By Jim Kouri
On Tuesday during an appearance on Fox News Channel, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King again urged United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice to resign over her comments on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, talk shows regarding the Libyan attacks being the result of a protest against a YouTube anti-Muslim video and not a planned terrorist attack.
“I think Susan Rice should resign. She is America’s foreign policy spokesman to the world as ambassador to the U.N.,” said King, a Republican congressman from New York
It’s been three weeks since that shocking attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killed four American diplomats, including widely respected Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Yet, President Barack Obama still has not publicly acknowledged that attack as terrorism. It appears that Obama is intentionally withholding information on the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, say many of his critics.
“Obama is a loser, big time,” said an angry John M. Snyder, named senior rights activist in Washington, D.C., by Shotgun News.
“The current blow up in the Middle East casts in stark relief the stupidity of the Obama administration’s international policy,” Snyder notes, “but it really is just the latest indication of a whacked-out government.”
Even though it has been widely reported that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the tragedy which transpired on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 was not a “spontaneous action” to an anti-Islam YouTube video, our “Commander-in-Chief” refuses to call this deadly attack what it is — terrorism, according to Grassfire Nation, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., a million-strong network of grassroots conservatives.
Why hasn’t the President publicly acknowledged that the murders in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack? His Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in a Pentagon news conference on Thursday saying flatly: “It was a terrorist attack.”
“Yet for more than two weeks, the White House stuck to its story that Chris Stevens’ murder was committed in retaliation for the ridiculous and laughable “Innocence of Muslims” clip. Remarkably, the President still blamed the anti-Islam video for Stevens’ death in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly last week,” according to Grassfire officials.
“Is the Obama administration intentionally withholding information about the terror attack in an attempt to cover up the truth about the killing of these four Americans? It’s a question that must be asked … and answered!” stated Grassfire officials.
While defending Muslims in the United States and overseas, Snyder alleges that “[the] Obama’s government has in effect declared war on the Catholic Church and other religious bodies. It has tried to force religionists to act against their consciences, to force them to pay for abortion and other immoral practices. Obama even supports abominable same-sex marriages.”
“It’s time for a change,” says Snyder, “real change. It’s time to rock and roll with Romney and Ryan.”
Obama, Rep. Peter King believes, had political reasons for avoiding calling the Benghazi attack terrorism. “What I believe is that President [Obama] is so fixated on convincing the American people that he has defeated al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda is no longer a real threat by saying this was a terrorist attack, or by acknowledging a terrorist attack would be looked upon as a defeat for his policies against al-Qaeda,” King says.
“I believe that this was such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership, such a misstatement of facts as were known at the time. [For] her to go on all of those shows as our spokesman to the world and to be misinforming the American people and our allies and countries around the world, to me, somebody has to pay the price for this… to rule out terrorism, to say it was not terrorism at that time was to me a terrible mistake to make whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally and to show the significance of that, I believe she should resign,” King said.
|Enjoy the article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.|