Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) reportedly emerged dissatisfied from her interview with Amb. Susan Rice, potential nominee for Secretary of State. I don’t know exactly what questions she asked, but here are some I would have posed, along with the answers I probably would have gotten (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
Q: Ambassador Rice, I would like to ask you more about the video, Innocence of Muslims, or at least its 13-minute trailer. You blamed the attack in Benghazi on this video; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods, father of one of the men killed in Benghazi, that the Administration would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Filmmaker Mark Bassely Youssef has since been sentenced to a year in prison for violating the terms of his parole. Is that what Secretary Clinton had in mind?
A: I’m sure that Mr. Youssef’s sentence reflects only the law governing violation of probation and has nothing to do with Innocence of Muslims.
Q: Last week, an Egyptian court in Cairo sentenced Youssef and six other Coptic Christians to death in absentia for their role in producing the film. Is that what Secretary Clinton had in mind?
A: Of course not! You know that the United States does not condemn people to death for making a movie!
Q: The United States has an extradition treaty with Egypt. What will the Obama Administration do if the government of Egypt seeks the extradition of these individuals?
A: I’m afraid that’s not my purview.
Q: OK, moving right along: President Barack Obama mentioned the video several times when he addressed the UN General Assembly later in September. He also stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” What did that statement mean? Was President Obama referring to the so-called Istanbul process on combating religious intolerance? In July 2011, in a speech at one of its meetings, Secretary Clinton said:
“In the United States … we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance. We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”
Could you tell me more about these techniques of peer pressure and shaming?
A: (inaudible)
Q: Or was President Obama referring to the draft international law, being prepared by the government of Qatar, to ban attacks on or offenses to religion? Qatar wants the United Nation help pass this law. What can you tell me about this initiative, which I assume falls under your purview? I understand the United States cooperates closely with Qatar on a range of issues; is this one of them?
A: (inaudible)
Q: But isn’t it true that, by condemning the video and its creators, the Obama Administration was opening the door to restrictions on free speech like those proposed by Qatar?
A: Of course not!
Q: Well, thank you so much for stopping by to chat.
spot on questions…
I think you are being just the weest bit optimistic in thinking that any single answer would sound like anything except “rhubarb, rhubarb”!
2009-2012=frying pan; 2103-2016=fire!
All the valid objections to UN Amb. Rice’s possible nomination to Secretary of State ignore two realities; Obama’s arrogance, (it’s his Secretary of State) vindictiveness and desire to continue his ‘revenge’ upon republicans for daring to run against him and, that a simple Senate majority of 51 votes is all that is needed for Senate confirmation. Obama has 54 votes…
Ah yes, but regardless of whether Rice becomes Secretary of State, these efforts to restrict free speech are very troubling.
Quite agree as to the restrictions on free speech which are IMO just starting.
The left’s greatest enemy is free speech widely disseminated, which is why they are cooperating with China, Russia and Iran’s efforts in the UN to regulate the Internet.
My comment pertains only to Ms. Rices’ fitness for gathering, assessing and disseminating important information.
It appears Ms. Rice will accept a statement from a smiling person and accept it as Total Bottom Line Truth. She will then speak to the nation and present that statement as fact.
I wonder if there are people in the world, that do not have our best interests at heart, that mat be tempted to give Ms. Rice some information not entirely accurate to spread around the populace.
I do not have a lot of confidence that Ms. Rice might start vetting her sources or wait until she is sure.
She certainly has laid herself open to such a suspicion!
Upon what basis do you assert MS Rice to be so gullible? She accepted, knowingly or not, the talking points she was given. Presumably she did so with the assurance that Obama had approved them. She can certainly be accused of being a ‘good soldier’ and there’s certainly the possibility that she intentionally and knowingly lied to the American public. But accept any smiling face’s assurances?
Let me amend “the smiling face” portion to someone that offers a promotion and
fame to Ms. Rice. Regards GB, as always. Hello Mr. Lebl !
Okay I freely admit being a gender idiot, MS. Lebl. My apologies for past, present, and future offenses.
Accepted!