Real reasons for objections to Ms Rice as Secretary of State.
The first thing heard about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi was that it was an uprising.
Who in their right mind would accept that, I asked myself. We came to the defense of Libya and they'r going to attack the US? That's not true!
So it became, a UN Ambassador who didn't check the facts.
It's not that she didn't release the right information, for it was well stated that she was told it was an interior uprising. Her mistake was not to use her own sense of perception and check that fact; this shows her as out of touch.
When an official is given information from a reputable source, in this case the CIA; and the CIA had been running that country since, well, forever, who would not accept the intelligence report from the CIA?
When there's an immediate release of information as a response to a national emergency, the first thing for any official at the top of the department to do is check the facts.
The objection not spoken about Ms Rice is that her isolated cultural perspective had prevented her from seeing into the situation, but instead taking somebody else's word for the answer to a motive for a crisis. If she as Ambassador acts as a conduit and not a leader, what is she going to do as the Secretary of State, a leader within the administration of the most prolific and powerful sovereign country in the world today.
The real crime committed by Ambassador Rice was to not check the facts before making a statement.
Even I knew better than that.
Steve Shapiro is a journalist, author, and screenwriter. As the Charter President of the Jr. United Nations, my motto against autocracy by siblings, parents, local constabulary or governments is 'in liberty is luxury.'
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.