Skip to main content

Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
U.N. Ambassador (and latest target of Republican vitriol) Susan Rice
President Obama has not yet even made a final determination on whom he will appoint to serve as his administration's secretary of state during his second term, but Congressional Republicans are already severely concerned about one possible nominee: Susan Rice, who currently serves as ambassador to the United Nations. Even though the House of Representatives has no role whatsoever in the appointment or confirmation of cabinet-level appointments, 97 House Republicans have signed a letter to President Obama opposing the possible nomination of Ambassador Rice to head the Department of State, presumably because House Republicans have never had anything better to do since their 2010 ascension besides attack the president for things he hasn't even done yet.

The opposition to the potential nomination of Ambassador Rice is rooted in Republican desperation to turn the tragedy in Benghazi into a scandal for the Obama administration. The Romney campaign was licking its chops at the prospect of attacking President Obama on Benghazi until facts stubbornly got in the way. Joe Scarborough decided to interrupt an entire broadcast and repeated the word "Benghazi" no fewer than 23 times on air. And now, Republicans have it in for Susan Rice, who, according to the previously mentioned letter, is too incompetent to head up the state department:

“Though Ambassador Rice has been our Representative to the U.N., we believe her misleading statements over the days and weeks following the attack on our embassy in Libya that led to the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans caused irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world,” the letter reads, later adding: “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi affair.”
The accusations of incompetence leveled against Rice derive from her appearance on Sunday morning talk shows, in which she attributed the incident at Benghazi to protests against a sacrilegious anti-Islam movie, rather than a premeditated attack. Rice, of course, was simply repeating the most current intelligence assessments available at the time, but that hasn't stopped Republicans in the House, as well as Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, from trying to stop any potential nomination of her in its tracks before it even gets started.

Legendary civil rights leader and current Congressman James Clyburn (D-S.C.) felt that the accusations against Rice smacked of racial dog whistles—and given the way Republicans have acted since President Obama was first elected, that argument certainly holds weight. However, I feel it is preferable to compare this situation to the last time a black woman with the last name of Rice was considered for an appointment as secretary of state.

Before becoming confirmed as secretary of state in September of 2005, Condoleezza Rice held the position of national security advisor under George W. Bush. She held that position during the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Condoleezza Rice later testifed before the 9/11 Commission about this PDB, where she was grilled about the incompetence the security team of the Bush administration, of which she was a principal member, showed toward the threat of Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism:

ROEMER: Let me ask you a question. You just said that the intelligence coming in indicated a big, big, big threat. Something was going to happen very soon and be potentially catastrophic. I don't understand, given the big threat, why the big principals don't get together. The principals meet 33 times in seven months, on Iraq, on the Middle East, on missile defense, China, on Russia. Not once do the principals ever sit down -- you, in your job description as the national security advisor, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the president of the United States -- and meet solely on terrorism to discuss in the spring and the summer, when these threats are coming in, when you've known since the transition that Al Qaida cells are in the United States, when, as the PDB said on August, bin Laden determined to attack the United States. Why don't the principals at that point say, Let's all talk about this, let's get the biggest people together in our government and discuss what this threat is and try to get our bureaucracies responding to it?
Sounds like incompetence to me. But this was the lesser of the sins of Condoleezza Rice. Remember that Dr. Rice was one of the main cheerleaders of the invasion of Iraq. She was the one who infamously said that the United States could not wait until the supposed "smoking gun" of Saddam Hussein's WMD program came in the form of a mushroom cloud. But Rice either was so grossly incompetent that she overlooked critical pieces of intelligence on Iraq's supposed pursuit of uranium, or she lied to the American people:
The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable possibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.

Most prominent is her claim that the White House had not heard about CIA doubts about an allegation that Iraq sought uranium in Africa before the charge landed in Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28; in fact, her National Security Council staff received two memos doubting the claim and a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet months before the speech. Various other of Rice's public characterizations of intelligence documents and agencies' positions have been similarly cast into doubt.

To recap, the horrifying attacks of September 11 occurred on Condi Rice's watch, even though intelligence had been collected that specified that Osama Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States, seemingly in New York City, and apparently with an interest in hijacking airliners. She followed that up by either grossly overlooking critical intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program, or intentionally misleading our country and people into a financially and morally destructive war of choice.

And yet, on January 26, 2005, Condoleezza Rice was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 85-13. Voting in favor? Lindsey Graham, as well as John McCain. Why? Because they, like so many of their Republican colleagues, are nothing more than hypocrites who believe that their past actions and statements can simply slip down the memory hole without anyone remembering.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent summary (43+ / 0-)

    and well worth remembering the history.

    Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman. (h/t to Stevie Ray Fromstein @

    by rdbaker43 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:19:57 PM PST

  •  Condi was doing the bidding of rich white men. (25+ / 0-)

    She's therefore exempt from criticism.

    It's strong, independent black people that these jokers object to.  Obama, Holder and now Rice would be just too many strong, competent black folks at the top for their puny little white brains to handle.  

  •  President Obama... (11+ / 0-)

    ...has neutralized the perceived advantage Republicans used to enjoy on national security matters.  The Benghazi "scandal" (which would actually be Repugs cutting funding for embassy security) is what they think will be their trip back to being masters of the subject.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.


    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:23:34 PM PST

  •  if the story's true, she should flip the bird at (5+ / 0-)

    Graham and McCain

    According to Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, at one point Rice gave the "middle finger" to Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with State Department senior staff.

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:29:13 PM PST

  •  They just don't stop (20+ / 0-)

    They are clueless. It was women who voted in the majority for Obama. The more they go against Rice, the more women will stand up in 2014.  They really don't have anything to say against Rice but they sure try.  Two-faced idiots.

  •  Seconded. Also, don't forget that Condi Rice's (8+ / 0-)

    confirmation occurred during the height of the Iraq troop buildup and Bush's war-mongering. Right wingers and supposedly "objective" journalists were in rally-round-the-flag mode.

    Today one of our wars is over and the other is drawing down, so the national mood is different.

    Every honest communication poses a risk that we will hear something that could challenge or change us. -- Kenneth Cloke

    by GreenMtnState on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:34:00 PM PST

  •  Every member of Congress who attacks (20+ / 0-)

    Ambassador Susan Rice should also be required to make a statement about this presentation by an actual US Sec. of State to the UN back in February 2003 (transcript here):

    Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

    by Spud1 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:37:07 PM PST

  •  What's the possibility that this is just another (17+ / 0-)

    attack on Obama by John McCain? Maybe he and his posse are planning to block all of Obama's nominees. Maybe they're trying to cripple his second term by sabotaging his team. Just sayin'.

  •  McCain look more like the emperor from Star Wars (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AllanTBG, LSophia, PrahaPartizan

    everyday I see him.

    The hatred he is spewing is embarrassing. I guess when you’re losing power, as in his committee posting, you get desperate. I would think he would be honored to be on the Indian Affairs Committee. Obviously he does not think so.

  •  It's just GOP SOP (6+ / 0-)

    It is standard operating procedure for the GOP. At the beginning of each term of a Democratic President they pick a nominee or two and attack them. It gets their base all riled up and gets right wing radio all lathered up. Just ask Lani Guinier or Zoe Baird.

  •  I counted at least six women (8+ / 0-)

    who signed that letter.  Makes you wonder--why do conservative women hate other women?

    Romney-Ryan: America's Rollback Team

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:39:59 PM PST

  •  They don't merely have a double-standard (13+ / 0-)

    they have a double-universe:

    When Republicans are in the White House, outright treason doesn't even justify investigations.

    When Democrats are in the White House, the complete lack of any basis is no impediment to investigation, and the lack of any untoward findings from investigations is no impediment to impeachment.

    Succinctly, they think being a Democrat is illegal and being Republican carries a divine mandate to do whatever they please, and will do everything in their power to enforce that interpretation of the law.

    This is what authoritarianism looks like.

    "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

    by Troubadour on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:43:04 PM PST

  •  On the merits of Rice's nomination, I personally (8+ / 0-)

    don't know whether I'd necessarily pick her for the job (not to doubt her qualifications, mind you), but at this point I think Obama pretty much has to pick her.  Anything else will look like a capitulation.

    •  The other option would be to nominate someone (5+ / 0-)

      else and have Rice serve as chief deputy, which doesn't require confirmation, I don't think, then have the SOS resign after McCain strokes out, which is where he seems to be heading.  I think it's safe to say that the pitiable John McCain and his winger cohorts will stonewall all nominations.  They're ticked that their only hope, Gen. Petraeous, disgraced himself and had to resign.  Susan Rice just reminds them of their own abundant incompetency.

      Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

      by judyms9 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:59:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She's good. Better than good. (6+ / 0-)

      And she's probably the best person for this job.  McCain targets her only because he thinks it will embarrass Obama.  But I actually think it will backfire, because assuming Obama nominates her (and I leave that to Obama, whom I trust on this), Rice will be confirmed, and McCain will once again have to face a "Who's your daddy?" moment.  Obama will rub it in by refusing to gloat, and maybe by asking McCain to do something useful, like go to Iceland and keep watch on a volcano.  It will be another nail in Zombie John's nailful coffin.

    •  I believe President Obama will choose the best (7+ / 0-)

      person for the job, be it Susan Rice or another. Nothing will sway that decision.

      Today McCain said he would, if arranged, meet with Susan Rice and hear her out. What a conciliatory gesture! She is the future, whereas, he is the distant past, trying to cling. He is backpedaling because he knows he's wrong. I bet his wife and daughter ripped him some new ones.

      I would like that meeting to be televised. Because it would show McCain's constituents what a fuddy, and yes, duddy, he truly is. He would look as predatory and pandering as he did introducing the world to his exquisite ice carving of a VP candidate.

      And as I always say in reference to Senator McCain...
      "John, stop torturing yourself!"

      skipping over damaged area

      by Says Who on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:06:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, if the president has been going to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      great pains to look un-Clintonian, at times, then he can't allow his nominee for SOS, if it is Susan Rice, to get Guiniered and Bairded all over Washington.

    •  at this point, my cynical advice is this (0+ / 0-)

      pick Susan Rice and let the Republicons block her nomination.  It's an opportunity to showcase R obstructionism.

      If she is blocked then O can nominate Kerry.

      In the hearings Dems might get a better chance to get the truth out there and also draw a direct parallel with the way Rs treated the other black woman Secretary of State named Rice and her LIES

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:25:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought "Republican" and "hypocrisy" (4+ / 0-)

    Were synonyms...

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:49:58 PM PST

  •  If you were a Republican right now what would... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you like the subject of the public debate to be? Raising taxes or Susan Rice?

    Plato's " The Cave" taught me to question reality.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:52:55 PM PST

  •  Q:Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi (7+ / 0-)

    A:Yellow Cake, Yellow Cake, Yellow Cake.

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:53:57 PM PST

  •  Senator McCain wonders if all the fuss.. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    subtropolis, annieli, skohayes, deep, harlinchi

    ..over Condoleeza Rice confirmation is lingering partisan bitterness brought on by November election loss..hmm
    January 26 2005
    (Note: sometimes the video stalls a bit, so hit play again and it should work - I hope)

    “We all have varying policy views, but the president, in my view, has a clear right to put into place the team that he believes will serve him best” - John McCain
    Heh, that even beats Romney for a perfect case study of psychological projection – not an easy feat imo
    Also too:
    Michael Tomasky brings some sense to this as usual:
    The GOP’s Absurd Attack on Susan Rice Over Benghazi - by Michael Tomasky Nov 20, 2012 4:45 AM EST
    Furious that Obama paid no electoral price for Benghazi, Republicans are threatening to filibuster his presumed secretary of state nominee, Susan Rice, as a scapegoat. Michael Tomasky on the real scandal.
    .. thanks to Chris Hayes @ UP  Sunday morning I got the Date & time to locate the C-Span senate sessions to pull this clip.
  •  It still hasn't hit Republicans (3+ / 0-)

    that they lost the election. They keep trying to take down this honorable ambassador for nothing more then repeating the declassified talking points. I wish more in the media were like Soledad O'Brien and calling them out on thier hypocrisy since it is so blatant to see. One doesn't even need to go that far back in time as evidence by this diary.

  •  how many more good choices will be scrapped (0+ / 0-)

    because the left has no organized real time monitoring and response to the talk radio monopoly that makes all these hypocrisies possible? the only thing keeping that giant swiftboating machine going is the left's apathy and ignorance of the importance of talk radio.

    and the left could make EVERY major reform on their wish list a hell of a lot easier if they stopped ignoring talk radio and made a concerted effort to take RW radio down to a true representation of the population. kill the monopoly, or be prepared to limp through another series of well designed PR campaigns to waste time and attack good people and ideas.

    it will do the same for any progressive supreme court choice.

    the general effect of allowing them to keep their monopoly is that they decide who's acceptable and who isn't to the extent of the admin deciding before hand who is going to generate too much political noise that it's not worth the fight.

    then progressives whine obama's compromising.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:00:46 PM PST

    •  kill the monopoly? (0+ / 0-)

      you just get back to us about how we should do that and we'll get right on it

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:27:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  3 things not tried yet would destroy it (0+ / 0-)

        the only reason it survives in blue areas and is as effective as it is is that it is ignored and is seldom challenged.

        aside from the efforts to boycott rush,

        1) monitor main national and local talkers to make the content available for analysis by people who would never listen- so dems and progressives can react in real time instead of being regularly surprised by koch bros and rovian PR successes and having to go through one benghazi type BS fest after another. give RW radio the blame it deserves for the disasters of the last 20 years and name limbaugh as much as possible as GOP leader. stop blaming fox for what are primarily talk radio 'successes'.

        2) pressure our universities to dissociate from RW radio. as many as 1/3 of RW stations including many of the loudest depend on those universities via their sports broadcasting association for community credibility and local advertising (see link in sig). one or two universities honoring their mission statements and dissociating may start a trend that would get more stations balancing with progressives. individual stations already having problems might be forced to switch formats or balance with progs if they wanted to keep those associations. the monopoly can't survive that competition.

        3) recognize RW stations as the real GOP HQs and use appropriately located RW stations as locations for protest. those stations are coordinated at local and national levels with GOP and corporate/1% objectives- almost every major issue could legitimately be protested at those stations- union rights, education, immigration, tax policy, media, election reform, voter suppression, war, health care, energy, global warming, to getting progressive politicians backs or supporting liberal supreme candidates.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:25:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the Rush boycott is hurting progressive talk radio (0+ / 0-)

          so that's a delicate situation.

          Your own Nov 14 diary makes the same point.  If you want sports to go to other stations, sports will by definition occasionally crowd out the few stations that are airing progressive talk.

          There is no such thing as a Limbaugh radio station.  He doesn't own any stations.  In many markets he is just on the station with the widest broadcasting area, which is the logical place for college sports to broadcast as well.

          left blogistan is pretty much dedicated to #1.  we have lots of folks who monitor the hateradio talkers so we all don't have to listen.  And we do react in real time, especially here at dK.

          Your reference to Rovian PR and talk radio successes is ironic considering that they just failed in their number one political objective that they worked on nonstop for four years.

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

          by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:54:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  when it delays and distorts and obstructs it is su (0+ / 0-)

            cessful. when it is allowed to swiftboat good people it works. when we spend time with shit like benghazi, it works. when it puts completely unqualified freaks in position to end up in the white house it works. when it creates death panels and stops the public option it works. and it's going to keep working unless the left gets serious about it.

            if you're happy with progress the last 4 years  you're lucky.

            it is being monitored more but mostly for the hate speech- not for the swiftboating of politicians and lie creation (like the 700 bil$ BS.)

            If you want sports to go to other stations, sports will by definition occasionally crowd out the few stations that are airing progressive talk.
            i disagree, market forces finally played a part in RW radio when the limbaugh boycott got going and a lot of advertisers found out what they were advertising. if the unis pulled sports those stations   would be in a lot of trouble and may offer balance to keep those associations and stay in talk radio.

            a limbaugh station is a station that plays limbaugh and is therefore dominated by his politics- it is a RW radio station just about 24/7.

            DK has done a great deal to expose limbaugh, but as i said it is mostly about hate speech and it is mostly relative to limbaugh. limbaugh is just point man- the others that echo the same talking points from the think tanks need to be monitored as a whole so crap like benghazi are taken in perspective instead of used to waste our time and bang on good people like susan rice. it may not stop her confirmation, if the o admin thinks it's worth the trouble now,  but there were dozens of good people before her. and if the left got anita hill's back like they got sandra fluke's  and thomas would not be on the S court, RW TR would not have enjoyed a complete free speech free ride and  the last 20 years would be completely different.

            This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

            by certainot on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:36:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The big (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, tb mare

    difference is that other Rice had no power, while this Rice will. This Rice is not going to be  spouting off Dick Chenny's talking points. This Rice will not be part of starting a false war for that they can't see any use for her. Mcbitter and his body Lindsday needs to get a life if they can find one somewhere.

    •  To be fair to Dr. Rice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      once she was promoted to SOS (personally, I could not even understand how they could "promote" Dr. Rice after  9/11; she should have been fired)she did attempt, with a limited amount of success, to separate herself from Cheney.

      I don't think that she was simply spouting off Cheney talking points after she became SOS.

  •  Desperate for scandal (5+ / 0-)

    Lindsey Graham linked it to Iran-Contra today, saying they would get to the bottom of Benghazi just as they did Iran-Contra.  As if the situations had even a remote chance of equivalency...  Remember this if you had a smidgen of hope that the desire to bring down this President had abated.

    "Dogs' lives are too short. Their only fault, really." -- Agnes Sligh Turnball

    by EyeStreetMom on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:09:20 PM PST

    •  By all means, (5+ / 0-)

      let's get the media talking about Iran/Contra and Reagan, Lindsey!
      Please proceed, Senator.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:49:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Talking about Beirut and the Marine Barracks (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boudi08, skohayes

        bombing is more like it. The first bombing on April 18th 1983 was a surprise.

        Department of State immediately installed traffic control barriers on Rue de Paris. Weapons were procured. That system was replicated at the embassies in the Middle East and North Africa.

        October 23rd 1983. Six months pass and people forget: Ronald Reagan, his ANSA and area manager Robert McFarlane, Reagan's appointees at Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the chain of command, the Commanding Officer.

        Marine BLT Barracks was not defended.

        241 dead. Guys crushed and pinned under heavy concrete. Dying 2 and 3 days later.

        Nobody court martialed. Nobody fired. Reagan and his weenies lied their asses off to construct a PR cover-up.

        Rules of Engagement related to snipers. Not defending against the October 23rd truck bomb was purest incompetence and there was room for a 650-meter No Drive Zone. The guard post didn't even have a siren.

        Come February 1984 Reagan turned tail and got out of Dodge. "Run away, run away!"

        Terrorism won, big time.

        Obama's losses in Benghazi looks more like an accidental, no-fault version of Reagan's "Challenger" disaster. Al Jazeera's coverage of the Cairo "Life of Mohammed" protest turned into two heavily armed attacks on Americans. Goes with the territory.

        Who is The Man ??? Obama or Reagan? How hard is that one?

        And Reagan ??? Political genius, sure thing. As Commander in Chief he was in over his head, got a lot of people killed, and encouraged large-scale Arab terrorism going forward.

    •  Hmmmm.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lindsey Graham linked it to Iran-Contra today, saying they would get to the bottom of Benghazi just as they did Iran-Contra.
      Oddly enough, Iran-Contra is still a subject with a bunch of unanswered questions.  Many of them are unanswered because of prevarications and obstructions and destruction of key documents.  A good person to ask would have been the director of the CIA, William Casey, but unfortunately he died just as the hearings about the affair began.  We're there convictions?  Yes.  Should there have been more?  Good question.
      Get to the bottom of Iran-Contra?  
      Really, Sen Graham?

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 05:02:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Known Active Republican Obstruction (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lilyvt, harlinchi, tb mare

        It's twenty years down the rabbit hole now, but Old Man Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, then Secretary of Defense, on frackin' Christmas Eve of 1992 because Cap the Knife was going on trial in early January 1993 for his part in Iran-Contra.  Weinberger had black-mailed Old Man Bush, telling him he was going to spill his guts about the Iran-Contra deals if he wasn't given a full pardon, and he was rewarded for his loyalty.  What better time to do it than the afternoon before a national holiday during a long holiday period during a Presidential election interregnum?  That's why Iran-Contra was never fully explored and McCain knows it.  

        The Republicans poleaxed the investigation, because it would have shown that Old Man Bush needed to resign from the Presidency before he officially left office later that January 2003.  Too many people today have forgotten how fast the sluice was running then for all Republican reputations.  So, instead of investigations into illegal Republican activities in foreign affairs going all the way back to Reagan's violating the law to get an edge on Jimmy Carter in 1980, we got the silence of the grave.  The bottom line is that lying is inherent in the Republican DNA and they cannot be trusted anywhere near the levers of power ever again.  

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:16:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  the desire to bring down this President (0+ / 0-)

      has increased by a magnitude of ten.

      their new goal, which they will not be stupid enough to state publicly, is to see whether they can manufacture some way to make him resign in disgrace

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:28:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And I hope he's using that letter to wipe his ass (0+ / 0-)

    "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut

    by jazzence on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:11:25 PM PST

  •  Let's not forget Hamas (5+ / 0-)

    When the Palestinans held an election and voted for Hamas to represent their government I remember Rice testifying that, and I quote, "no one could have known."  Gross incompetence is the only explanation as this just adds on to the Iraqi war, failure to find and get Osama Bin Laden, have accountability for her 34 visits to the mid-east with absolutely nothing to show for it except for dead Americans and an untold number of civilian deaths.  That's some legacy there as both McCain and Graham helped confirm her.

    Truman's Conscience Northeast Florida's Premier Liberal/Progressive Blog

    by DuvalDem on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:14:08 PM PST

  •  it's maybe in part the foreign policy creds. (6+ / 0-)

    President Obama has yanked foreign policy and military affairs right out from under the Republicans.

    Remember during the 2007 Bob Shieffert interview of Wesley Clark, when General Clark was countering Shieffert's argument that Senator McCain had the military and foreign policy creds and Clark said that riding in a plane and getting shot down doesn't qualify anyone to be president?


    Bob Schieffer: Well you, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried," And I must say I, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried? General?
        GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-'

        Bob Schieffer: Well-

        GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

        Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-


        Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-


        Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

        GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

    And that, IMO, was the beginning of the end of the McCain 2008 presidential campaign.

    So what do the Republicans have if they don't have the mythology that white old men are the authorities on foreign affairs and military affairs?
    Obama has the upper hand with the fiscal "slope" and an improving economy and the mandate to continue on the path he has led on.
    What do the Republicans run on in 2014 and 2016?

    Susan Rice, is, from what I've read, extremely well qualified to be Secretary of State should Obama decide that he wants her in the job. If she is approved by the Senate and does a great job and Obama succeeds in steering the country through the new democratic movements springing up around the globe, what do the balding old white Republican men in the Senate have left with which to terrorize people into giving them a victory at the ballot box?

    We know that Rovian strategy is to try to turn a strength of the political opponent on its head and attack that strength trying to spin the debate.  

    It's getting pretty tiresome.

    If this is not part of the reason that McCain and Graham have been appointed the attackers, then they're going after Susan Rice based on pure sexism and racism.
    They can't take being upstaged by Democrats, especially brown and female ones.

    Keep in mind that the Koch brother's father, Fred Koch was one of the founders of the John Birch Society, FWIW.

    Finally people have gotten sick and tired of being had and taken for idiots. Mikhail Gorbachev

    by eve on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:18:56 PM PST

  •  This is about another special election in mass. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I believe they are trying to reduce obama's ability to appoint her secretary of state in hopes it improves the chances that he will appoint john Kerry.

    That would mean Scott brown has a chance for another special election to fill his unexpired term.

    •  yes, we know (0+ / 0-)

      but have no fear.  Scott Brown is a known quantity now and he will not slip through the cracks and get elected again

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:13:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a proposal (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, Sue B, LSophia, harlinchi

    Appealing to logic won't help much. Republicans…certainly the vast majority of the people who vote for them…are immune to logic. So let's start thinking about blackmail instead.

    Perhaps the Democrats, having secured a 2nd term in the White House, should start floating the idea about holding wide-ranging investigations into the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, including the irresponsible mess the Cheney administration left Afghanistan in because of it. Hold that shit over their heads if they insist on playing games over the Benghazi attack.

    I urge every progressive voice in the media to bring that up when discussing the hypocrisy on display over the records of Condi and Susan Rice.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:21:19 PM PST

  •  False equivalence on the right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Whenever the right screws something up, like watergate, or anything condaleeza rice did, they pretend that liberals have done it as well.  the Clinton impeachment was about conservatives trying to make Clinton seem like Nixon.  And now the accusations against Susan rice, that she is incompetent and lies to congress make her the equivalent of condaleeza rice,  the only difference is that condi really was incompetent and either lied or was really stupid, where Susan rice seems to know her job, but it doesn't matter because conservatives can now scream into to the echo chamber that both parties are the same.

  •  The hypocrisy works both ways (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It seems that it was a long time mantra of this site that Bush, Powell and C. Rice "lied us into war" regarding WMD.  I never really liked the characterization of that phrase but the basic sentiments I accept.  Now flash forward to this year.  Someone sent Susan Rice out on the Sunday shows with absurd talking points about the attacks being related to the video.  These were absurd on their face at the time, and it is hard not to draw the conclusion that she was carrying sketchy water for an Administration that for reaons unknown kept sticking to the video argument for more than a week.  Of course those Sunday morning show appearances have nothing to do with what happened in Libya, but I think is ludicrous for diaries on this site to ignore how ridiculous her performances were on that Sunday.

    •  She said what she was told to say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Zack from the SFV

      Why are talking points so important? Why is what she said to a news show a few days after the attack so important?
      The fact is, they aren't important. There was no coverup as even the Republicans are admitting now, there is simply no there there.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:57:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Propaganda is an important issue (0+ / 0-)

        The talking points and the Sunday show appearances were old fashioned propaganda.  I'm not saying the Administration shouldn't issue propaganda -- it's what political machines and people in power do -- but let's call it what it was.  I'm not sure that disqualifies her from being Sec of State but it certainly shows she's part of the same old process.

    •  There is really no equivalence here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Fine, let's say that Bush, Rice, and Powell didnt lie us into war.

      They repeatedly cited incorrect intelligence that led us into a war. Is that really the same as incorrectly stating the cause of Benghazi in the immediate aftermatch on a couple of Sunday shows?

  •  In other words (5+ / 0-)

    They don't hate her because she's black.  They hate her because Obama is black.

  •  Benghazi - The tragic gift that keeps on giving! (4+ / 0-)

    Hard to believe how the Benghazi tragedy has become a self inflicted disaster for the GOP. Just look at what has transpired:

    1. Before the smoke has cleared, Mitt goes on TV and his blundering comments becomes the story.

    2. The GOP and Fox keep pushing the Benghazi tragedy as a scandal effectively taking the spotlight off the economy.

    3. Obama reverses his poor first debate performance when, in the second debate, Mitt erroneously claims that Obama waited 2 weeks before claiming Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

    4. The GOP doubles down after PBO's re-election and decides to use an old, bitter white guy (who to this day claims that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person to be his VP) along with a bunch of teabag congressman to attack a bright, talented black woman who was competently doing her job.

    Way to go guys!  Keep up the good work!

    •  And.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep, PrahaPartizan

      Before #1....
      The House Republicans deprioritized Security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world and cut millions off the Administrations request for embassy security funding.

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 05:19:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Benghazi = Republican Benghazi (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Remember when Republic Party said that when they defeated Obamacare, it would be the end of the Obama administration? Now they are betting the farm on the Benghazi non-event. It is a total loser for them.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 04:58:41 PM PST

  •  you sort of lost me on... (0+ / 0-)

    "sacrilegious [sic] anti-Islamic" movie."  Sacrilege implies something is sacred.  It was an "anti-Islamic" movie.  You should have left it at that.  Some of us have a lot of trouble believing in "sacred" nonsense, whether it is Islamic, Christian, Jewish or whatveer.

    •  something that's sacrilegious (0+ / 0-)

      is by definition desecrating a particular religious group. The word was intentionally used, and would have equally applied regardless of any faith attacked.

      oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

      Twitter: @DanteAtkins

      by Dante Atkins on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 05:26:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  forgive me for being argumentative... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but to "desecrate" is defined as treating something "sacred" with great disrespect.  You may have, in fact, chosen your words carefully to imply what you wanted.  I simply refuse to buy into the words you have chosen.  Muslims may think the Koran is sacred, and Catholics believe the Bible is sacred.  Some of us don't agree.  

  •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    there are two, impassible positions taken here.

    1) The president claims he did call the benghazi attacks terrorism (which i say a fair reading of the Rose Garden speech shows he did not)


    2) Ambassador Rice blames the killings on the video DAYS after the president knew, and called it, terrorism.

    3) The at the Un thePresident said it was about the video and did not call it terrorism.

    So which is it? The President said it was terrorism and the Ambassador ignored it or he never bothered to tell her? He didn't say it was terrorism? But claimed he did at the debate? This is all quite befuddled.

    That is a legitimate line of inquiry. Which has still not yielded an full accounting.  

    And by the way, they (McCain, et. al.) may be hypocrites (and not too bright) but this isn't racism or sexism.

  •  I think McCain is simply trying to grab control of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrahaPartizan, Zack from the SFV

    the Republican party now that Romney has abdicated his position as top dog. Ridiculous as McCain's charges may be, he HAS succeeded in hogging a lot of time in front of TV cameras.

    Condaleezza Rice's most memorable moment, in my opinion, was when, after years of intelligence reports warning of Al Qaeda interest in planes and highjacking, she said, "I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile."

    There is one huge difference between the two Rice's: Rice #1's negligence contributed to the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis. Ann Rice's statement about Benghazi had, as far as I know, no negative consequences whatsoever.

  •  War Crimnals and loaves of rolled crap... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    So, let's see... We're talking about Susan Rice, the current CONFIRMED Ambassador of the US to the UN, versus a CONFIRMED BY EVIDENCE, WAR CRIMINAL call Rice also.... Humm... See any difference here ?? Oh yeah, Grampy McSame is screaming about the UN Ambassador versus the WAR CRIMINAL???

    Proof that Grampy McSame is an idiot.

  •  I don't like to sound like an immature (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    teenager but, these guys are nothing but big fat, lying, douche bag, sleazy, hypocrites.  Thank you for allowing me to get that off my chest.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy -7.8., -6.6

    by helpImdrowning on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 08:38:56 PM PST

  •  attack on consulate (0+ / 0-)

     If the Republicans think Rice is incompetant, they should also look within. The EMBASSY was never attacked. The CONSULATE, a small outpost some considerable distance from the Embassy, was attacked. Every time the Repubs say "Embassy" they should be confronted and ridiculed.
      It has also bothered me to hear that there was a foreshadowing of trouble, yet Ambassador Stevens traveled to a virtually undefendable outpost. If the State was forewarned, would he not have stayed with the relative safety of the embassy?

  •  Point well made. In fact, now that you mention it (0+ / 0-)

    why did the Senate ever confirm Rice to be the Secty of State?  Did she ever achieve anything at all of note in that position?

    The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

    by helfenburg on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 03:27:02 AM PST

  •  as long as they're the same republicans (0+ / 0-)

    who were clamoring for that other rice to be fired for saying she knew there was a difference of opinion on whether the aluminum tubes could be used for something other than making nuclear-grade plutonium but didn't really know what the specifics were so she didn't bother to look into it and just said "yeah, nukes, whatever," i have no problem with their current stance.

  •  Delivering misleading rhetoric when expedient (0+ / 0-)

    is something any administration WANTS its SOS to be able to do when so assigned.  It's pretty much part of the job description.  And that job description doesn't actually change between D and R administrations.

    In other words, f'n hypocrities, as usual.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:12:07 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site