Susan Rice, the Latest Victim in the Democrats’ War on Women

6
129

When Susan Rice went before the national Sunday talk shows four days after Benghazi, she lied through her teeth. And by saying she “lied” I mean in the most Biblical, mortal sin, sense of the word.

But in all likelihood she did not tell the lie we all want to accuse Susan Rice of having committed, which is “lying while knowing the truth.”

And this puts us at a disadvantage.

You see, Susan Rice lied when she stated, even fist-pounded insisted, a thing to be true (the spontaneous demonstration over the video) that she could not know to be true. That is a different lie than the lip-stick on the collar, CYA lie, but we often confuse them. Either can be mortal or venial, but considering the crime being covered up, the deaths of four men, Rice’s lie here was just as deep a mortal lie as if she had been in on the conspiracy from the beginning.  But to chase after the wrong lie takes us away from the real conspiracy, and the real crimes committed by Democrats…to women.

For you see, this Susan Rice media feint is all to disguise the fact that the big lie surrounding the Benghazi murders is that Barack Obama lied to the America people…first by sending Rice to go out and lie for him. A black man using a black woman as a dupe.

Where is the outrage? Among women? But most of all by Susan Rice herself, who is much too compliant and easy with the indecency done her by Barack Obama that maybe she is in fact just as stupid and gullible as we are led to led to believe she is, and which this entire facade is designed to disguise.

Maybe Rice knows she is just an empty suit and damned lucky to have this sweet job in the limelight that this black man has given her, while all the real work is really being done by others behind the scenes.

Maybe Susan depicts the Peter Principle (no pun intended) writ large:

… that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization’s members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability

So instead of insisting that Susan Rice is/was a conspirator in this Benghazi mess, maybe we should be asking if Susan Rice, indeed most Democrat women of prominence, really are this stupid, and are just giddy to oblige whatever is asked of them by powerful men, without question.

The Democrat party is filled with them. In fact, they recruit them. And they are a type, found almost exclusively from a part of academe habituated almost exclusively by the Left.

Overseas evading the draft while the leftwing was marching and protesting against you name it, still Bill Clinton first figured this out. Put the women out front, because the National Guard and cops will never hurt them. With that in mind,he brought Janet Reno, a little-known state attorney in Miami, with a record of meager legal accomplishments and several criminal reversals, but a passion for protecting children, into his cabinet at Attorney General. A lead-pipe cinch as a woman, she got the nomination after two other women failed the smell test for having hired illegal nannies (a political crime that no longer exists).

Web Hubbell, Clinton’s old pal, long boasted that he was the real AG, and since Clinton, like Obama, never spent a great deal of time with his Cabinet, I’m not really sure what Janet Reno did as AG except make public appearances when asked, such as her embarrassing testimony in the Waco hearings, where she stated as forcefully as Susan Rice during Benghazi Week, that she was in charge, the buck stops here, and also that process, not people were to blame for the Waco disaster, therefore no one should be fired… and the process would be changed. Utter nitwittery.

Under Bill Clinton women had become a front. The Attorney General who sat in at Cabinet meetings had become a sinecure. In fact, it had become this for all the token (I kind of like that word in this instance) women in the Clinton Administration.

Speaking of children, Clinton also appointed Jocelyn Elders as Surgeon General, who he had to fire two years later when she suggested schools teach kids to do things with their thingys parents were trying not to have them learn.

Also a sinecure, the General Elder at least took her job to heart, which was far too much variety for any Democrat White House.

Clinton also appointed Donna Shalala, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, or Moscow-on-the-Mendota, as Secretary of Health & Human Services, another sinecure with no real lasting signature. A bachelorette also, she pal’d around a lot with Janet Reno during vacation.

And finally, there was Madelaine Albright, whose only claim to the office of Secretary of State was that she had been a big contributor to Clinton’s campaign. It was the bright Ms Albright, when the North Koreans violated our treaty with them, by restarting nuclear production, who proclaimed loudly that the North Koreans couldn’t be doing this inasmuch as she had it in writing that they wouldn’t do any such thing,  thus making public the long-known belief among  touchy-feely Democrat women in particular, that laws, treaties, contracts, etc are self enforcing. This explains American foreign policy even today, as we are seeing evolve in the Middle East. Get the deal signed, then walk away. Mission accomplished. Style over substance. Nothing more need be done. While this failing is not exclusive to women of the Left, still, as jewels, they certainly are the more glittering examples.

Then, unexpectedly (and unplanned) in the eight years that followed Clinton, George W Bush replaced these dazzling lights of mediocrity with women of true merit, such as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (no relation to Susan) who will never be compared in any book, side-by-side, with the intellect or “accomplishments” of Hillary Clinton, for there is no  historian of the Left or the Right who will ever be able to say with any true detail just how “in charge” Hillary Clinton actually ever was.

Which brings us to the Obama eight-year (sigh!) turn, where he has at least matched Clinton by putting the likes of Hillary, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Samantha Power (who crafted Obama’s electrifying Libya policy) and yes, Susan Rice, who, lest we forget was singular in insuring the Hutus in Rwanda could murder as many Tutsis they could get their hands on. And they got their hands on at least half a million, proving once again, Democrat women should be seen and not heard, and should never, ever be allowed near anything that might break or blow up.

The Commisar-ization of Government, Lenin-style

Every leader, from President of the United States to corporate CEO, have their own circle of personal advisers. And most are political advisers. But Clinton and Obama institutionalized in statist-government something much deeper and more dangerous, and which in modern times was first begun with Lenin and Stalin.

Beginning with the old Red Army of the Revolution, every military unit had a political officer who had absolute veto power over the military commander’s decision. If you recall The Hunt for Red October, Soviet submarines also had one, with their own private back channel to the Kremlin. Few people know that Nikita Khrushchev was the political officer at the Battle of Stalingrad, and it was Nikita, not the generals, who ordered that machine guns be set up so that if men who charged into enemy positions retreated, they would be shot from their own lines. In Soviet lore, Khrushchev is often credited with having won that battle.

Political officers, also called “cadre” or “commissars”, were never planted so deeply into American government than under the Clinton and Obama regimes. So we can assume it is now a standard model for Democrat government to have figurehead Cabinet officers while commissars keep the papers filed on time. The women make the speeches and attend the parties while everything else the department does is done behind the scenes. And all the way down to the clerk in the steno pool, there is a political snitch lurking about, who doesn’t answer to the Secretary, but to the commissar with a direct pipeline back to the White House.

I give you the handling of Benghazi.

My job here is to point out, for those who would care to listen, that women, because they are women, and especially if they are of color, are impervious to the slings and arrows of incompetence or stupidity, and just like 60’s radicals, are perfect to throw out in front so no one would throw a punch. In the 40 years that have passed, keeping the girls out front has objectivized them as much, if not more, than a Playboy centerfold, and not half as flattering.

Just as we should be providing safe havens for the poor wayward girls who want so badly to give up the three-men a month habit and find Mr Right and settle down with kids, maybe even marching around the kitchen barefoot from time to time, instead of reviling these poor, beaten and abused wretched souls of the Left, we should be offering a hand out.

But instead of launching pithy campaigns about the Democrats’ obscene war on women and the way Barack Obama used and abused Susan Rice, we are centered on her lies, and as I began, the wrong ones.

The Republicans are being played here, for Obama will likely nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, and she will likely be confirmed, and Obama will do this for two very basic reasons, having nothing to do with diplomacy or national security. He will do it because he knows he can get her confirmed and in doing so can rub the Republicans’ noses in his decisions, which McCain and Graham don’t know, he is already doing. Suckers.

But secondly, of more importance to women everywhere with even the least amount of self-respect, Obama will know he will have other, more competent officers in the State Department, his commissars, who will call all the real shots there. Just like me at home, Susan Rice will not be allowed within two hundred yards of the State Department’s kitchen where real policy is being baked. She’ll be window dressing.

And as long as she doesn’t recommend masturbation-training in Middle Eastern madrassas, she’s home free.

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
plgrm58
Editor
November 28, 2012 7:31 pm

Prof. Alemayehu G. Mariam echoes your analysis about Susan Rice. https://www.awrambatimes.com/?p=4740 The Peter Principle essentially states that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization’s members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. In other words, “employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.” The Dilbert principle states organizations tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to higher management positions in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing. If Rice succeeds Hilary Clinton, she will be a living example of the fusion of the Peter and… Read more »

vassarbushmills
November 29, 2012 6:13 am

If I were a Dem, Pil, I’d also acknowledge (sheepishly, though) the many positive benefits in what I wrote. I’m sure Bill Clinton does.

Lady Penquin
November 29, 2012 11:41 am

Once again, we find Obama hiding behind the skirts of a woman, even an incompetent one.

bobmontgomery
November 30, 2012 8:57 pm

I think “rubbing their noses in it” pretty much sums it up. Obama went public and said if they had a problem with Rice, then they had a problem with him, because she was talking for the White House. That’s not what Rice said, that’s what HE SAID. Now, Lindsey Graham said in retort, paraphrasing, “Don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you accountable for this, old boy.” If I were Don King, I would be promoting this matchup in every venue I could get on. Talk is cheap, Lindsey.

texasgalt
Editor
December 1, 2012 10:44 pm

Golly, rice is tough:
.
She also explained that ”people know not to mess with me. And if they haven’t learned, and they try, then they will.”
.
https://dailycaller.com/2012/11/30/in-interview-susan-rice-explains-role-in-wh-decision-making-people-know-not-to-mess-with-me/#ixzz2DrXUGD7P