Susan Rice: a History of Politics Over People

Today, we learned from former CIA Director, David Petraeus, that the CIA's report regarding Benghazi was changed to omit any reference of Al Qaeda before being distributed.  The right's theory behind the change is that the White House did not want to disturb President Obama's proffered view that he had solved problems in the Middle East.  After all, disturbing such a view could have hurt him in the 2012 election.

Who was the person that first started the falsity that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video as opposed to an Al Qaeda attack?  Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations.  But why would she alter the truth to maintain a narrative favorable to her party's re-election?  That's just unthinkable, right?

Regarding the 1994 Rwanda genocide, Susan Rice, then on Clinton's National Security Council, said: "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?"

In 2001, she said: "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."

In 2012, after the Benghazi attack, she said it was the result of a YouTube video, and the White House did nothing. 

Patsy Petraeus (UPDATE)

What a surprise! 

As it turns out, Petraeus had been having a longtime affair with Paula Broadwell, a reporter that wrote a book about him.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been investigating him for some time.  However, the FBI investigators were instructed to wait until after the election to force Petraeus to resign.

Also, the White House has announced that, well, since Petraeus is no longer the CIA Director, he will not be testifying in front of the Senate as scheduled in one week regarding the Benghazi bungle.  The new director will be doing so.  The new director is obviously more capable to talk about events that happened during his predecessor's watch.

7 Million Missing

I read an article recently saying that there were seven million less White voters this presidential election than the last one.  On the contrary, other races had close to the same turnout.  A lot of commentators have made the inelegant statement that "this nation is browner now."  Well, according to this study, I would correct these commentators: "the polling stations are less white now."

Let me say before wrapping up this unfortunate development.  You Whites who aren't voting, shame on you.  Abdicating your civic responsibility is absolutely abhorrent.  Whatever reason you had for sitting on your butt on Election Day, whether it was laziness, decadence, idleness, guilt, antipathy, apathy, or whatever, it was a failure.  You disgust me.  Next time, get off your couches, turn off Jersey Shore, and vote. 

Patsy Petraeus?

General Petraeus requested resignation from Obama two days after the election.  Some experts are saying that, if someone of Petraeus's security clearance has something that could be held over his head, it results in an automatic disqualification for the position.

I have two problems with this line of thought.  First, if these rules for disqualification exist, they are administrative and, therefore, can be waived by an administrator such as, say, the President of the United States.  Second, once a secret is revealed, it is no longer a secret.  What is no longer a secret can no longer be used to blackmail.  Even my senator, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, chided the president for accepting his resignation.

The other interesting comment I've heard exclaimed is "how did the CIA not know about the affair until now?"  This question has a presupposition: the CIA did not know about the affair until now.

Is it a coincidence that Petraeus is resigning now instead of last week?  Is it a coincidence that Petraeus is in the best position to know things about the Benghazi investigation that is heatng up?

Petraeus is scheduled to testify in a Senate hearing very soon.  Let's see what he says ...

Kristen Neel

So a teenage girl from Georgia, Kristen Neel, apparently tweeted an anti-Obama comment, which was supported by some false prepositions: (1) the Australians have a president, (2) the Australians' purported president is male, and (3) the Australians' purported male president is Christian.  As it turns out, Australia's prime minister is a female atheist who cohabitates out of wedlock.  I say "as it turns out" because I didn't know any of that either before this supposed controversy came to light.  (I would be better served to know the name, gender, and relgious affiliation of the governor of my neighbor state, Nevada, but I don't know any of that either.)  My ignorance leaves open the possibility that there was also a fourth false preposition, that Australia's purported president "actually supports what [s]he says."  Only Australians can answer that I suppose.

Even though Ms. Neel was pretty reckless with her tweet (a quick trip to Wikipedia would have at least corrected her on the points she chose to adopt in making her argument), it really isn't the falsity of her prepositions that is newsworthy.  After all, don't people of all political affiliations make completely baseless comments on the internet.  In fact, whacky internet opinions are so common that they are entirely unremarkable.  The real newsworthiness of this episode is the visceral reaction people had to the comment of one teenage girl.  It sort of reminded me of when an insecure relative of mine used to visit and, when we were alone, would berate me with great sophistication; at the time, she was 23, and I was 8.  I'm not sure what attracted such acerbic responses from so many people, probably because it varied from the source of one retorting barb to the next.  Only the people that took a few precious minutes out of their day to show this teenager a thing or two can answer that question.

Amongst all of the possibilities, there must have been one or two retweeters who were so hostile in their response simply because Ms. Neel made herself such an easy target.  The (political) bullies rejoiced as she all-at-once revealed her political affiliation and substantial ignorance.  In one line, she became an easy target and a symbol to all they hate.  Then they rebuked her aggressively and gratuitously, a teenage girl obscurely posting on social media. 

You internet bullies do no service to your cause, whatever it is.  Even though Ms. Neel represents something you obviously hate, you accomplish nothing.  The real target of your ire probably knows their geo-political facts better than this teenager from Georgia.  In fact, you should be ashamed of yourselves.  For those of you with children, may they get treated just like you treated Ms. Neel when they display their ignorance.

I would like to respectfully say something to Ms. Neel as well, perhaps in the way of further education. Unlike Australia's prime minister, Obama is Christian.  He got married to his wife in a church, prays, and even attends services regularly.  I doubt that changes your opinion of him, but at least your next tweet will be more informed.