Obama Rebuffs Senators McCain and Graham Over Political Attacks on Ambassador Rice Concerning Benghazi

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 16, 2012 1:43 AM GMT
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/barack_obama_s_first_news_conference_since_his_re_election_made_it_clear.html

    Their story is about Obama's approach to Republicans, but I extracted a key point about the Republicans' incessant attacks about Benghazi and targeting Ambassador Susan Rice because it's exactly what my feelings are on the matter:

    The least substantive but most dramatic moment in the East Room question-and-answer session came when the president took on Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Both men have pledged to block Susan Rice’s nomination for secretary of state if Obama taps her to replace Hillary Clinton. Days after the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, Rice went on the Sunday shows to say it was caused by a spontaneous protest. At the time, parts of the U.S. intelligence community supported this view, while other parts said it was a terrorist attack. (A third hybrid theory is that terrorists reacted to spontaneous protests in Egypt to launch the attack.)
    The president wasn’t having any of it. He said his U.N. representative was clearly operating on the best intelligence at the time and had nothing to do with the underlying situation in Libya. “If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous … when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”
    The president is offended by what he sees as a cheap attack, says one White House official. The president believes that McCain and Graham are making Rice a target because they want to deny the president a nominee. If they have fingers to point, say aides, they should aim them at the intelligence community that gave Rice the initial information. If you were of a mind to read the election results as a signal to Republicans to make the party more inclusive, you might wonder why they are picking a high-profile fight over the potential nomination of an African-American woman to be America’s chief diplomat. If you wanted to read the situation as a pure policy fight, then you might wonder why McCain and Graham are going so hard after Susan Rice when they defended Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, whose reliance on intelligence information in the lead up to the Iraq war was far more damaging.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11837

    Nov 16, 2012 5:15 PM GMT
    This all centers around McCain getting his ass beat in 2008...They had a Benghazi briefing yesterday....McCain missed it....He felt whoring himself out to the media was a better choice.......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2012 5:25 PM GMT
    I think Americans are tired of bullshit like this from McCain. Republicans are going to find this a losing tactic.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Nov 16, 2012 9:27 PM GMT
    the rules do not seem bi directional.

    But here are a few thoughts on the matter.

    The Ambassador to the UN like Sec of State is thought as a NON POLITICAL post. If somehow Susan Rice was involved with or complicit in some political coverup to sugar coat the Benghazi attack . THAT IS A PROBLEM. We now know that the CIA's assessment early on that it was a terror attack

    Condelezza Rice was National Security Advisor to Bush initially before the Iraq war. This is a cabinet level post that is NOT confirmed by the senate. Senate confirmed posts are thought as apolitical.
    Although giving false information in my mind should not be tolerated the comparison to Condeleeza Rice is off base.

    If Sec Clinton and Susan Rice engaged in a whitewash of the situation to "kill" any talk of the attack on 9/11 in its infancy that is a serious matter.

    Obama's call to "attack me" doesn't ameliorate the situation. I would take the request seriously if Obama gave an account of when and how those false talking points came to Susan Rice, but he has remained mute on the subject.

    If David Plough or any of Obamas campaign went on TV describing the attack as a "protest" very few would conclude that was a apolitical activity. It would have been put in its proper context. That did not happen here and after Patreus testified today, it has blown the whole scandal up.

    Holding Susan Rice's appointment to Sec of State is completely legitimate. IN FACT, these questions likely would have come up at her confirmation anyway. Now that the cat is out of the bag Obama was unlikely to have put Rice's name up.

    The racial injection is purely ridiculous. One ask the question, why was Susan Rice sent? And who gave her the information? Considering the CIA top official now is saying that Benghazi in his mind was always a terrorist attack?


    The obvious question comes to mind from this SLATE article. Was the author JUST BORN?
    SLATE
    If you were of a mind to read the election results as a signal to Republicans to make the party more inclusive, you might wonder why they are picking a high-profile fight over the potential nomination of an African-American woman to be America’s chief diplomat.
    ITALIC TEXT GOES HERE

    Condelezza Rice and Colon Powell were both selected and sent to the position of Sec of State by REPUBLICANS. Last I checked they were African American.