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:
Smear for the sake of smear. Just because they're looking to be critical of the administration in whatever way they can.
The President should nominate the person best qualified for the job and submit his nomination to Congress.
What bothers me about this situation is that Susan Rice was operating on information provided by our intelligence agency - headed by Petraeus - who we now know was in the midst of an FBI investigation! Do ya think he might have been distracted a wee bit? Perhaps he didn't have his mind on those poor souls in Benghazi, but on what he was going to tell his wife and saving his own fanny!
I would like to know if his motivation for resigning was over the shame of the affair, or his realization that he took his eye off the ball and people may have died because of it.
At any rate, it is wrong to blame the messenger - for the failures of our intelligency agency.
Republicans made sure Condi Rice sled through her nomination to be Sec ofState. After all it was under her watch as National Security Advisor we got attacked on 911/ Rice, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
Let's roll the tape on Lindsey Graham on the Sunday shows protecting Bush's lies about why we went into Iraq and WMD's
Do republicans really want to use what is said on appearances on the Sunday shows to proves someones credibility. Remember Dick Cheney and the Iraq war
"Cheap and unnecessary" sounds to be right up the Republican alley!
Can we have another election?
I already miss Rachel ripping apart the GOP nominees. This serious adultery stuff just is not as fun.
Not sure why there isn't a blog dealing with Petraeus on here, since MSNBC claims to report news. Anyway, the timing of Benghazi and when Petraeus' affair was known about by the feds is troublesome. It stinks of a government coverup, held at bay until after the presidential election. Looks like President Obama's Watergate has begun....we all know what happened to President Nixon.
Exactly! And Nixon's actions didn't get 4 Americans killed.
Mike in Georgia: absolutely! I'm sure there was a coverup in the Petraeus affair and someone needs to ask Erik Cantor why he didn't say anything about it before the election because he knew all about it!!! Smells like he and the president were in cahoots! Is Cantor a secret Democrat or maybe an Israeli spy? He is Jewish after all. And with Obama being secret Muslim Socialist Marxist Communist, he just can't be trusted!!!!! And this Benghazi affair - why didn't the president himself beam himself over there to protect the American ambassador and the others? What is this country coming to?
Four dead in O-hi-o
I think we have to get past the controversy and " nip it in the bud!!" A viable candidate would be Colin Powell. He is bi-partisan, Respected, and a Man of Integrity!!!
double standard. Bush is blamed for everything, but Powell was right there with him and he was sure of wmd's in Iraq also. Dems seem to forget that though because he sides with Obama and is African American. He is their hero now. What about his role in the Iraqi run up?
Jess33, Remember Gen. Powell is going by what Intel is provided to him.
The Republicans didn't "hang Susan Rice out to dry", the administration did. I mean, I don't know where you've been or how you've isolated yourself these days but the evidence is overwhelming (you've never heard of the Daily Beast, the Associated Press, CNN, etc.?) that the intelligence community knew well within 24 hours (the frigging State Department was watching this in real time) that this was a coordinated terrorist attack (an al Qaeda affiliate was taking credit for it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING!) and not some spontaneous reaction to some stupid-assed video. a) There weren't even any protesters outside the embassy (and, hence, there couldn't have been a spontaneous reaction coming from them) and b) the fact that these crazy bastards were armed to the frigging gills with mortars, grenades, and AK-47s (none of which you generally see in protests even in the Middle East) SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT. Not to be insulting or anything, but what do you say that you put that Rhodes Scholar education of yours to work for a change? My God.
Burn in hell liberal.
The logic here is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- if the Republicans dislike her, she must be all right. The problem is that in the real world, that doesn't always hold true. Susan Rice is one of the most vicious, bloodthirsty warmongers in an administration that already has more than its fair share of them. The fact that the Republicans oppose her doesn't make her any less appalling.