Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MrInquisitive
That's a fascinating theory, thanks for bringing it up. I think, though, I'm going to have to stick with what seems simpler and cleaner.
But Benghazi was brought
up much before the oil stocks. So it was being used to divert attention away from something that hadn't happened? I just don't see that.
it seems like the Benghazi kerfluffle is being used to divert attention from Rice's C.o.I. with the pipeline.
So all of the
Senators have conflicts of interest which haven't been caught by any of the audits and mandatory reporting forms? That's too broad an allegation
for me to accept easily. Further, if all the Senators knew it, musn't Obama have known it as well? Then why appoint her, later express complete
confidence in her, and finally say that her statements were no big deal? Obama wants to put someone in the Secretary's position, knowing that he
knows, and probably every one on Capitol Hill knows, that she has this conflict? Does he not fear a leak?
And no senators want to bring such an issue up because they all are also stinking rich and have C.o.I.'s up the wazoo.
Finally, no one is accusing her of having anything to do with the Benghazi attack. She was sent out by the White House to provide false information
to America. Did she know it was false? Was she not briefed as our UN Ambassador on the truth? These are the questions being asked, and according to
the press, not being believably answered.
I know my theory sounds crazy, but I haven't seen a better one in this thread.
Check out the wealth of all the Senators -- and the members of the House for that matter. Most all are millionaires, and when one is a millionaire,
one has large amounts of money invested in one thing or another. Did you see the fairly recent 60 minutes segment on congressional conflicts of
interest? These congress fuhx get to make legislation so, in fact, they have insider information that they can use to make investments concerning --
and they do so. They also get sweetheart loans that normal folks can't get. There are all kinds of perks/conflicts of interest that apparently
don't rise to an issue anymore. Then there's all the campaign money they get from various interests, and as long as no EXPLICIT quid pro quo
is given, it is ok; but this doesn't mean that they aren't actually influenced by campaign donations.
You're being very gullible if you think there is enough oversight of ethics for congress. And frankly, just about all very rich people are as
wealthy as they are because they bend or break rules -- or inherited their money. One doesn't get ahead by playing by the rules.
As to our respective theories (mine was just a throw-away one, for the record), there may be something to Benghazi-gate, but if Rice was only being a
spokesperson for the Admin, then why should it stick to her, and so why would her conflicts of interest come up as deflection for her "worse" issues
involving Benghazi-gate? That makes zero sense. If anything should be an issue with her becoming Sec. of State, it should be her financial
interests, not that she parroted what was on the talking-point memos given to her concerning the Benghazi attack.
And I am curious, does whatever Rice -- and the entire Obama Admin for that matter -- have said regarding the Benghazi attack rise to the lies that
Condaleeza Rice and the Bush Admin gave about WMDs and nukes in Iraq, which where the causus belli
for that bloody conflict that has killed
about a thousand-fold more Americans -- not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Yet Condee was made Sec. of State after her
As to the Benghazi thing itself, it appears to have been some sort of CIA gig -- either arms shipments from Libya to Syria, or this "diplomatic
compound" was being used to hold and interrogate "terrorist" suspects. This latter hypothesis has been supplied by Petraeus' s former squeeze.
And speaking of which, could this apparent security lapse be due to the CIA director and one-time Don Juan being wrapped up in his personal issues at
the time and so not have been focusing on his job? Seems as likely as anything else.
In any case, I am much more concerned about Rice's conflicts of interest rather than her part in Benghazi-gate. Seems Petraeus and Billary are the
two people to pillory if anyone should be.