far, little if any comment from the mainstream media.
* If you have enjoyed this column, may I suggest you scroll down this page and press the SUBSCRIBE box? It’s FREE. Thank you for your patronage.
** Send your comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org