and campaigning for President of four years and ten weeks ago...

DAY-3905329 - agree except McCain comes no where near the amplitude of Lear. But unlike most Republicans, he wears his bitterness on his face.

McCain's family needs to get him to a Neurologist ASAP!!

The poor man is facing old age dementia. We'll all be there someday, so give him some pity.

We just discovered that he can't handle the truth.

My family , political party , and the msm will not allow me to go on tv when I get old age dementia , there are people who can pull the plug , who are instead handing him a microphone , and good luck figuring out what is actual dementia , and what is just plain gop policy

I will just assume mcnut will go onto his next media gig , and will not be called out for this , can we at least get him on soledad o'briens show so we can all witness an exorcism on tv live?

"and good luck figuring out what is actual dementia , and what is just plain gop policy"

classic!

Just a bitter old white-haired man. Losing his relevance and sees it slipping away. He want's world power, like Rupert Murcock, but he's becoming irellevant and there's nothing he can do about it. Blue Ribbon Committee, hmmmph. Another waste of Grover's money. I wonder if he asked Grover first. Seems they are on the same bus. He John, time for you to inspect the household help. Help your wife out, will ya?

Next thing ya know, he'll be talking to empty chairs.

For a while, every time McCain spouted his ridiculous, partisan nonsense, it hurt me a little. It hurt because I actually fell for his act for a time. I supported him, up until he picked Palin as a running mate and it became painfully apparent that the reasonable, bipartisan, elder statesman act was just that all along: an act, and one born out of contempt and bitterness. I'm getting pretty jaded to him now, though. It's actually easier because he is on tv every five minutes to help reinforce it.

We have two committee's investigating what happened in Benghazi and trust from those reports we will find out how to prevent this tragedy from happening again and allow the families to grieve.

But there were hundreds of deaths this year in military attacks. Is the GOP going to create committees for those families to get closure also?

McCain is just an old man that knows he will never win that war he's been fighting for the last 40 years. He's not going to win in Iran, he's not going to win in Egypt or Libya. And I would imagine he is very bitter about it.

Never fear, when he retires, Sarah Palin has bought a house in his district in AZ, when he retires, she will probably run for his seat. haha

Imagine the thought for McCain:

President Barack Obama

Attorney General Eric Holder

Secretary of State Susan Rice

Perhaps a bit too much color at the top for McCain to handle.

Not just color. Think of the education. These are highly intelligent people. McCain graduated at the bottom of his class and had to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate so that he could get someone more ignorant than himself.

The "war hero" hype is also suspect. Let's not forget he cheated on his crippled wife and dumped her for a young chick who had lots of money. I am so ashamed. Two of his new lackeys are women. What are they thinking??

Don't forgot the five planes he lost and the animosity he generated when his dad got him a job as a pilot.

He's chasing ghosts, he just wants to be back in the limelight, he is the villain in the story. They run out of things to do so, they create drama and chaos. He actually thinks he's a star in a daytime soap opera. He needs a reality check. His work is finished here on Earth, unless he does a complete turnaround, he should resign before he's impeached.

And several destroyed planes, if I remember correctly. At times I could almost pity him, except for the party he aligns himself with AND the horrible way he dumped his wife who waited for him, and who became disabled/disfigured because of a car accident. What a slap in the face to waste your love and loyalty on such a man and having him cheat on you and dump you for a younger and richer "model".

The only reason he got into the naval academy was because of daddy and grandpa (both were admirals). He talks about ambassador Rice not being smart... He graduated 894 out of 899 in his class!!!!!!!!!! He had a reputation as a party animal while going through flight training in Pensacola, fl... He was seen as a sub-par flier who was careless and wreckless... He crashed two aircrafts and on a third one he must've had a bad hangover cause he collided with power lines... Probably thought he was landing on a carrier at sea and dropped his hook.....a few years after he came back from vietnam he became a commanding officer in a training squadron in florida...On General Patreaus and his affair, he did not want to go there on the tv shows... Even when he was asked he could have confirmed or denied, which he later did confirm the talking points were accurate, he still didn't want to scrutinize the affair or his role in the benagaz issue.. McCain was adamant about going after someone higher, ambassador rice, Secretary of State Clinton and the president.. Here Petraeus is the director if the CIA!! Who better than to get what was decided to let the public know of the Bengazi tragedy.... But as they say "birds of a feather fly together"....Not because of their military service but McCain also had several skeletons in his closet....Turns out he had extra maritalaffairs when he was the commanding officer of a flight training squadron in florida... In 1979 while living in arizona he had another affair with a teacher whose father founded a large beer distrubitorship.. He finally asked his disabled wife for a divorce which took effect in April 1980.. The ink hadn't even dried when he married the teacher in May 1980....Some family man... His own children refused to attend his wedding......I don't know if he got caught off guard, but the teacher was smart enough or knew enough about his affairs that she got a prenuptual agreement... She kept her family assets in her name and filed yearly separate income tax returns...Here's another good one... Guess who was a groomsman at his second wedding??? Gary Hart... Remember him!!! Yes, the one and only, who ran for President but dropped out when he was caught an extra marital affair with Donna Rice... Like I said, "birds of a feather fly together"......

you can google it WIKIPEDIA JOHN MCCAIN

s

I don't dismiss this as the rambling a of a senile, bitter old man rather I think he is being used as a GOP attack dog, spewing charges, no matter how incoherent to those who don't get their "information" from Faux News. To the Faux News viewers he's a credible person bringing up relevant questions about the incident. They make no sense to us, but to them these are important concerns - and it's working. There seems to be more outrage on the right over this than 9/11/2001.

I think he knows there's nothing to this story, he's just being a good republican soldier and keeping the hype going on fox - they need something negative to say about the administration.

Brewer hit it. McCain is just the face of this topic, backed by the encouragement of Republican cohorts and the conservative media alike, working the issue to keep anger burning in the hearts of the conservative masses.

Those in my family who are ardent Fox watchers are following this story, convinced by this empty diatribe that the Administration has done something underhanded.

But while they've watch Fox, I've watched them. They've been waiting for YEARS to finally be able to point to something with trembling finger and say, "see, we told you so!" Acknowledging Ms. Rice's answers or any debunking of rumors will only snatch away yet another opportunity to "prove" this president is as bad as they've been made to believe.

I agree with both of you, Brewer and Coffee. I believe McCain is less a doddering old fool than a pawn, willing to die on his sword for some perceived greater glory. It's a GOP scheme to try to sully the people on the side that just handed them their lunches in the recent election. And he's playing to an audience who are smarting from the loss and hoping that a hero would emerge to "even the score." Where are the grown-ups in that party?

On MSNBC's "Jansen & Co." this morning, John Barrasso (R), senator from Wyoming did say very definitely that if John Kerry was nominated for the Secretary of State position, he would get overwhelming approval, and that makes me think that Rachel's theory last night concerning Ambassador Rice, John Kerry and a potential senate seat opening due to an appointment may not be far off from what is going on.

Yup, Eileen. In addition to what you've written, I watched the "exit interview" of McCain, Graham and Ayotte following their meeting with Susan Rice and Michael Morell. It's clear that they don't have any lingering, unanswered questions but are dragging this out for effect. Watch the body language and their wording.

I once worked for a judge, who explained that you should listen to the wording of various witnesses when evaluating testimony. If they each independently, and without hearing each other's testimony, repeat a particular phrase ("I'm more troubled than ever. . . ."), it means that the answer is rehearsed. It's not spontaneous and therefore not real. Fie on them!

"I agree with both of you, Brewer and Coffee." They must be working together (badda bing!)

They are indeed correct. It is obviously a coordinated exercise in fake outrage and delays and obstruction. Who can doubt it with this GOP?

Besides....McCain may be old, but what's Graham's & what's-her-name's excuse?

Rachel is right and you are all right. This is clearly a rehearsed manipulation geared to diverting people away from the shellacking Republicans got and hopefully will continue to get. Democratic principles are rising. Real small businesses are starting to speak out. Stay strong sisters and let your voices be heard

Agreed. As soon as Romney started his "comments" on Benghazi, I was appalled that he would insert himself into a developing foreign policy tragedy. He should have simply expressed his sadness at the loss of lives and then supported the US in its efforts to find and punish the perpetrators. And don't get me started on McCain, he's an old fool who should have been put out to pasture after his loss in 2008.

What? You mean national intelligence isn't a reality show?

Heck, I'm surprised he actually attended the meeting with Rice.

There was probably a security briefing he needed to forget to attend.

He seems to have changed his stance on that subject. Now he is perfectly willing to torture the rest of us with this crap!

McCain and reality parted ways some time ago.

Those were some great replies; thanks.

Next week: McCain Screams at Neighborhood Kids to Get Off His Lawn.

Field Of Screams: The John McCain Story

I actually did buy into it, silly me. I thought better of him when he refused to be a birther and when he called out the tea party on the Muslim Brotherhood fiasco, but now he's just gone crazy.

It was either Benghazi or McCain wailing on about a Sandy cover-up where our E-Vil Mooslim Socialist president rode to victory on waves of hurricane relief money.

Saw Ayote's comments this morning, and she looked like someone who was being forced to say something that she did not believe. HEr voice inflection and eyes were indicative of someone who did not believe what she was saying. Almost as if she was under duress. At this point I see her just following blindly. If you listen, her comments were exactly the same as Graham's only she used teh "troubled" not "disturbed." These remarks were obviously planned and somewhat rehearsed. These three are quickly fading into radio static of the larger problem. This is clearly a distraction technique to divert attention away from the budget issues that the repubs are going to have to take a big bite of s"p"it over. MEdia ignore this nonsense. This is a classic example of negative reinforcement. The more attention we give negative behavior, the worse it gets. Move on.

....Kerry still may well get the Sec of Defense nod so this smear of Rice is somewhat ridiculous. I love how Rachel always seems to have the big picture view. It really helps up the deception at work and expose the real intentions. Again, the repubs are thinking that the public is not informed enough to know what is going and Cheers to Andrea Mitchell for dropping it in Ayote's lap. I could see her say to herself "Oh Crap, they know!"- Of course not, the notion is absurd.

Why not be honest about it. At least maybe some people would try to understand why they are trying to blamelessly destroy the career of a very successful black woman (who for the record - has done nothing wrong) for the underlying benefit of a white man. Again the realities of the world are really biting them in the biscuits. I would love to see Obama get the Rice nod and appoint "someone else to the Sec of Def position (which I believe was his plan from the get go) just to thumb his nose at the repub efforts to sack Rice.

Wouldn't it be great if Kerry's Senate seat did become open, Scott Brown would run again; the Koch Brothers, Rove, etc. would spend many more millions and he would lose AGAIN. Luv it!!!

Lookie here, everybody. Ol' Butthurt John shows up and thinks he's on Fox.

(Psst, psst. Hey John, I got the scoop: the White House was covering up the fact they watched the raid on TV and didn't give any aid to keep the ambassadors from their fate. Then because their narrative for the election of al Qaeda being "decimated" was being challenged, they made out like it happened because of the video and only because of extremist factions in Libya (which happens to be part of the story). They had to have Rice say the things she did for the election.)

Does that make you happy, you stupid jackass? Or equivalently, are you too stupid, and your brain only works to confirm partisan stories, to accept the messy reality?

This post doesn't make sense at all. These statements here are just as incoherent as McPain's. There is a judgement being passed here that information was given falsely and there was conspiracy to deceive. Check it: There is a difference between information that is incomplete and that which is intended to deceive. Sure preliminary information may have been inaccurate. Because it was too early in the fact gathering process. As time passes, more details will surface. As for classified information, you really don't expect the ambassador to the UN, The CIA and the FBI to reveal highly sensitive details on the evening news do you? It's apparent the the intel teams realized that was in the report could have compromised the investigation. IT is also apparent that sometimes misinformation works in the favor of the general public. How do you think we won D-day in WWII. Misinformation caused our enemies to do something that wasn't smart which we ended up exploiting. Would you go to the press and report that a fugitive that has been on the run for years, you know his exact whereabouts and that you are coming to get him this afternoon at 2pm? Of course not.You would keep it quiet and even say you have no idea where he is, even though you do know where he is. Just because they don't like the facts does not make them any less true.

These details are enough to boil down into some foregone conclusion that our administration has finally gotten caught at committing Some Bad Act?

C'mon folks, just forget the wingnut. He's irrelevant. All that stuff has already been argued ad infinitum. Use the opportunity to make fun of our wingnut buffoon friends. It's all they understand. They will NEVER accept reality. They can't. If you hadn't learned this from the 16 years since Clinton became President till 2008, the wingnut behavior during Obama's first term should have taught you that.

Again, the only response for a recalcitrant wingnut is mockery. Anything else, and 1) you're wasting your time, and 2) missing an opportunity for fun.

NeedMoreCoffee, you changed your post. Here is my response to what was in your original post.

Please enlighten us. Why is it suspicious that a representative speaks on a topic they weren't directly involved in? (don't our news media do that every single day?)

So, it is okay for the President Administration to do it because others do it? No. It doesn't make sense. Even the liberal journalist Maureen Dowd said Rice should have realize there was a reason the political saavy Hillary Clinton wasn't going on the talk shows.

Why is it suspicious that in the interest of national security, the talking points were changed by the agency (that agency who said they changed the talking points)?

It was not in the interest of national security that Al Qaeda was taken out, it was, as I understand the many explanations because the connection was not certain. And the "agency who said they changed the talking points" said yesterday it was the FBI then later in the day said, not it was the CIA.

What makes these two details boil down into some foregone conclusion that our administration has finally committed A Bad Act?

The Rice controversy is of little consequence but goes to a larger issue around the administration. Like, did President Obama know that there had been previous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi (I would think he should)? What did the administration do in regards to those attacks? Simple questions, should have simple answers.

Again, the only response for a recalcitrant wingnut is mockery.

This is the only response you can mount. You refuse to discuss facts.

Hahahahahahahaha..., an irrelevant butthurt wingnut desperate for relevance just dirtied his diaper.

Hahahahaha...an inmature time waster can only think up simple minded response to factual posts.

Getting close to nappy time.

Its not what did the administration do, its what did congress do. The Republican led Congress cut the budget for security and resources to embassies and consultants by $300 million. Remember that? Or does that fact escape your mind as well, because you don't like it. You will get push back at every turn "to the teeth" over this. Face it, nothing here, incoherent nonsensical rhetoric. Unless you watch Faux News.

Sour grapes I tell ya'....

Boy, that Tom Ricks....

Hahahahahaha...

If we wanted to hear what Fox news had to say we would change the channel. We don't. that's why we come here. You are just repeating old Fox garbage and we've heard it all before. Don't expect us to stroke you until you come up with something original that hasn't already been debunked. By the way, one of the guys killed was my neighbor.

The Republican led Congress cut the budget for security and resources to embassies and consultants by $300 million. Remember that?

Certainly. I also remember from the State Department official who made the decision about security at Benghazi that budget constraints were NOT a consideration. They had resources. Here's the quote and a link to the video (Part II at the 24:38 mark) so you can watch it yourself and can't say I'm making it up or repeating talking points.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) asked: You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

Ms. Lamb, Deputy Assistent Secretary, US State Department responded: No, sir...

As to the Fox News comment. Yes, I watch Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. I'm not repeating talking points, I'm offering facts and sources.

Don't expect us to stroke you until you come up with something original that hasn't already been debunked.

Jane, please debunk my comments. Stand up for what you say.

So it is perfectly OK for Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice to LIE about WMD for George Bush, yet the GOP is making such a huge issue out of this. A helluva lot more people died as a result of the "misinformation" given us by the Bush administration that what Susan Rice said. They know there is a problem with embassy/consulate security and they will fix it. This is nothing more than yet another attempt to discredit the Obama administration because the GOP lost the election. Instead of harping on this issue, try concentrating on the one the American people want you to work on - FIXING the nation's economy, which the GOP in Congress don't have the stones to do. There's a lot more pressing problems than this witch hunt.

This is nothing more than yet another attempt to discredit the Obama administration because the GOP lost the election.

This happened and all started before the election. Sounds like one of those talking points everyone harps on me about.

Lookie here, everybody. Ol' Butthurt John shows up again and thinks he's on Fox.

(Psst, psst. Hey John, I got the scoop: the White House was covering up the fact they watched the raid on TV and didn't give any aid to keep the ambassadors from their fate. Then because their narrative for the election of al Qaeda being "decimated" was being challenged, they made out like it happened because of the video and only because of extremist factions in Libya (which happens to be part of the story). They had to have Rice say the things she did for the election.)

Does that make you happy, you stupid jackass? Or equivalently, are you too stupid, and your brain only works to confirm partisan stories, to accept the messy reality?

Or equivalently, are you too stupid, and your brain only works to confirm partisan stories, to accept the messy reality?

Oh, the FACT that the acting CIA director said at one point yesterday that the FBI removed the al Qaeda reference in the talking point but then later said it was actually the CIA is partisan? Address the facts instead of making stupid accusations.

Don't forget to change your Man-Pamper before your medication and nappy!

Ok how is this: The investigators realizing that they may have compromised their investigation by divulging too much sensitive data recommended that the talking points should be changed. A field agent or CIA operative suggested the change Higher ups agreed and the changes were made. Likely CIA and FBI have different sources and the report of a specific piece of data could have been harmful. Does it really matter who the person was? How about this, maybe we don't need to know who changed the talking points. The Intel community said that talking points needed to be changed. Changes in information happen all the time in ongoing investigations. Get over it. Nothing here.

You're wasting your time.

buzkillerer, you are not curious what the administration did in response to prior attacks on the US consulate? You don't think the parents of those who did deserve some answer to what was done with requests for more security? Do you understand that even if there is sensitive information not avaible for public distribution that our government has a checks and balance so there are those with security clearance in Congress that should be informed?

Oh, well...

You're wasting your time.

Seems like you are not heeding your own advice. Hmmm....

I'm talking to the reasonable people, dumba$$, telling them that there is absolutely no point in discussing something with a reality-denying idiot like the clown RobDon.

Yes, RobDon, we are VERY curious about the ACTUAL shortcomings that may have led to the security breach at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The attacks on Susan Rice are a DISTRACTION from the investigations that are already ongoing.

Let's be real for a minute here. Rice was chosen for the media talks on Sept 16 as a test-run and/or to raise her profile prior to nominating her to succeed Clinton. She did the job well, sticking to the talking points, which is what anybody in that position is supposed to do.

McCain, et al, don't want her nominated (let alone confirmed) for SecState, so they are smearing her based on the talking points of Sept 16. Not because she was involved in the security arrangements for Benghazi. Not because she did anything wrong. But simply because that's all the ammunition they have.

@ Robdon- Both the house and Senate were given briefings in advance of of Rice speaking to the attacks in Benghazi. As far as the I am concerned: THEY WERE INFORMED. I am fairly certain that both House and Senate knew about the previous attacks as well. I do not hear anything about how the repubs recommended that any specific actions be taken. Why did they wait until now to raise these issues? They knew what Rice would say almost verbatim. After the election, now all of a sudden there is this big conspiracy by the Obama administration to cover up information about Benghazi. Seems too politically motivated to carry much weight. As for being curious about what is going on, well not really because I feel that given the circumstances things are being reported/retracted as they are discovered. I believe that the administration is being as honest as it can be at this juncture. I just think that short of some sort of admission of wrong doing, McCain, Graham, and Ayote will not be satisfied with any meaningful explanation. Also I think it is pretty telling how many repubs think these three are out of line. Think about it. Not everything in Washington is a conspiracy; yet Fox news perpetuates this fear and evil nature to its viewers. I truly believe that the administration and the Intel communities are doing due diligence on this investigation and we need to let them do it and stop putting up road blocks. This is the sort of thing that bogs down our government and its only purpose is to obstruct and score political points. I am actually disgusted that these three are trying to politicize the deaths of these four patriots. And you should be too.

What does it matter who "changed the talking points"?? What matters is what happened (hard to know, certainty impossible, credible interpretation only possible with the passage of time and gain of more info), how (if not why), whether it could have reasonably been avoided, and what we're doing to ensure it doesn't happen again (tough to do without certainty).

Why are we still listening and/or caring? Even more than pre-election, it seems that we Dems are in an endless loop of Call and Response with Faux Noise. I for one am weary of it. We have lots to say that isn't just reaction to the latest RWNJ fantasy.

Rachel set up a proper response when she showed how the MSM Sunday Shows continue to schedule John ("Hell, yes, I'm bitter!) McCain far in excess of his expertise and relevance. Can we get on to better things? We are in danger of falling into the same pattern as we did after the 2008 election, which set up the 2010 shellacking.

2014 is key, folks. Let's be active, not re-active.

You want to know who's to blame for bad information being released RobDon? John McCain and Mitt Romney and their cabal.

Intelligence gathering in a hostile environment is a tricky and delicate business. It's like a souffle, rush it or bang the table near it and it collapses. McCranky Pants and Mittens wouldn't shut the eff up about it so the intelligence community gathered what they knew AT THE TIME and released it. Imagine the collective surprise when rushed intel turned out to have flaws.

Worse, possible informants in Libya probably shut the hell up when they realized the information they had ... which may be able to be traced back to them ... could end up on CNN because a few politicians are desperate to appear relevant. If I was a Libyan and I had information that might help the US sort out the madness, do you think I'm going to risk my life by handing it over to people who can't shut up around cameras regarding the intel they are getting? You think only Americans watch US news shows?

You want to truly get at the truth RobDon? Write to McCain, Graham and Ayotte and tell them to shut their pie-holes.

And the parents of at least one of those killed just want this crap to stop. As does his wife.

And the parents of at least one of those killed just want this crap to stop. As does his wife.

And so they want it to stop, the other parents don't matter, huh?

McCranky Pants and Mittens wouldn't shut the eff up about it so the intelligence community gathered what they knew AT THE TIME and released it.

Intelligence happens BEFORE the event. Evidence gathering happens after the event. Intelligence is meant to be acted on, the administration failed to do that. So you are saying Ms. Rice misstatements were Romney's fault? Wow.

I am fairly certain that both House and Senate knew about the previous attacks as well. I do not hear anything about how the repubs recommended that any specific actions be taken. Why did they wait until now to raise these issues?

Congress does not make decisions about security detail at US consulates, the State Department does.

No. You're purposefully misreading what I wrote. The intelligence ... which you've decided we should be calling evidence now ... was hastily gathered to please and placate the GOP presidential campaign. As I said, intelligence/evidence gathering which is rushed is bound to have flaws. Your team demanded to know what was known at the time and now is trying to excoriate the person who delivered the message.

The intelligence...was hastily gathered to please and placate the GOP presidential campaign.

So, you are saying, that instead of doing a thorough job as circumstances would dictate, the Obama Administration did a half-ass job ("hastily gathered") because of pressure applied by the GOP? And you blame the GOP for this? Okay.

@Robdon -

I am fairly certain that both House and Senate knew about the previous attacks as well. I do not hear anything about how the repubs recommended that any specific actions be taken. Why did they wait until now to raise these issues?

Congress does not make decisions about security detail at US consulates, the State Department does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that they did make decisions about the about embassy security details. I merely stated that they had been briefed. And yes they can make suggestions to specific activities and operations. If National security is at risk I would expect them to. The point is, they are acting like they didn't know any of this was happening.

Bottom line is: this witch hunt is intended to serve a bigger purpose and you are failing to see it. You are attracted to the shiny new object (i.e, accusations of a conspiracy that don't make sense) while they intentionally mislead the country to what their true intentions are. Hmmmm... sounds like what Mittens was doing during his run for the White House...You are buying into the nonsense, which is the fundamental problem with repubs today.

This witch hunt's purposes are:

1) Unfounded Blaming of the Obama administration for a "cover up"

2) Smear Amb. Rice in a nonsensical way, which is virtually indefensible. How do you defend something that you didn't do?

3) Try to get Kerry into the Sec of State position to free up the Senate seat in Massachusetts for Scott Brown. Notice how several repub Senators this morning recommended Kerry for the position. When was the last time you heard repubs recommend a Dem for anything?

4) Score political points by claiming to suspect that deception and malfeasance is at work. Wing nuts and conspiracy theorists love that stuff, you know.

Please look away from the shiny object for a moment and observe what the rest of the world is seeing.

Generally, the repubs think that the public is stupid, or should I say uninformed. They don't think that John Q. Public is wise enough to really see and understand the implications of their actions. They actually count on this so that they can further their agenda in an under the radar sort of way so that they receive little push back. Dems are now aware of these actions and motives and are calling B.S on them. At a fundamental level repubs have lost sight of why they are in Washington in the first place. They are not there to further their agenda, nor sign a no tax pledge for some lobbyist, thus compromising their position due to their allegiance to a third party. They are there to do what is best for the country and until that gets figured out (on both sides), we will continued to have division in or government.

This is becoming tiresome and I am now done discussing this topic.

Buzzkill, you can think this is only a witch hunt but there are plenty of those on the left who disagree. Here's an article from the very liberal Maureen Dowd at the NY Times, now while she certainly makes some points for both sites she agrees that Rice performance and the administration has done a very poor job with the Benghazi. Here's a quote:

But she (Rice) would have been wise to be more bull-in-a-china-shop and vet her talking points, given that members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities and sources in news accounts considered it a terrorist attack days before Rice went on the shows.

As to your other points, you think that Congress is briefed on security details at all the embassies and consulates? Do you have proof they knew of the prior request for more security? And what would having Scott Brown in the place of Kerry do? Nothing practically, the Senate would still have a majority in the Senate.

I think your theories are as "wing nuts and conspiracy" theorist motivated as anything else.

I know you say you are "tireseome" of the discussion, but if you could provide any neutral or reputable source for your claims I would take them much more serious.

I respect his service to our country. Nothing more. Since then, he has been a pathetic, laughable old fool that needs to check in to a home of some kind. Considering this year's crop of tired old white men in the House, why not just put them all in a home?

What she admits is that the information turned out to be incorrect. Specifically on one point--that there was no demonstration at the consulate before the attack.

She never said Al Qaida *was* or *was not* involved in the attack. She called the attackers "extremists" but never said they *were* or *were not* terrorists or linked to AQ.

The idea that you have to be an idiot or a liar not to know that there was no demonstration in Benghazi that night--when there were demonstrations all over the Middle East--is ridiculous.

According to the chatter intercepted by the CIA, the attackers were talking about the demonstrations, and that motivated them to attack that night. They were watching these demonstrations on Al Jazeera. The fact that they were "inspired" by demonstrations outside Libya does not change the response in a significant way.

You're right! What we need are normal everyday a##holes just like you! But we already have a majority of those in congress. They're doin' a great job, huh?

I saw it too.

She kept blinking and looking anywhere but at the camera.

And is her voice always so scratchy? Nerves, I'd say.

Unfortunately, Jeff, I think he has shredded whatever was left of his "dignity".