In an attempt to cover for President Obama’s security failures in Benghazi on September 11, the Associated Press deemed the whole debacle merely a “PR disaster” and speculated it could all just be forgotten if Susan Rice were successfully nominated as the next Secretary of State.
The White House could finally have its chance to close the books on its Benghazi public relations disaster, as key Republicans signal they might not stand in the way of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to become the next secretary of state.
With such dismissive rhetoric, the AP seems to discount the death of Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and several of his security staff, all of whom were murdered by radical Islamists. Still, even the logic here makes no sense.
Is the AP saying that the ambassador’s brutal murder can just be forgotten if Susan Rice becomes Sec. of State? How does that even make sense? This claim makes as much sense as saying that Watergate should have been forgotten because Richard Nixon was successfully re-elected after perpetrating the break-in.
The AP next goes on to swallow whole the shaky explanation of why Susan Rice lied about what happened at Benghazi.
But Rice’s reputation took a serious hit this fall when she relied on unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community that portrayed the attack in Benghazi, Libya, as a spontaneous assault by a mob angered by an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.
Notice how AP simply accepts and reports as fact the administration’s claim that Rice was just beset with faulty intelligence, as if there is no question at all about the claim? But in truth we have no real proof that Rice was just misled by faulty intelligence reports. None at all.
Of course, after meeting with Rice, Republicans still harbored serious questions about her actions in the aftermath of the attacks on our personnel in Libya.
But I am sure the AP will find a way to dismiss all that, too.