#WarOnWomen: Pres. Obama treats @AmbassadorRice as if she can’t speak for herself

Posted by: ST on November 14, 2012 at 6:28 pm

I’m not sure how many caught that today the press conference he did in which he finally took questions from someone other than The View crew or late night talk show hosts on Benghazi, but I sure as heck did. I’ve emphasized the key words from the relevant part of the transcript (via)

QUESTION: Thank you Mr. President. Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that? And – and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

OBAMA: Well first of all I’m not going to comment on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed. But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill, and professionalism, and toughness, and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.

OBAMA: If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? And to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. And, you know, we’re after an election now.

I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.

And I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that’s a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.

But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity at the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.

Excuse me, but what a load of utter BULL SH*T!

The political opposition, the American people, and to a certain extent the press have been demanding answers out of this administration on this issue that they have absolutely refused to be clear about. They DELIBERATELY muddied the waters on this from day one. The name of the game almost from zero hour has been to blame an “offensive anti-Islam video”, which our celebrity President and key members of his administration – including Ms Rice and Gen. Petraeus – have done. In fact, it wasn’t until three or four weeks after the murders in Benghazi that they started to drip bits of information out about how they had not taken off the table the possibility that it may have been something other than a “spontaneous reaction” to an “offensive video.” People have PLEADED for more information from this administration, and in turn they have deliberately stonewalled – just like they did on the Fast and Furious issue – until after the election. And even now they still don’t want to be straight up with the American people.

There is really no one in this administration who shouldn’t be called out on their lies on this, and that includes Ms. Rice.

Let’s also clear this little matter up up, Mr. Pretend Alpha Male Obama: McCain and Graham would be after Susan Rice even if her name was John Kerry or any other male you might have in that same position. You acting like she has to hide behind you because she’s a withering flower (“soft target”?? “they should go after me”?? please) incapable of speaking for herself is an affront not only to women everywhere, but also to the important position she holds, whether it is a symbolic one or not. And if you are considering her to perhaps replace Sec. Clinton at the State Dept, it’s even DOUBLY important that we get more answers from her about what she knew and when and who she got the information from. It’s even TRIPLY important that she be allowed to speak for herself and for you NOT to treat her as if she needed to step behind you to ward off Republican attacks. Or do you plan on shielding her through the nomination process as you are now, assuming she ends up being the nominee for State?  Is she a woman or a mouse? We certainly don’t need a mouse running the State Dept.

This tactic is, of course, strategic in nature. Obama painting Rice as a “soft target” and repeatedly emphasizing the fact that she is a woman is done by design, a carryover of the phony “war on women” rhetoric we saw in the year prior to the election. What he did was treat her like a husband protects his wife, or a brother stands up for his sister, or a male colleague defends a female colleague against harassment. Basically, he treated her like a victim who needed to be “spoken up for.” Except in this case, Rice is in a situation and position where she can and should speak for herself – even if it is with canned talking points from the administration. Obama reacted the way he did regardless of the fact that Republicans have some of the same questions for her as they do for General Petreaus – yet notice how Obama didn’t use that same “Republicans can go after me” tone when it came to him. He also did this full well knowing that the harshest criticisms from both Graham and McCain – and in fact others, including FEMALE Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) – have been reserved directly for him, because he has not been upfront and honest with the people who he has been elected (twice now) to “lead.”

If you’re a woman and you fell for this faux manly-man garbage, let me know because I’m in line to be the Queen of England one day, but right now I could use the cash and have some lovely crown jewels for sale. o=>

Update – 6:55 PM: LOL – Tweet of the Day:

But not the most important one of all – the brain. #sad

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 Responses to “#WarOnWomen: Pres. Obama treats @AmbassadorRice as if she can’t speak for herself”


  1. Drew the Infidel says:

    This whole charade stinks like hell. He uses a confrontational tone to say he is willing to work with others? He proudly says we are post-election but forgets to mention he is the only President in modern history to be re-elected by a smaller margin (1%) than that by which he was originally elected (7%). He fed Susan Rice that snake oil act to take on the Sunday circuit five days after the Benghazi attack which was determined to be a terrorist attack within 24 hours of its happening. At this juncture it was and is he hiding behind her and not the other way around. All stage props including the LSM showing up to lick his a*s and masquerade it as job performance; and it still sinks like hell.

  2. Jay says:

    I think we are all pretty sure Rice is the useful idiot you sent out there to repeat the BS line that Benghazi was about a video.

    It’s hilarious that Obama would step in and say “come after me” – well, ya everyone would love to come after you but you don’t give very many press conferences or REAL interviews where you can actually field a hostile question.

    This is an interesting tactic by Obama. Seems desperate to me. This Benghazi deal is finally blowing up. It is getting crazier by the day and the facts are going to come out. It seems obvious to me that he completely failed to act during the attack that night.

  3. Steve Skubinna says:

    Now you haters, you leave Ms. Rice and her sensitive lady parts alone. You can’t hold her to the same standards you would a man, you racists. I mean sexists.

    Oh, hell with it, I mean racists too.

    At this point I’d love to see an impeachment, although even if the house brings the Articles of Impeachment the Senate will never vote for conviction. But the idea of President Biden is not really so scary. I mean, what could a bumbling buffoon and constant font of malapropisms do worse than a malevolent Marxist?

    At this point I’ll take incompetence over active economic and social sabotage. But the sad fact is we’ve got Barry for four more.

  4. arcman46 says:

    I’d be more than happy if they would go after Obama. It’s pretty evident that between Bengahzi and Fast and Furious, there is more than enough to call for articles of impeachment. The problem is that, like Clinton, the House could draw up articles of impeachment but with Harry Reid and the Senate being held by the Democrats there is little hope of conviction.

  5. ST says:

    Now you haters, you leave Ms. Rice and her sensitive lady parts alone. You can’t hold her to the same standards you would a man, you racists. I mean sexists.

    Oh, hell with it, I mean racists too.

    Hah! ;)

  6. Phineas says:

    And thus the permanent campaign goes on. Julia was thrilled. :-w

  7. Great White Rat says:

    OBAMA: But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi

    So here’s my question: if Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, why the hell did the administration send her out to all the Sunday talk shows to discuss it? And, beyond that, to lie about it?

    We now know that the White House knew within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist strike that had nothing to do with some insignificant video trailer. Yet 5 days later, Rice – at the direction of the White House – was on TV repeatedly spewing the video story.

    That leaves only two possibilities: (1) Obama lied to Rice. He deliberately fed her a false narrative, let her make a fool of herself all day Sunday, and never bothered to correct the record afterward. (2) Obama told Rice both what really happened and the cover story about the video. The implication, if not outright order, would be that she should lie and parrot the cover story.

    In one scenario, Obama is a liar and Rice is a fool. In the other, Obama is a liar and Rice willingly follows suit. There are no other possibilities.

  8. Carlos says:

    Seems to me Arnold “Ah’ll be Bach” had the right term for Obhammud: “girlieman.”

    If he is what an alpha male is nowadays, this country’s in more trouble than even I imagined, and I have a hard time imagining a light at the end of the dark tunnel the Pretender-in-Chief is taking us through. My guess is the earthquake he’s caused has made a solid-rock blockage just around the turn and there won’t be enough time to stop when the fabulous 51% of blithering idiots who voted him back in finally figure out that THEY are the ones who will ultimately pay for all the “free” stuff he’s promised them.

  9. Great White Rat says:


    Yup. When Benghazi was a fresh issue covered above the fold each day, Mr. “You’ve got a problem with me” hid behind Rice’s skirts, no matter how much he may be blustering now.

  10. LCVRWC says:

    “But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work.”

    Susan, you’re doing a heckuva job. BO is going to hang her out to dry.

  11. Extirpates says:

    The most appropriate word to use for bullish** is a combination of two words like this: bull sheet! Both are acceptable, the meaning is unclear!!! 87)

  12. Kate says:

    GWR you took the words right out of my mouth…she’s UN not State Department…will someone send the President a memo on that?