The first words from WaPo Igantius editorial:
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.
But it was not just the Romney campaign, rushing to condemn the administration, and more specifically, to accuse Ambassador Rice was Maureen Dowd:
Last time it was Condoleezza Rice helping her war-obsessed bosses spin their deceptive web, as they recklessly tried to re-engineer the Middle East. This time it was Susan Rice offering a noncredible yarn as the Obama team desperately tries to figure out the Middle East.
Turns out Occam was right again, and there really was no need for a whole column trying to explain the motivation behind the administration and the UN ambassador's "duplicity". While, the President's instincts were right to call it an act of terror the evidence was contradictory. 19 other cities in the Arab world had protests that day, CIA 'talking points" indicated it was a "spontaneous protest", and therefore the Ambassador said what she did.
We do not need Dowd kind of squeamish liberals, ready to throw the good guys and gals under the bus. Driven by just the wrong instinct, terrified of the right's coming onslaught, rushing to charge the president and his team of duplicity, before the dust has settled.
I am waiting for Dowd apology to Ambassodor Rice, but I am not holding my breath