'NY Times' Play Dumb About Motive Behind Libya Cover Up
Andrew Rosenthal, editor of the New York Times' editorial page, angrily conceded today that Republicans have successfully defeated any chance Susan Rice had to become Secretary of State. I couldn't disagree with him more on that issue, but here's some willful ignorance from Rosenthal -- a man who would prefer to play dumb as opposed to face the truth about Obama's Libya cover up:
The running Republican theory behind Rice’s use of that description? President Obama did not want a story about an al Qaeda attack on the embassy in the news during his re-election campaign, as that would taint an effort to portray the overthrow of Muammar el-Qadaffi as a “success story.”
The theory baffles me — who thought Libya was a big success in the first place? The country is struggling in its post-Qadaffi existence. There have been unceasing reports about security issues, assassinations and other kinds of violence. Who could be surprised by the existence of an al Qaeda faction there?
Pure intentional idiocy. That most certainly is not the running theory behind the cover up, and it's hard to believe Rosenthal doesn't know that.
In the closing days of a close presidential election, a successful terror attack occurred that resulted in the assassination of an American ambassador and three other Americans. Moreover, this attack was conducted by a Libyan militia associated with al-Qaeda, and happened just days after president Obama bragged about all-but defeating al-Qaeda during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.
The obvious motivation behind this cover up was to muddy the waters long enough to run out the clock to Election Day. A successful terror attack just six weeks out would've caused the president all kinds of problems, not the least of which would've been much more scrutiny over how security lapses allowed it to happen -- and on September 11th, of all days.
The Administration's completely fabricated two-week narrative surrounding a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, allowed the blame to fall elsewhere (the hapless filmmaker), and to make the entire incident seem like a freak occurrence no one could have possibly seen coming or prevented.
The cover up continues to this day, and Mr. Rosenthal's willful ignorance is just another part of it.
Here's another example of Rosenthal's willful ignorance: [emphasis added]
Republicans seem to have finally scored one victory this fall – taking Susan Rice out of the running for secretary of state.
In doing so, they’ve applied standards to Rice, the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that they would never apply to a Republican administration official, and never have. (Where was their outrage when Secretary of State Colin Powell sold the United Nations a barrel of snake oil to justify the invasion of Iraq?)
The difference between Powell and Rice is the difference between night and day.
Powell was relaying to the world the findings of the intelligence community. Rice was doing the complete opposite. Her talking points had been edited to cover up the findings the of the intelligence community and fit a narrativ