Does Ambassador Rice have more blood on her hands?

Right up front I’ll admit I am not a fan of UN Ambassador Susan Rice who, according to several websites, is married to an ABC News staffer. It’s my personal opinion she has functioned more as an advocate for her personal causes and globalism on behalf of the UN more than as an advocate for the U.S.

When he appointed Rice, President Barack Obama added the ambassadorship as a cabinet level position, another misstep based on ideology rather than reason.

I agree with those who criticized Rice about another September 11—not the most recent anniversary when terrorists killed Americans. Rice was at the center of controversy in the original September 11. The 9/11 Commission gave her a pass for her actions. I still don’t.

Newsmax reported this in 2004 [boldface added]:

"The FBI, in 1996 and 1997, had their efforts to look at terrorism data and deal with the bin Laden issue overruled every single time by the State Department, by Susan Rice and her cronies, who were hell-bent on destroying the Sudan," one-time Clinton diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz told radio host Sean Hannity in 2002…U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by bin Laden six weeks later, in a suicide bombing attack that killed 253.”

Discover the Networks made similar claims:

“In 1996 Rice helped persuade President Clinton to rebuff Sudan’s offer to turn Osama bin Laden, who was then living there, over to U.S. authorities. Rice reasoned that because Sudan had a poor human-rights record, the U.S. should have no dealings with that nation's government -- not even to obtain custody of the al Qaeda leader or to receive intelligence information on terrorists from Sudanese authorities. Bin Laden subsequently moved his terrorist operations to Afghanistan, from where he would mastermind the 9/11 attacks.”

Rice has been back in the public eye of late with her claims that attacks on U.S. interests in Muslim-dominated countries were caused by a video no one knew existed until this administration and a compliant media made a big deal of it.

ABC News quizzed Rice about her claims.

Meanwhile, I wrote a column explaining that Obama’s request that Google review the obscure video (for possible takedown as all sane people will realize) actually subordinated the U.S. to Islam and also violated First Amendment limitations on government control of speech.

Moe Lane at Red State explained Rice’s need to make the administration look like “victims.”

Meanwhile, Bob McCarty summed things up as Obama making President Jimmy Carter “look good.”

Breitbart summed it up:

According to NBC News, the security at the Benghazi [Libya] consulate consisted of a US regional security officers and a "local militia."  This is in direct contradiction to the Obama Administration's claim that security was sufficient.

The attacks on our embassies, complete with loss of lives, constitutes a declaration of war against the U.S.

Does Rice have past, present and future blood on her hands?

There’s a bigger question for Americans, considering the attacks that led to September 11.

What comes next?

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Sept. 18, 2012)