Getty Images
We talked earlier about potential changes in President Obama's cabinet, and the multiple reports that he wants to nominate U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Republicans, for strikingly inane reasons, aren't impressed.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has taken the lead in criticizing Rice, making vague accusations about her comments the week of the Benghazi attack. Today, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) joined him, characterizing Rice's actions as "beyond belief."
Actually, what's beyond belief is this ridiculous smear campaign. Kevin Drum had a terrific piece on this.
The Republican freakout over Benghazi has been shameful, and their insane scapegoating of Rice's appearances on the Sunday chat shows a week after the attacks has been doubly so. Republicans -- aided and abetted at times by reports in the mainstream media -- decided to pretend that Rice had blamed the Benghazi attack entirely on a YouTube video, which they took as dark evidence of a coverup designed to protect Obama. But the truth is that Rice flatly did nothing wrong, a point that bears repeating. She did nothing wrong. [...]
Graham and the rest of the Republican caucus appear to still be in election season attack dog mode, and it's time for this to stop. They have every right to investigate Benghazi, which might very well have been handled poorly in some respects and which might have been a case of poor anticipation of an attack that should have been expected. But Rice's conduct was fine. She very carefully, and very professionally, passed along what was, at the time, the considered judgment of the intelligence community.
Before the election, this organized faux outrage at least served a purpose -- the right wanted voters to see Benghazi as a political scandal involving the White House. But with Election Day having come and gone, this feels like Republicans smearing Susan Rice just for the sake of smearing her.
It's cheap, it's unnecessary, and the White House would be wise to nominate whomever the president supports for the job, regardless of petty partisanship.
Leave a Comment:
All this outrage about administration officials being misled by the intelligence services feeding them incorrect information about the cause of the Benghazi attack. Where was the repub outrage over Bush administration officials being misled by the intelligence services in the run up to the war in Iraq, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where were you, Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, Peter King? That's right, shamelessly licking the boots of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Richard Perleman and other architects of that disaster in the Gulf. It's apparently ok for repubs to continue to assert false information years after it has been proven false, but wrong for dems to assert false information for a week until they got accurate information.
The election is over so it is time for Condoleezza Rice to get out in the Right wing media and smack down this nonsense. Misled is the wrong term. She pointed out in one interview that international affairs officials get mountains of contradictory information in real time, and it is highly ambiguous about what it means.
On that day, Susan Rice conveyed a snapshot of what the data looked like that was flowing into her office at that moment in time.
It seems to me the Right Wing has been severely sleep deprived in the run up to the election and the day after has been a binge bottom, punctuated by aftershock hallucinations of a narcoleptic fit. The election is over and perhaps it is time for them to get out their favorite comforting blankets, curl up into a fetal ball and have a long peaceful nap.
On the previous administration's watch, 47,107 Americans were killed or wounded by Islamic terrorists.
Totally agree with your comment. With almost 4,500 U.S. deaths in Iraq, and 2,100 plus deaths in Afghanistan, where is the outrage over the b.s. reasons the U.S. entered those wars? Can we at least wait until the final report is in to find out what really happened in Benghazi before pointing fingers at President Obama?
That war bought
a lot of oil and gas too, a bonanza for the Bush family business.
Not to mention the $$$ BILLION'S in Cold Hard Cash that Vanished in IRAQ, It's probably stashed in the Caymans.
The inherent racism and sexism ... they just can't help themselves.
Indeed; outrageous!
A Black? A Woman? Secretary of State? Don't make me laugh. No President of the United States should treat our sainted Constitution so shabbily!
Why, we need look no further than to Obama's predecessor to see what kind of Patriotic American should get the job!
Uhhh, head out of your ass and into a history book for a minute. Condoleezza Rice was Sec. Of State. I think she is BOTH a woman and Black. And to top it off she was appointed by a damn republican.
Do you two remember how Republicans thought women would ignore the "rape" comments, because of their obvious stupidity? But they didn't?
Welcome to the flip side. Americans begging for help were left to die as the Obama administration watched. And Susan Rice lied for her Administration for a week or more and blamed it all on an American who was practicing his First Admendment right.
While guys on Wall St that stole billions walk free, thanks to the very same administration.
And you people think this is just partisan politics? It may be news to you, but a lot of people get upset by this kind of thing. It's real. People died. It was a lot more than feelings being hurt. And the coverup continues.
Shooter, you are such an obvious troll. Where was all of your outrage at the administration when thousands of Americans were killed on 9-11? And, the republican party would have jailed the guys on Wall St who caused the recession? Don't be such an idiot.
Day, your snark duped another newbie.
@NeedMoreCoffee:
Remember, back in school, when "Reading Comprehension" was graded?
(I figured my SnarkOmeter was not needed on that comment!)
SHOOTER, Where you pissed off when Reagan put the MARINES in BEIRUIT and they weren't allowed to have Loaded weapon's ? Had to ask for Permission to shoot back? I had good friend's over there and served with alot of Marines that where there. Research that, How many Embassy's where attacked under Pres. Bush? Pick and choose your outrage.
In the words of Ann Roimney: "Stop it!"
Our dear Queen Ann, wonder what she's up to these days....probably shopping at Costco's for her man.
This is a genuine question: What would be the advantage to the Obama administration of covering up a terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi by claiming that the attack was caused by a protest instead? Setting aside the issue of security at the consulate, is it that a protest caused by the video could not have been foreseen so there was no way that the administration could have prevented the attack, whereas the administration should have been able to foresee and therefore prevent a terrorist attack?
I just don't see why the Republicans are making such a fuss about the response and the roll-out by the administration of information as it became available. (OR maybe I'm thinking too much into this and it is just a matter of Republicans creating a kerfuffle out of nothing because everything Obama does is objectionable to them.)
I think it is that simple & won't end well for them. King writes sordid novels & Cantor is somehow involved & the main player a possible Repub candidate in 2016.
You answered your own question. If the administration knew that these were Al'Qaeda members or members of other terrorist organizations and that this was an organized attack then that would mean, legally speaking, they would have the authority to begin dropping bombs or sending in special forces or this or that. But if the administration thought these were civilians who were protesting who had gotten out of hand- protest turned to a riot- then the administration would only be able to rely on local resources or resources who had permission from the local government to be there (not US soldiers, not US drones). The actions the administration took support the narrative that the administration thought these were civilians who had began rioting and had gotten out of control. The cables that Republicans keep pointing to pretending that they show evidence of a terrorist attack in fact never mention terrorism or Al'Qaeda. They simply say that the consulate had been attacked and many of the cables emphasize that there were protesters storming the building. This would all suggest civilians engaging in violent acts. As bad as that might be the US is not permitted to bomb a place just because people have riots even IF US civilians are killed. That's not the way international law works, that's not the way the ROE in the military works, that's not the way terrorism works.
By ignoring the confusion factor Republicans are attempting to paint this as the administration had pre-emptive knowledge that the attack would happen, yet failed to act, and that the administration then tried to cover it up by blaming some random video on YouTube and pretending like protests took place to create confusion when in reality no protests happened. Except we know that protests did happen- in over 20 countries around the world- and we know that multiple US buildings were attacked as the result of protests turned into riot (the first building to be attacked was the embassy in Cairo which was stormed by CIVILIANS within hours of the video airing on Egyptian television). And we have zero evidence saying that the administration knew it was a premeditated act as opposed to a spontaneous one. And as long as that remains the case you cannot make the conclusion of the Republican narrative.
So why are Republicans pushing it? Quite honestly I think Republicans are trying to blame Obama for everything Bush did. They blame Obama for the debt even though most of it comes from the Bush Administration. They blame Obama for the recession even though the recession started under Bush. They blame Obama for the wars even though Bush started them. They blame Obama for dividing our country even though Bush is considered to be the most divicive president we've ever had. They say Obama is the worst president we've ever had even though Bush comes the closest to taking that title out of modern presidents. The list just goes on and on. I think they want to project the failures of the administration to keep us safe on 9/11 onto this current administration as part of their re-writing of history. A lot of bloggers here who are Republicans will constantly emphasize that in reality they think the Bush Administration was great and that Obama's presidency will prove Bush was in actuality a great president. I think they are subconsciously trying to make this happen.
*divisive
not divicive
I should also mention that I do think this is subconscious- I don't think this is some evil, Dr. Evil style plot. I do think this is something Republicans are doing without realizing that their true motivator is projection. In fact I am certain that Republicans will insist to you left and right that they're the ones telling the truth despite the lack of evidence to support their narrative. And that suggest to me it's either cognitive dissonance and or crazy retro-active projection. Or just partisan stupidity. Heh that can always be the case too.
I agree that the case against Rice based on the post Benghazi press interviews is flimsy - but it's also a little lopsided that the administration is sooooooo determined to advance Susan Rice at all costs. What's up with that?? John Kerry has done everything for Obama from the convention speech and ever since - and he's immensely qualified - geez, what does a guy have to do????
Maybe Kerry doesn't want the job.
The baselessness of the charges is neither here nor there. One could say the same of Whitewater for the Clintons (my grandparents lost money on land in that same area, a pitifully small lot in a retirement development).
The Sociopathic Right (as opposed to the Reasonable Right) doesn't need a basis for their actions. They just need a flag to wave. They'll trump up the basis. They like it better that way. Whole fictions are easier to control than things that actually have potentially uncontrollable factors that could either be a black eye or a feather in the cap to their agendas.
What they need is a nearly-wholly-hidden issue that can be molded and remolded like Jello. The birth certificate was that. Whitewater was that, so that it could morph to include Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, anything et. al.
The GOP is already a post-rational party of anti-reality-bubble-creating authoritarian relativists.
This woman, Ambassador Rice, is just the latest ascendant to the role of Right-Wing Boogey (Wo)Man, right up there with Eric Holder and Obama himself.
So long as she is in the running for Secy of State, Benghazi Conspiracy-mongering remains a Fox News incessant talking point. It's fine to continue to back her in that role, but in the GOP chess game, you basically are playing directly into their hands, giving them what they want. Insert quarter and watch the Machiavellian hate-machine run.
So they're drooling. Yes, Ambassador Rice! Nominate her! Stick to your guns, Obama! Underestimate us because we lost the election so totally!
Among rational people, it might be assumed they'd abandon a stupid issue once it is shown to be baseless. But we aren't dealing with rational people. They'll sink their teeth in, invoke Newt Gingrich, and run it into the ground, and then beyond.
OTOH, karma is catching up to them. The election is a case in point. People are starting to see thru the BS of the silly logic of their noise machine. Question is, will that karma catch up in time to save Ambassador Rice?
It seemed to drive some of the Righties nuts that Benghazi wasn't the undoing of the President resulting in Obama not getting reelected.
Some have speculated Benghazi will be Obamas Monica.
Heres the thing, Benghazi is in that part of the world, what do you expect?
Another thing is, those weren't Embassy Security Personnel killed, they were CIA Spooks.
So couldn't a bit of the confusion in what was being released to the public have something to do with trying to cover the fact the U.S. was building a CIA SpookNet in Libya?
Except for the political hay thats going to be made of Benghazi what's the point of these hearings? To destroy our covert ops and spy networks?
.
Obama's Katrina, Obama's Watergate, Obama's Monica...
The right desperately wants Obama as dirty as themselves. They want a reason, any reason to impeach him. And they've torn up heaven and hell to find something, anything.
Problem is, he doesn't hurt America as bad as they do and the image in their mirror is getting uglier because they just aren't winning this one.
When did military intelligence become a reality show for the right. What makes them think they are entitled to top secret information in real time. They put good people in harms way with their bs and should be called on it. This is military-f-ing-intelligence not a freaking video game.
You are getting between the fanatic fringe and their new impeacment drive! By the way do you guys have the latest count on how many times the right winged loons have called Benghazi "Watergate"?
Sorry, Paul. I duplicated your excellent post.
Uh,great minds think alike?(lord it's hard to be humble when..)
It's stunning to me to see how conservatives eagerly voted for Bush again even after 9/11, and didn't have "boo" to say about Condoleeza Rice being promoted to Sec. of State, even though 9/11 happened on her watch when she was National Security Advisor, and we will never know what the Bush administration knew and when they knew it because of their determined stonewalling. Now, "the base" is even looking forward to her running for president in 2016! Yet, they get out the pitchforks and torches for Susan Rice -- who has served admirably without blemish. To say I'm sick of the relentless frothing-at-the-mouth emanating from conservatives is to not put too fine a point on things.
The Bush administration had full knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen. We were all warned and they deliberately ignored it. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
Oh, but wait....there were no domestic attacks on us. Duh, I'm so stupid, I must've forgot. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/01/08/76473/terrorist-attacks-bush/
And then to add insult to injury, they literally pulled "weapons of mass destruction" out of their asses and started a second war. AND....
Let's not forget the 64 - SIXTY-FOUR attacks on American diplomatic targets during his tenure. Which were never once scrutinized as closely as Benghazi. In fact, those attacks occurred and nary an eyelash blinked. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney
The hypocrisy is utterly astounding.
If an event happens you come right out and say what you know. Unfortunately, this may cause you to be considered a liar since other info might come out later which contradicts what you have already said...but you had no way of knowing the newer info back when you gave the original remarks so is that 1st info piece really a lie?
If you wait for all investigations to be completed, you are being comprehensive but also deemed as uncaring and/or unresponsive because nothing is being divulged to the public immediately.
So you wait and give correct info while being called unresponsive and uncaring
OR you give info as it comes out and be called a liar due to the newer info you get.
Option 1 - Obama should nominate whoever he really wants in the job.
Option 2 - Obama should look for a republican senator from a predominantly blue state that would have a special election to replace him/her. Then, Obama should go all out to get a democratic senator elected to that seat. Then, after the new democratic senator has been elected, Obama should fire the republican and nominate who he wants to the job.
From Lindsay Graham to Eric Cantor to every other Republican in office - they just wouldn't be Republicans if they didn't have a a couple of boogie men or women to chase around and harass! -Kevo
And it's far more wasteful of tax-payer dollars than like, actually working on serious issues.
You get what you vote for.
Folks, you are all missing the point, as the loony right sees it. "Benghazi" has replaced "birth certificate" as the preferred way to attack Obama. In a month or two they will seize on something else equally irrelevant to go after Obama with.
The fact that the attacks were inspired by the video was reported immediately by international media who were told this by the attackers themselves. Unless the conspiracy theory is that the CIA was smart enough to control the media but stupid enough to let the attacks occur, anyone touting such idiocy should be ignored for their own ignorance of information known from 9/12 on.
Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S.
Published: September 12, 2012
Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year's uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.
Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video's insults. Some recalled an earlier episode when protesters in Benghazi had burned down the Italian consulate after an Italian minister had worn a T-shirt emblazoned with cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Ten people were reportedly killed in clashes with Colonel Qaddafi's police force. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?ref=daviddkirkpatrick&pagewanted=all
It's funny how the perpertraitors of that movie are forgotten in this mad race to bag a president.
Its never occurred to Obama's detractors that the attack was inspired by the video protest in Cairo which the perpetrators were watching themselves on television before launching a sympathy assault of their own in Benghazi, as well as being an act of extremism (terror) at the same time. Those inside the compound would have no idea of the motivations of their attackers, but were correct that it was well coordinated since it entailed seasoned militia members fresh from their battles against Qaddafi. But the evidence shows that the attacks were indeed in protest of the video if the word of the attackers themselves is to be believed. When do extremists hide their true motivations from publication? Pretty much never. They want people to know why and what they did.
I surport the president on who he wants to help move this country forward period!
Republicans still think the Benghazi attack was about a Consulate. The key phrase in the story has always been "CIA Annex". That was clearly the target and the consulate merely the ruse. We can only speculate what was compromised there since it would logically be classified and everyone in the Administration would have to tip toe around to avoid disclosing classified information and stick with the facade created for public consumption. Its like the GOP forgot how "National Security" works.
If republicans could not stomach Condi Rice who was one of their own just because she was black, I am not surprised that they are having a hard time even considering the possibility that another black woman would head the dept of state.
Unfortunately, Benghazi will not go away. Like Monica Lewinski, the Republicans will jump on this to try to keep the president's focus away from doing anything constructive. We will soon hear calls for President Obama's impeachment. In my opinion, anyone who makes such a call should be tried for treason.
Too true! Benghazi is the new Lewinsky. Same tactics nearly two decades later. But they always were against change, right?
Lewinsky and Benhgazi are absolutely incomparable. If I remember correctly, and I do, no deaths were associated with the staining of the Blue Dress.
Now Linda Tripp being compared to the movie makers, that isn't nearly a stretch.
You're right, they aren't comparable at all substantively. But they are comparable in that one was used as evidence to impeach the president, and the other will be used as evidence to impeach the president.
If I remember right there was a suicide related to Whitewater that the right used to look into Whitewater. The rumor was Clinton had the man murdered and make it look like a suicide so Clinton was involved in a cover up of his illegal activities.
I get nostalgic sometimes, thinking back to the good old days, when almost everyone came together to support whomever was elected as our president once the election was over. We actually enjoyed a reprieve from all the political posturing for awhile, and individuals in congress were more concerned about the nation's REAL problems than they were about their political careers. Under the leadership of some very able statesmen (we don't have any of them these days, or so it seems), members of both parties compromised to find the solutions to our problems. This nonsense of a non-stop witch hunt to destroy this presidency has got to stop, or the country is going to suffer. Get over it republicans, a MAJORITY of Americans voted for Obama to be the nation's president. Now work with him to move the country forward.
Benghazi! Benghazi! is all they have to paint Obama's foreign policy as "unAmerican". That's all. Embassy attacks, while tragic, are not new. Let's recap...
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan- Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan - Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan - Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan - Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria - Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece - A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey - Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen - Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen - Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
These all happened under the Bush Administration. Where was the Repub outrage? Where were the calls for investigations? Where were the incessant time-lines and news coverage on Fox?
Where were the calls for Bush impeachment?
Did Bush try to cover it up and spin it until after an election was over? Did Bush refuse protection to those that were attacked when asked repeatedly to do so?All of our foreign diplomats are in harms way, but when the compound had been attacked before and the acting diplomat had requested more protection and they were refused, someone needs to be held accountable for refusing. If it was a complete surprise, that would be different, but it wasn't a surprise.
Jess33 Then why in the living crap wasn't Reagan charged or held accountable for putting Marines in harm's way, Beiruit, and they Couldn't have magazines in there Wpn's, they had to request Permission to fire back, The day the barrack's was blown up the Sentry's DID NOT have loaded wpn's, What the heck do you have to say about that??? How many Embassy's where attacked during Pres. Bush's time?? That was OK? Selective outrage at it's finest, Yes Benghazi is a sad situation, But WE do not know all the Fact's.
This issue should have already been settled with the release of this CIA report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
Nevertheless, the response from the Obama administration should have been simple: Ambassador Rice was simply reflecting the latest intelligence available, but always cited the ongoing FBI investigation as the future source for definitive answers. Rice even said to the U.N. "We do not have the evidence to support this being a preplanned attack". The keyword being "evidence". The Republicans seemed to suggest that Ambassador Rice would have done better to speculate on whether or not the attack was preplanned based on a gut feeling rather than intelligence.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, did the GOP block any new funding for Embassy security?
I believe you are correct, TO
Republicans Always Lie got it right..just look at that list and not a peep out of the republicans at the time. And Condeleeza Rice - they think she is so ready to be President...what a joke that would be with another Bushie in the WH. They are a bunch of liars and will say anything, as we have all learned over time. Let's have the investigations first and then start the critiquing. They just can't stand the fact that Barack Obama was re-elected in spite of their best efforts and are trying to create some kind of straw dog.
Oh isn't it FUNNY (peculiar, not ha ha) that the new 'boogie people' for the GOP to attack is a black minority woman (Susan Rice) and a black man attorney (Eric Holder). I guess the 'new' we need to explain to minorities how we THINK is done huh?
For the record, 11 embassy attacks during the Bush administration, resulting in 54 deaths, 90 injuries, the most in history. The difference is, the Dems didn't pounce on them for political reasons. Imagine what they'd say if O allowed 3 jetliners to be hijacked, 2 of them take down the WTC on his watch...
yeah and sick willy let obl getaway, twice!