Susan Rice’s road to fortune

I would like to know why Susan Rice hasn’t been unmasked the same way she did others, like was done to Michael Flynn? Where was all the vetting information on Rice?

She was famous as the go to liar for hire under Obama, a job that paid political dividends but the salary wasn’t close to 7 figures. How come more attention hasn’t been on her, I mean aside from scandals she was instrumental in?

So how did she go from a nest egg of 20 million to 50 million in 5 years? Inquiring minds would like to know. Measly government and a UN diplomat salary doesn’t pay that well. Great work if you can get it, eh?

Rice only spent a couple years in middle management in the private sector. Other than that she’s been “all in” in politics and government — or public service as they like to call it.

So make 30 million in around five years? I thought only Clintons could do that.

See unmasking on Kevin Jackson’s The Black Sphere

Let’s just call her ‘Spreadsheet Suzie’

Report: Susan Rice Ordered ‘Spreadsheets’ of Trump Campaign Calls

by Joel B. Pollak4 Apr 2017 | Breitbart

President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign aides during the last election, and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.

The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by blogger Mike Cernovich and Eli Lake of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides’ names to be “unmasked” in intelligence reports. The alleged “unmasking” may have been legal, but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the aim of leaking them to the press.

At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News compiled the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking — all based on mainstream media reports — the mainstream media dismissed the story as a “conspiracy theory.”

Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of the Obama administration’s alleged surveillance continue to emerge.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/report-susan-rice-ordered-spreadsheets-trump-campaign-calls/

Oh no, nothing to see here, media can go back to sleep. Spreadsheet Suzie’s got this!

More on another Breitbart article on Rice’s interview with Andrea Mitchel (lovefest)

“I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would.”

Rice: “I can’t get into any specific reports … what I can say is there is an established process.”

Well, so there’s an “established process” for surveillance, I take it?
And Spreadsheet Suzie was right on it.

Rice decries politics of Bibi’s visit

You can file this under ‘you have got to be kidding me’. Sure enough, with Susan Rice that seems to be her theme.


(Rice interview with Charlie Rose)

Well, it is the Dems who have spun this up into a political frenzy. But of course having so many Dems working behind the scenes for Netanyahu’s ouster doesn’t help their case.

Now they have a formal boycott in effect. They are politicizing the entire event. Even Biden says he will be away, unable to attend. (he’s traveling with a broad… er traveling abroad)

Rice: “We want the relationship between the United States and Israel to be unquestionably strong, immutable, regardless of political seasons in either country, regardless of which party may be in charge in either country. We’ve worked very hard to have that, and we will work very hard to maintain that.”

Worked very hard at that? She’s probably still peddling the video cause for Benghazi.

Does Susan Rice have any credibility on anything? Dems have played politics with Israel, and its security, for six years now. To say that the relationship has always been apolitical means she doesn’t understand the administration. Of course she understands, she just said that like their other lies and utterances which conflict with reality.

[on Iran] “They have enabled us to validate that they have, in fact, taken all the steps that they committed to take and that they’re in full compliance. That model will need to be sustained in any comprehensive agreement.”

Depends what they are in compliance with, doesn’t it? Validated! The irony is we have an administration and president that cannot be trusted any more than Iran, but who demands trust in making a nuclear deal with Iran. That’s specious logic. Sustained, really?

Dems in nuclear meltdown over Bibi. Now there’s a “comprehensive” disagreement.

Media and WH follow the same script

The only plausible explanation for Brian Williams — soon to become a verb — is that those notable prior anchors had correspondent experience in war zones etc. Some for many years. Williams wanted to embellish his slim resume. So he did.

So how would it feel to go home over the weekend and learn your version of reality doesn’t exist – and never did? Obama must have had several of those experiences.

Actually, Susan Rice and Hillary had similar experiences. It even happened at the IRS.
Of course their credibility required the willing suspension of disbelief anyway.

Rice plays the Gong Show, loses

Susan Rice delivered a strategy speech to Brookings Institution. In it she said:

But, too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective. Yes, there’s a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or the Cold War.

We can’t afford to be buffeted by alarmism and an instantaneous news cycle. We must continue to do the hard work of leading a complex and rapidly evolving world, of seizing opportunities, and of winning the future for our children.

Perspective? Well it is not D-Day, yet anyway. No, this is the Titanic. Captain O and his advisers are telling the band “keep on playing, just a little louder”.

On Iran she said: “We must give diplomacy a chance to finish the job.”

How many chances has diplomacy had? Obama himself has extended it what 3 times? Again, a parallel to the Titanic. Give those life preservers a chance if you really must. But relax and stop the alarmism.

BBC

In a letter outlining the strategy, Mr Obama said the US would “always defend our interests and uphold our commitments to allies and partners”.

“But we have to make hard choices among many competing priorities and we must always resist the overreach that comes when we make decisions based upon fear.”

I rest my Titanic analogy case. ‘Let’s not act too rashly, more music please, louder. Have some faith in the concept. Louder.‘ Our national defense and security is overreach?

After all her statements, there are people fighting to Gong her. She certainly has a record in divisive denial, like Benghazi.

Strong and sustained American leadership remains essential, as ever. Think for a minute where the world would be today without decisive U.S. leadership.

Yea, just think.

We will always act to defend our country and its people, but we aim to avoid sending many thousands of ground forces into combat in hostile lands.

So Obama wants Congress to draft and pass a new authorization for Obama on Iraq, which should state no ground troops. Does that sound ridiculous for a necessary authorization?

We are committed to fighting terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, even as we rally the world to meet the threats of tomorrow

“We are committed” even as we cannot deny Iran nuclear capability. But follow what we say, not what we do. “Louder music, please!”

What’s the definition of “In fact”?

Trey Gowdy severely excoriates Susan Rice and Carney and demands answers from Obama’s administration for Benghazi massacre cover-up.

It must mean that everything this administration decides to say is fact: your premiums will go down; if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; it was a transparent process; there “is not a smidgen of corruption” in IRS scandal.

And they still repeat those assertions as if they are true. Now Benghazi goes to Ferguson. One of the best comments I’ve seen is: so if …”Obama made Gov.Nixon not send in the National Guard Monday night, that would make Ferguson Obama’s domestic Benghazi.’

RightRing | Bullright

Gitmo-gate in full swing

Under Pressure, Hagel Promises to Act on Guantánamo Transfers


By CHARLIE SAVAGE and HELENE COOPER MAY 29, 2014 | NYT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is under pressure from within the Obama administration to step up his pace in approving the transfer of low-level Guantánamo Bay detainees, has told reporters that he would decide soon whether to accept a months-old offer to resettle six prisoners in Uruguay.

But Mr. Hagel, in his most expansive public comments about detainee transfers, acknowledged that he has been in no rush to sign off on them. He cited the burden and responsibility of being the one official who, under a legal obligation imposed by Congress, must personally determine that releasing a detainee makes sense.

“My name is going on that document. That’s a big responsibility,” Mr. Hagel said, adding: “What I’m doing is, I am taking my time. I owe that to the American people, to ensure that any decision I make is, in my mind, responsible.”

Mr. Hagel made his remarks in response to questions by a reporter accompanying him on a flight to Alaska late on Wednesday.

They came less than a week after Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sent a three-page memo to Mr. Hagel requiring him to “provide an update on progress on detainee transfers every two weeks until further notice,” according to an official who read passages of the memo to a reporter.

Mr. Obama has sought to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since taking office in 2009. Congress gave the secretary of defense the final say over approving transfers. He must determine that a transfer is in the national-security interest and that steps have been taken to “substantially mitigate” the risk that a detainee could pose a future threat to the United States or its allies.

Ms. Rice’s May 24 memo includes a record of Mr. Obama’s guidance on how much risk to accept when transferring detainees, including saying that it is “not a zero-risk standard,” and that the risk must be balanced against the harm to the United States caused by the continued operation of the facility.

The memo is said to define “substantially mitigate” as meaning that “steps have been or will be taken that would materially lessen the risk that detainee, post transfer, will engage or re-engage in any terrorist or other hostile activity that specifically threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests.”

There were no transfers of low-level detainees under Mr. Hagel’s predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, who ran the Pentagon from July 2011 to February 2013. But Mr. Hagel has approved 11 transfers of low-level detainees, plus another who served out a sentence. Just one of those — an Algerian repatriated in March — came this year. Several officials said that more than a dozen detainees are the subject of proposed deals, and that there are serious talks with specific countries about taking in several dozen more.

In an interview with NPR on Thursday, Mr. Obama reiterated his desire to close Guantánamo. “We cannot in good conscience maintain a system of indefinite detention in which individuals who have not been tried and convicted are held permanently in this legal limbo outside of this country,” he said. He made a similar comment in his speech at West Point the day before.

In one respect, Mr. Obama’s negative portrayal of indefinite detention clashed with a key aspect of the approach to closing Guantánamo that he has advocated: He wants to bring several dozen detainees — who are deemed too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release — to a prison inside the United States for continued detention without trial.

Mr. Obama also said he keeps “chipping away” at the problem. /…

More: New York Times

 

The “pressure” he’s under is from Obama, let’s be clear about that. And Susan Rice is right in there. All in an attempt to pander for votes. One might even wonder if the detainees vote or something?

So he’s been hard at work on this release program, demanding reports every 2 weeks, but on the VA he was completely AWOL and ignorant about the corruption or scandal. No wonder, all his attention is on securing the release of terrorists from Gitmo. It is no surprise all his staff are involved, too. ‘All hands on deck’. But the massive VA-gate, not so much.

Concern now is that Obama intends to empty Guatanamo in months. He’s right up to speed and briefed on that. The US is what’s under pressure.

Then, right on the heels of his West Point speech, up pops the trade of one questionable prisoner of the Taliban for 5 upper echelons of the Taliban. (not 3 or 4, but 5) You guessed it, sounds like a deal US couldn’t refuse.

And right on cue, out pops Susan “the video” Rice, talking points in hand, saying Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.” I wonder what the next deal will be, since we are out of our prisoners held by the enemy to negotiate.

Weasel Zippers

He didn’t tell Congress about the Bergdahl trade beforehand, because he knew some members opposed making a deal which had been on the table for years. As we noted, the regime had previously assured everyone that no deal would go through without Congress being informed beforehand. So that was obviously another lie. At what point does Congress take back their Constitutional obligation, which Obama is eviscerating, right and left?

Part of the deal on the table had also been giving the Taliban a million dollars. Did Obama give them the money too?

RightRing | Bullright

Goal Posts and WH strategy

The goal posts are moving, again, now almost daily.

At first they said there was nothing to suggest the White House changed or had anything to do with altering the talking points on Benghazi.

Here you have a chief WH staffer, Ben Rhodes, telling and suggesting what Susan Rice should say in her Sunday talk-a-thon. Then Rice goes out on the talk shows blaming Benghazi attack on the video, per script.

Carney telling us that the email had nothing to do with Benghazi is like… well, and they claim we dabble in conspiracies? Am I to believe he wrote the email to Rice, prior to her talk-a-thon, and was explicitly NOT talking about Benghazi? (Sure) Why would he exempt Benghazi… where 4 Americans were viciously killed, and all the attention was focused, and what Susan Rice mostly talked about? Then they claim the Benghazi blame points came from the CIA, not so per Morell. So then she would have had to inject that video reason for Benghazi all by her lonesome. (that’s a wild theory)

That Rhodes was not even referring to Benghazi, even though he did mention it, doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it wreaks. The other absurdity on its face is that if in fact he did mean the video was the reason for the protests and violence, anywhere, then that really blames us and supplies terrorists a universal excuse. That was Mitt Romney’s problem as it was happening. But they would rather cling to some flimsy excuse for the perpetrators of violence than admit there was a real terrorist attack in Benghazi — unattached to a video.

If Rhodes was making the point about protests excluding Benghazi, then wouldn’t you think he (the WH) would have made a point to lay out a real cause for Benghazi itself, alone, untied to the other protests? No, he was referring to Benghazi.

But the goal post did move. The left said there was nothing connecting the WH to what was said in the talking points. Hello, there it is. Now they say it doesn’t. Their co-opting of the talking points were not even about Benghazi. Jay must have thought that one up by himself. Just connect what Rice said, explicitly referring to Benghazi, to Rhodes instructions in the email. Voila. She followed the script perfectly. Now they merely dismiss deny that Rhodes’ email, copied to everyone, had anything at all to do with Benghazi. Nancy says there is “nothing new”. Lets just say they stretched the goal posts from one place to another. Now they will claim this means nothing — denial.

Liars and liars, and liars. “No substantive changes…”- Jay Carney.

It’s pretty bad when CNN, with its own queen of spin, Crowley, thinks it’s absurd.

(…see if CNN gets anymore special interviews!)

RightRing | Bullright

Cover up continues: oozing Benghazi

Sometimes thinking out loud is a good form of clarifying one’s thoughts. And sometimes that just adds to more questions and suspicions.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Article and video

Sadly, only now this comes out about Benghazi. It is filed with irony.

First is the direct intention of government — presumably from all levels — to assert the Internet video as the root cause. This of course is lying and rewriting the events, but who cared about that when they had a presidential campaign to save and defend? Then is their intent to put the UN ambassador’s stamp of approval on it. Of course, it was the opposite: the White House putting its stamp of approval on what Rice would say. (the reverse of their intentions) Throwing the WH voice from the mouth of the ambassador.

Plus their choreography of the events directly contradicted the campaign’s central theme of a president with steady leadership at the helm. In fact, he was AWOL and no where to be found even though the day it took place on the infamous date of the 9/11 attack. So the irony is as thick as pea soup. And the subtext of the campaign theme was a defeated al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

The campaign message was interjected, as a priority, into their depiction of the events. But Obama was no where around, almost intentionally absent. As was Hillary and her steady leadership at the State Department.

The video itself, which had nothing to do with the events was described as hate-filled. What was clear was the violent nature of the attack itself. To think that they nearly pulled it off, as far as media is concerned anyway, is an astonishing piece of history. That to this day they still give the president default plausible deniability for it is equally troubling.

So on one hand you have the event and circumstances themselves, and on the other you have the media disintegration around the major story of the year. But then we have the way each of them played out, Obama’s statements at the UN; and the media charade at the debate vouching for Obama. (Candy Crowley played right along)

There was the speed by which this story spread around the globe in criticizing and blaming a video, as much of the real criticism belonged to the White House and the State Department.(Not to mention all the operatives who did their part)

Then we had Hillary who had to be almost dragged to Congress to testify about the attack. (after blunt head injury) And her stunning absence in the actual events was shrouded in mystery. Then convey this to people at the time as steady leadership. That it took a year and a half to even get this information is another testimony against the duo.(doesn’t speak much for media either) It’s as if not only were they both asleep at the switch, but they took a sleeping pill at the onset.

It is obvious (and ironic) that White House’s biggest priorities were the president protecting himself, and blaming an Internet video. Neither of those fit the Constitutional definition for the president. (…protecting Americans or being honest with the people.)

And contrary to the posture of the two leaders in charge, were the intricate plans of the operation in Libya from the beginning: from Obama’s stealthy, unilateral action to Hillary’s priority to establish an outpost in Benghazi by a certain date. Then afterward to act as if it was not even on their radar, and that they were surprised at the events is beyond belief. And it all would, again ironically, “require the willing suspension of disbelief”. After all, why would so many subordinates go to such lengths to obfuscate the truth, covering for their superiors, all by their own initiative?

Now that we know what was going on in the White House on Benghazi, one can imagine what was going on in sycophant media conference rooms amidst the campaign. Oddly enough, by the time of that debate they had come full circle to try to claim that they said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Well, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble then.

What this email trail makes clear is that it was not happenstance, that it was a wide-spread, coordinated, choreographed initiative driven by the White House with concerns about the campaign. Isn’t it funny what an email trail reveals? The campaign message drove the false narrative.

Obama does have a formal doctrine, its called the Denial Doctrine.

Ben Rhodes is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting.

RightRing | Bullright

ACA full-throttle, Iran sanctions not so fast… delay, delay

White House Dividing Pro-Israel Leaders on Nuclear Iran

White House calling for delay in action on new sanctions

BY: Adam Kredo | Free Beacon
November 4, 2013 1:59 pm

Pro-Israel leaders on Monday expressed alarm over what they characterized as the Obama administration’s efforts to sow division among Jewish leaders in order to advance a policy that they say would permit Iran to cross the nuclear threshold.

Rifts emerged between the leaders of four top Jewish groups over the weekend following an “intense” meeting last week with National Security Adviser Susan Rice and other top officials at the White House, according to several insiders.

The Obama administration sought to enlist the pro-Israel leaders in their fight to delay Congress from passing a new round of Iran sanctions for at least two months as the West engages Tehran with nuclear talks.

Most of those present at the meeting quietly objected to such a delay. However, the administration’s allies soon began leaking information about a so-called “moratorium” on new sanctions efforts.

“Leaders of four major Jewish organizations have indicated to the Obama administration that they will have a 60-day moratorium during which they will refrain from conducting any public campaign urging Congress to strengthen U.S. sanctions against Iran,” the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported late Friday.

The Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman also confirmed reports of a communal “time out” on Saturday, prompting a pitched response from others present in the meeting.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said in a rare public statement on Saturday that it would not back down from its push for new sanctions.

“AIPAC continues to support congressional action to adopt legislation to further strengthen sanctions, and there will absolutely be no pause, delay or moratorium in our efforts,” AIPAC president Michael Kassen said in the statement.

“Until Iran suspends its enrichment program, additional sanctions are vital for diplomacy to succeed,” said Kassen, who noted that “diplomatic talks have been made possible because of the strong sanctions passed by Congress and implemented by the administration.”

The American Jewish Committee also denied reports that they had agreed to advocate a delay of new sanctions.

The public dispute between typically united pro-Israel groups led some insiders to criticize the White House for “trying to divide the Jewish community” in an attempt to “undermine congressional support for a new round of sanctions,” according to one senior Senate aide involved in the sanctions debate.

“The message we heard from the White House is clear—we don’t care if Israel lives or dies, we just want to cut a deal,” a senior Jewish official involved in Iran sanctions efforts said on Monday. “Another way to read the AIPAC statement is: ‘Go F yourselves.’” [emphasis mine]

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) executive director David Brog said that the administration is “making a terrible mistake” by pushing to delay new sanctions.
“The Obama administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing increased sanctions on Iran,” Brog said to the Free Beacon. “The pro-Israel community should know better than to be a party to this blunder.” …/

More at: http://freebeacon.com/white-house-dividing-pro-israel-leaders-on-nuclear-iran/

Really, is it any wonder that there are these problems with Valerie Jarrett in the cockpit calling the shots in Obama’s ear? “Go __ yourselves” is a blunt, grammatically correct description. Obama sowing division? My Casablanca face is wearing thin.

Rice withdraws her name for SoS

EXCLUSIVE: Susan Rice drops out of running for secretary of state; saddened by partisan politics

By Tracy Connor, NBC News

Embattled U.N. envoy Susan Rice is dropping out of the running to be the next secretary of state after months of criticism over her Benghazi comments, she told NBC News on Thursday.

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly – to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” Rice wrote in a letter to President Obama, saying she’s saddened by the partisan politics surrounding her prospects.

“That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country…Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time,” she wrote in the letter obtained by NBC News.

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/

Looks like another attempt to portray someone in the administration as a victim. Too bad it overlooks four real victims of this administration.

***Update

Rice: “We cannot afford such an irresponsible distraction from the most pressing issues facing the American people. ” –Letter to Obama

Bunch of Baloney

 
Obama knew it was a terrorist attack the first day. He said so in the Rose Garden on the 12th….or so he says.

Susan Rice gives us the scoop on Benghazi hitting every major news org, 5 days later on the 16th, at the White House’s request. She blamed protest and a video.

Rice works for Obama, but her story did not match what he CLAIMS he definately told us the day after.

No one in the White House changed the talking points….so Obama says.
 

When you have a spokesman go out at your request and say something contrary to your message, what do you do?

… what are the chances you request someone to speak to all the media saying something contrary to what you told the people? Then claim she was only saying what she was told.

 
Option 1: you could nominate her to Secretary of State.

Option 2: tell critics to pick on him not her. [Duh] (…use with opton one)

Option 3: blame others for implying his administration was playing politics. (…use with 1 and 2)

Option 4: find some way to tie it to George Bush.

(an additional possibility is hold a press conference, then say you answered all questions about it. And repeat that you have always been transparent with the people)

What they said… about Benghazi

I’m not so sure if this is a case of “what did they know and when did they know it” or more of a what the administration said and why they said it. We already know pretty much about what they knew – or should have known.


Since Obama says he stated September 12th this was an act of terrorism, then why did all the talk about videos and protests follow?

And why did Art Carney say in his official briefing, September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney– in response to questions about whether the attack was planned:

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

Judgment? But apparently not to early to assume there was a protest which led to the events.

Then came Susan Rice’s defiant statements 5 days later. And now a month later they want to hop into the wayback machine to point out she mentioned the boilerplate “investigation” in it. Duh, so what? Rice’s statements to media:

ABC News:
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. … But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present. — ( This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 9/16/12)

Apparently “present” is a state in the nation of denial.

Face the Nation
RICE: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and –
SCHIEFFER: But they are not there.
RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.[yada, yada] But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–
SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
RICE: — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that — in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine. — (CBS, Face the Nation, 9/16/12)

On her blame tour, Rice also told Fox:
“But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.”

And this all was after Obama claimed he said it was terrorism. Instead of arguing with Romney, why isn’t he arguing with Rice and others? Why wasn’t he setting everyone in his administration straight?

Then at the debate he said he was “offended”. And now I assume he is claiming to be the victim.