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.

Gay Newspaper Rolls with Stone

No Apologies from Republican for Hijacked Blog


When a strange silence suddenly falls upon a gay pride parade, you can bet that the Sunshine Republicans are nearby; a group of LGBT Republicans who split off from the Log Cabin Republicans over concerns about political tone and conservative values. The Sunshine Republicans were closely associated with (although not formally in sponsorship of) Florida’s first Transgender Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, Donna Milo, who incidentally did not believe in Gay Marriage… but she intended to go up against Florida's Pro-gay Democratic Rockstar Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Nick Stone is their Vice President. He operates his own website at http://drawnlines.com/ .

Recently he wrote a blog piece called “Do Words Matter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz”. In this piece, he attempted to counter-attack Mrs. Schultz’s opinion that we all need to cool our heads and tone down the political rhetoric because “words matter”. In the news broadcast that Stone refers to in his rant, Congresswoman Schultz (D-FL) tells CNN’s TJ Holmes that we all need to be conscious of what we say in light of the recent assassination attempt on her good friend Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Never once in the referenced news broadcast did Schultz ever say that the man who shot Giffords was a Republican. Nor did she make any other kind of partisan divide in that speech. Nonetheless, Stone wrote his counter-attack by questioning Schultz’s integrity, her honesty, and her motives. From there he connected all of America’s most beloved Democrats to the worst violence in US History.

"I want to clarify that just about everything you've heard from me or that I've written is just my opinion,” said Stone in an interview on Friday, “and should not reflect on The Sunshine Republicans or be seen as an official statement on any matter."

When he wrote the item for his blog, it was geared mostly toward his fans, friends and fellow Republicans. It was meant to be sort of a morale booster for the sort of Republicans who like to turn up the volume on rhetoric and defy what they refer to as our “PC Culture”.

But when Stone wrote the piece, he didn’t intend for the Florida Agenda to swipe it from his blog and publish it in the context of an editorial in their newspaper…

“I could be wrong but I believe that the author would have addressed things somewhat differently,” said Andy Eddy, a Log Cabin Republican, “if he were under the impression this was an op-ed piece for media consumption and not just blogging among friends and cohorts.” Eddy has met Debbie Wasserman Schultz once before, unlike Stone, and remembers that even though he was introduced to her as “one of those Republicans”, she said something reasonable like “it is most important that we, as Americans, are politically involved regardless of our differences.”


Stone says he never gave permission to the Florida Agenda to re-print his blog post at all and that he thinks the media sometimes uses Republicans to label as crazy and weird for a sort of boost in readership. He says journalists will often pick “the weirdest statement” to highlight. “I didn’t pursue the Agenda about it and they didn’t pursue me about it.”
Now, aside from the already scandalous way that The Florida Agenda (a gay newspaper) selected this particular gay-friendly Democratic Congresswoman to attack in their newspaper, there is the matter of all the other Democrats who were dragged through the mud in Stone’s original blog entry.

For instance, Stone stated boldly that President Carter and his wife Rosalynn had been “close friends” with John Wayne Gacy - a serial killer who preyed on teenage boys. He evidenced this accusation by showing a photo of Rosalynn with Gacy which was taken at a large Democratic event in the Chicago area. Gacy was just one of many people who were photographed with the President’s wife that day.

“Whether or not Gacy and the Carters were ‘besties’ is not the point,” said Stone when pressed for clarification on the matter, “the fact that Democrats and violence have a long and sordid history together was my big point.” But for every statement in the entire piece there should be a separate retraction and apology if it were to appear in a real newspaper.

As another example of his propagandizing spin, Stone cites the Discovery Channel Hostage situation in which James Jay Lee, who stone describes as an “enviro-terrorist” [sic] and a “left-wing nutjob”, held hostages at the popular science show headquarters. It’s important that we realize this, according to Stone, because “everyone in the media” had supposedly jumped to the false conclusion that “since he had a gun” he must have been a conservative or Tea Party member.
When pressed to come up with a source of who Stone believes originally blamed James Jay Lee of being a “Tea Party Extremist” in the media, he admitted that it was “just a sort of rumor that got started”.

But Stone has dug his own hole even deeper by choosing this particular event to highlight because environmental terrorists are not what Stone thinks they are (check the definition) and Lee was actually what’s properly called an eco-terrorist. On his own website, Lee ranted about “immigration pollution” and “anchor baby filth”. When asked about this particular section of the piece, Stone said plaintively, “I feel that being an enviro-terrorist [sic] is generally a left-wing ideal and everything else is tangential to me.”

As predictable as his spin can become after a glance or two, the dapper young Republican is not without his surprises… He speaks more favorably of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow than he does of Fox News’s Glenn Beck and he’s not so quick to toss Hillary Clinton into the fray either.

At the end of the day, a lot of Stone’s criticism of Democrats seems reactionary to an either real or perceived hatred that he feels is directed toward him by the majority of left-leaning gays and lesbians who can tolerate just about everything EXCEPT Republicans in their midst. He perceives danger and hostility at what most of us consider as being rather benign events like Gay Pride Parades. For this reason, much of what he says becomes self-fulfilling prophesy for him. Because he thinks negatively about Democrats, some Democrats behave negatively toward him. He really doesn’t seem to think of his writing or opinions as hostile or unwelcoming either - but if you use a term like “teabagger” in his presence, you’ll likely not be forgiven.

It must be this sensitive side of himself that is bothered by Congresswoman Schultz. Some Republicans have referred to as "the DNC's Head Cheerleader" or "The Mean Girls version of Nancy Pelosi" because of her biting wit and clever use of props on the house floor... But even her Republican counterparts in the House are generally humored by her antics. She doesn't use "violent rhetoric" or "tell bald-faced lies" as Stone states in his blog... She's just very partisan... because that's her job.

In the end, Nick Stone is also just a puppy. That is to say he is a young guy with a pleasant demeanor whose bark is worse than his bite. “Debbie Wasserman Schultz is right,” he says, “in the sense that if her party does their part as well, we can make things better […] but it has to be fair and even handed. No, I won’t apologize for what I’ve written.”

An apology for threatening the congresswoman with damnation to “the darkest pits of hell” if she dared to use any rhetoric herself, was in the end, too much for him to manage. But in his defense, he went on to list even more supposed connections between Democrats and violence. I’ll leave it to his fellow Republicans to correct him on those matters if they would be so kind.

Arizona’s Immigration Policy Would Not Have Stopped the 9/11 Hijackers

There has been a lot of blabber from the right-wing lately about how THEIR style of immigration reform is needed “in a post-9/11 world”.

That phrase, “post-9/11 world” is meant to imply that we now live in a more dangerous society than we did before. Thereby, right-wing pundits assert that new, tougher and more radical immigration reforms are needed – including Governor Jan Brewer’s controversial reform in Arizona.

The debate over Arizona’s new immigration policy can be framed in one of two ways. The right wing of American politics contends that we are losing jobs, security and quality of life due to excessive immigration (mainly from Mexico but not limited to that border).

The left wing argues that we lose more jobs from corporate outsourcing and that our immigration policies pose no particular threat to our security or quality of life – that those are false perceptions based in racism and classism. Furthermore, those on the left believe that better national security will arise from a uniform Federal immigration reform, as opposed to each state choosing their own immigration policies as Arizona has done.

So let’s take a quick look at this phrase that has become popularized within the right-wing media and see if it holds water… Sorry to spoil the surprise, but the answer is NO.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report and numerous Congressional Inquiries, all 19 hijackers who are commonly known to have been the perpetrators of 9/11 were in possession of the required documentation in Arizona’s new code.

None of the 9/11 Hijackers were known to have crossed the Mexican/United States border by foot and few of them even spoke broken English. They had even taken classes with large numbers of other foreigners on how to speak with American dialects, appear more American and blend into American society.

All the hijackers had visas, passports, and photo ID’s. All the 9/11 hijackers’ information was verified by the Concordance system prior to boarding their flights.
The Arizona Immigration Bill (SB1070) does not include any provisions which would require additional scrutiny in obtaining work visas or immigration status. It does not require any additional checks or procedures for national or state security in the process of obtaining citizenship or an identification document.

The Arizona Bill is primarily a set of laws which restrict LEGAL citizens from having any contact or collusion with illegal or undocumented workers. For instance, an Arizona citizen can be charged with a misdemeanor for knowingly or unknowingly giving an undocumented worker a ride in their car. The language of the bill encourages regular citizens to be “watchdogs” or “vigilantes” in the sense that it stiffens penalties for citizens who are found to have “reckless disregard” for another person’s immigration status.

The bill is very poorly written and unconstitutional at best and does absolutely NOTHING to prevent terrorism or to strengthen national security. SB1070 serves only to encourage distrust and skepticism amongst Arizonans based on race, class, employment and income.

Photo: Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R-AZ) celebrating Pakistani Day 2006 with Arif Kazmi. Joe Arpaio is one of the most controversial characters in law enforcement. He has created prison camps in Arizona which are softly referred to as “tent cities” in which prisoners suffer in 120 degree heat and has been scolded by human rights advocates for digitally recording the daily activities of prisoners and putting these images on the internet for all to see – without knowledge or consent from the prisoners.