Published: Monday, Dec. 3 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Susan Rice was repeating the information she was getting from the intelligence
sources, she was merely a spokesman for the administration. Mr.
Bennett failed to mention that Republicans are pushing Obama to nominate John
Kerry from Massachusetts for the secretary of state position. This would create
an opening for recently defeated Scott Brown to try to regain a senate seat.Is it possible that the Republicans are playing petty politics with the
secretary of state nomination?
@liberal larry: Criticizing Rice's critics for playing politics is fine.
Criticizing them for being racist is ridiculous.
Good call, Bob. Liberals excoriated Bush for believing intelligence reports
before invading Iraq. Now they defend Rice for doing the same thing. Her
behavior was much more politically motivated and 2 weeks later she was still
giving our misinformation, presumably she was influenced by the coming president
election. Liberals ignore this and have resorted to shooting the messenger.
Bob,Susan Rice's comments have gotten as much or more coverage
than warranted. An investigation is underway and when completed, it will be
worthy of media coverage. In the meantime, McCain's personal
vendetta/payback (for comments she made against McCain during the 2008 election)
and Lindsey Graham's campaign tactics merely reveal them to be bitter
partisans. I've lost all respect for them. More and more, McCain reveals
why he was not suited for the presidency.Republicans are the last
people who should be standing in judgement, after the debacle of the Iraq War
and 9/11. We could go back and look at statements/testimony regarding Iraq war/
9-11 events by Republicans and the Bush Administration, including and
particularly Condi Rice which are significantly more egregious.
This issue has a a lot of sub-issues. The Administration and its supporters
claim that Rice was only stating what the intelligence community gave her as
information. Her supporters echo this and say she is unfairly being criticized.
But these same people did not accept that explanation when the Bush
administration said intelligence told them Iraq had WMD. The Republicans, in
the Rice case, say that she already knew, or should have known, that this was an
act of terrorism.The use of racism as a defense begins to ring a
little hollow. It it trotted out every time any person of color is questioned
in the political arena and starts to sound like the "little boy that cried
wolf." There may be times when it is legitimate but by using it every time
it dilutes the legitimacy. There is a lot of questions unanswered
by the Administration and the media for the most part seems content to ignore
these questions. It then falls upon Congress to ask them and attempt to get
Mr. Bennett fails to mention that our own Representative Jason Chafetz has
boasted that he voted against increased security funding for U.S. embassies.And JP, where in the world did you find anything "racist" in
Liberal Larry's comment? That sort of hallucinating is one of the primary
problems with people on the righthand side of the fence.
If McCain was/is so concerned with Rice and what she knew versus what she said,
why did he skip the hearing on that to attend a Fox News conference?His failure to take the opportunity to get the information he
"demands" shows he is more interested in playing politics than in
actually addressing the issues and concerns. His claims have lost all validity.
If Susan Rice is not qualified to be Secretary of State, how is she qualified to
be the UN Ambassador?
I did not realize Susan Rice was black, or young, until I read this article
where it was pointed out. I still have great reservations of her as the main man
in diplomacy. I know that she is supposed to be the representative of the
President, but historically the Secretary of State has also been the public face
of the American people and has established the position to have a certain
cachet; independent of the President. That is why I have great reservations. I
see Susan Rice as a willing dependent of President Obama and unable or unwilling
to think for herself and thus a risk to the Nation. She should have questioned
the message she iterated, and either become silent or become willing to up-date
her statement including admission of wrong information and supplying the correct
Susan Rice is neither young nor inexperienced but she is an Obama marcher who
has never disagreed or questioned her President like Condie Rice did President
Bush. Since the Administration will not release the videos of the attack nor
acknowledge that Libyan officials were calling it a terrorist attack within 24
hours, why shouldn't we question her veracity? Or remember she was the
adviser to Clinton who told him not accept Sudan's offer to turn over Asama
to U.S. custody?
I think Dr Rice is one of the detractions being thrown out there to take our
minds off of what really happened during the Benghazi attacks, and what is
happening since. I don't think she will be nominated for Sec of State so
the perception can be her name was spared to save her reputation. If the
confusion and spin doesn't work with Dr Rice, there are plenty more
standing in line (Clapper, Panetta, Petraeus, Allen, Carney, Hamm, etc) to
protect the king. Deny and obfuscate, until the American people get tired of the
criticism and say its time to forgive and forget so we can all just get along.
Look at how many posters blindly accept whatever the administration says. Look
at how many blindly believe that Ms. Rice was "misinformed" and that she
was blameless, no matter what she said.WHO is responsible? It must
be Bush. He must have sneaked in the Whitehouse and turned the channel to Howdy
Dowdy when that attack took place. He must have snookered Obama again. His
ghost will roam the halls of the White House as long as Obama can pass the
blame.It's time that Obama became a man and stopped blaming
others. It's time that he stopped throwing women under the bus to save
himself. He sat in the same situation room as Hillary Clinton, yet he allowed
her to take full responsibility for the attack. He stood before the United
Nations and told the world that the "video" was the cause of the attack
- after he had seen with his own eyes the attack as it was carried out - for
seven hours.Ms. Rice has disqualified herself for high office.
Everyone who is involved has disqualified themselves for high office.We have a government that does nothing but point fingers - and some posters
The media have failed miserably with Benghazi, and these failings are totally
disgraceful. When George W. Bush was wrong about WMD in Iraq, he was crucified
by this same media. Now, they have fallen deathly silent. Two Navy SEALs are
dead. That should absolutely NEVER EVER happen without some kind of reason. And
that reason had better be truthful. Spontaneous riots did NOT cause the deaths
of these brave men. Something else did. There should be full disclosure of what
happened. Their families deserve that much. If I was still in the military, and
two people died under my watch, and my only response was 'well, a
spontaneous movie-inspired mob killed your son,' I would be
court-martialled and thrown in the brig to rot for dereliction. Why
shouldn't the upper crust of leadership be held to the same standard that
rank and file members of the armed services subject themselves?
She repeated talking points given her by the intelligence community. Period.
She is not a CIA analyst and she had not part in whatever failures in security
resulted in this tragedy. I know the Right is obsessed with Benghazi, but this
is preposterous. She's qualified to be Secretary of State, if the
President decides to nominate her.I haven't seen the allegations of
racism to which Senator Bennett refers. If such allegations are part of the
conversation, then I do agree that they're inappropriate.
It seems to me that Condoleeza Rice had far more significant issues at the time
when she was confirmed as Secretary of State than does Susan Rice. As National
Security Advisor, Condi failed to act when warned that al-Qaeda was planning to
attack inside the United States. She and the entire Bush White House were so
focused on Iraq that they thought al-Qaeda was small potatoes, despite being
advised repeatedly that al-Qaeda was a major threat. She completely failed to
protect the U.S. at that time. I guarantee that if the 9-11 tragedy had
happened under a Democratic president, no Republican senators would have voted
to confirm her as Secretary of State. Condi also ignored specific intelligence
when she pushed for an attack on Iraq, stating that we couldn't wait for a
smoking gun, that the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Yet she was
confirmed, 85-13, with bipartisan support.Hypocrisy, thy name is
@Eric Samuelsen"She repeated talking points given her by the
intelligence community. Period. She is not a CIA analyst and she had not part in
whatever failures in security resulted in this tragedy."First of
all, what evidence do you have that the intelligence community told Susan Rice
to say what she said? Just because she said that's what they told her?
I'm not buying it. The intelligence community is DENYING any claim that
they told anyone that this was a movie-inspired incident. They should deny it;
that would be incredibly embarrassing if you call yourself an intelligence
expert and failed to recognize this incident for what it was, that is a well
planned, well coordinated attack, not a spontaneous one. Second, if Susan Rice
relied such horribly bad intel, she is, herself, incompetent and should be
excluded from consideration for advancement in the State Department.
"media are failing"?Not really, they are doing what they
have been doing since '07. Covering up or ignoring entirely, problems
within the Obama administration.
McCain and Kerry should follow Bob Dole's example, you lose the
presidency, you leave the Senate (and hopefully the nations capital); like Mr.
Romney has done taking up residence in California.
The questions about Susan Rice’s handling of the Benghazi attack are
questions that need to be asked. So far, I've seen no evidence that would
disqualify her from being Secretary of State. And yet before it's certain
that Obama even intends to nominate Rice, her Republican detractors are gearing
up for an all out fight. What's this noise all about?Robert
Bennett may think the news media is falling down but to me it looks more like
the GOP is getting frustrated that the news media is not being swayed to get on
board with them.
I think Faux News has been providing extensive coverage in favor of the GOP, on
this topic. So what the Senator really means and what the GOP means when they
call out the media, is that the media is not in lock step with the views
expressed by the GOP and Faux News. If Faux news appeals to you, then you are
probably getting all the coverage you need on this issue. If Faux News
doesn't appeal to you, you are seeking your news from other sources that do
appeal to you. So I guess where I am getting with this is that free market
principles apply, the very principles the hypocritical GOP vaunts when ever a
regulation discussion is broached. The Commie left laughs with John Stewart at
Faux news but it doesn't demand that Faux News change its operations
paradigm. So, thanks to a wonderful network of communication resources, we
literally have access to all the news that is fit to print and then some. What
the Senator is really complaining about it is that public opinion has not been
swayed to the GOP's POV on Susan Rice.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments