Could Susan Rice be the only Thorn in the Rose Garden?

President Obama in the Rose Garden with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton at his side.

UPDATE - See This Link To Rachel Maddow's Blog for recent revelations that the Director of Intelligence had originally chosen not to publicly implicate Al Qaeda in the Benghazi attacks.  For this reason, Susan Rice cannot be held accountable for that particular fact being omitted.

It's now been just one and a half weeks since Obama's reelection was made clear.  Our nation gave us a "Forward Mandate" and simultaneously, we gave the President a vote of confidence.

But is he maybe too confident?

I'm thinking he is... and he just might be shooting from the hip a little too soon in regard to Susan Rice, our nation's ambassador to the U.N.  Just today, the President chastised the Tea Party Republicans for going after Rice in their conspiracy theories about Benghazi and the incident that happened there.  The President has made it clear that he believed the attack to be "terrorism" by definition - but the conspiracy hullabaloo has not ended with that.

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” said the President. “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.”

Right-wing operatives now want to pin the tail on the donkey.  They want to make the President and his administration accountable for the deaths of Navy Seals and State Department officials.  The fringe Republicans who claim to have supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 are now feigning concern that she has "fallen on the sword" for Obama and his "terrorism condoning" administration.  How convenient that they can just separate her from that administration when it best suits them, right?

However - the point is that they are going after Rice.  They say that the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the propaganda film against Muslims which Rice claimed to be the impetus.  They say that Rice used the attack in an effort to wag her finger at Christian America and reduce terrorism to a mere difference in opinion.

I am almost inclined to think they could be right about that.

Susan Rice was indeed the first person to tell America's media that the attack was a response to our own anti-muslim propaganda.  If the Benghazi attack and the outrageously offensive video were unrelated to each other, we deserve at this point, to know that.  Obama has won his re-election and he can only benefit further from the truth being made clear.

Rice has been silent on the matter and has not stepped forward to defend the supposed intelligence that she made us all privy to. However, she did reiterate the same talking point on ABC a number of times without first informing the American people that her husband is the executive producer of that very media outlet.  Now who's spreading propaganda?

As a liberal Democrat, I have not quite been as convinced as President Obama has to trust Susan Rice and I have my own reasons for that... You can read all about that here.

But my views on gay rights are not the only thing that puts me at odds with Susan Rice. I am not fond of political animals who think only of their prospects on election day... and I think that just might describe Rice perfectly. At the time of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, Rice reportedly said, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?"

I am very happy that the President has won his reelection, but I don't know that we need him to tangle with John McCain again unless he's really sure that Susan Rice is not playing him for a rung on the ladder.