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.
"Look at how many posters blindly accept whatever the administration
says."could just as easily read "Look at how
many posters blindly attack whatever the administration says."Good grief.... it hours after the attack that those who wish to play politics
jumped on this as some kind of coverup. There is no doubt Rice's
information was wrong. That is not in debate. Someone then claimed this was
just like Bush's blunder -- where Colin Powell made false claims. The
difference, one resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people and over a
Trillion dollars of debt - the other - some momentary misinformation,
embossment, and then a correction. Hardly the same scale or
results. Most sane Republicans have moved on, acknowledging mistakes were
made, but kept in perspective. A handful of media craving and almost irrelevant
senators on the other hand are trying to us this to keep their names in the
headlines - to the point of missing their own committee meetings on the
incident.Lets keep this in perspective.
@One of a Few"I think Faux News has been providing extensive
coverage in favor of the GOP, on this topic."Lol. ANY coverage
of Benghazi makes the Obama Administration look bad. I guess that favors the
GOP, indirectly. However, there is absolutely no way to spin the Benghazi
incident positively for President Obama and his staff. Perhaps that is why only
Fox News is reporting on it. The other media outlets do not want The President
to look bad, and Benghazi makes The President look really, really bad. So, they
don't talk about it.
killpack,".....there is absolutely no way to spin the Benghazi
incident positively for President Obama and his staff....."____________________Just about everyone agrees that the aftermath
was mismanaged by the Administration. I just believe that overall it's been
blown out of proportion by the President's critics to gain some partisan
advantage. That's where I disagree with Bennett. He thinks the press is not
doing its job and I think the press is being more responsible than the
President's GOP critics.
David Ignatius has several well-written articles regarding the Benghazi attack.
From his Oct 19 article:“Talking points” prepared by the
CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances,
support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a
reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States.
According to the CIA account, “The currently available information
suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the
protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against
the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that
extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."The CIA
document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is
collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be
evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it
reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of
intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports."Ignatius' recent column about Susan Rice, in the Washington Post, is also
Pat says "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"That statement is good comedy. "being thrown out
there" Too funny.Dr Rice is being dragged out there by the
Republicans. THEY decided to make Dr Rice a target of baseless attacks. John
McCain trying to stay relevant. Nothing more.
It is truly fascinating how far myopic Obama supporters are willing to go to
blind themselves to reality. The more obvious it becomes that the administration
knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack at the time that it happened (even
watching on video drone) - the more the apologists squirm to deny.Obama had relied on taking out Bin Laden as evidence of his foreign policy
prowess - the prospect of a persistent Al Qaeda were politically toxic and
required doing ANYTHING to obfuscate the truth. The reality of terrorism and
the non-event of the video protests was apparently well known by the
administration by the time Rice went on the Sunday show tour (which Hillary
declined to do) therefore one can only conclude that Rice was lying, uniformed
or merely a tool. Efforts to portray criticisms of that behavior as being
racist or sexist are consistent with the Obama administration/campaign's
general reliance on race, gender and class warfare as a basis of their
passive/aggressive power. It merely proves the level of this administrations
viciousness and lack of a moral floor.
@Craig ClarkI agree that much of the criticism is partisan. And
I'll admit that I am a staunch opponent of Barack Obama. I think he is a
horrible President otherwise. However, I also don't think that diminishes
just how horrible the Benghazi incident really is. Two Navy SEALs and an
ambassador are dead. When that happens, I don't think you can blow things
out of proportion. The seriousness of such an incident cannot be overstated.
I think it's possible to look at Benghazi without a partisan lens.
I've spoken out when I've disagreed with the GOP. I've spoken
out on the rare occasion I've admired the way Obama has handled something.
I don't see how you justify, excuse or sweep under the rug this
Benghazi travesty. Ignoring danger signs before the incident, ignoring pleas
for more security beforehand and pleas for help during the incident, lying about
the incident, lying about lying about the incident. If the brave navy seals
hadn't disregarded orders to stand down there would have likely been many
more dead. Utterly shameful. And it IS shameful the mainstream media so
Conter Intelligence,"....Efforts to portray criticisms of that
behavior as being racist or sexist are consistent with the Obama
administration/campaign's general reliance on race, gender and class
warfare as a basis of their passive/aggressive power....."______________________________If you know who’s doing this,
by all means please identify them by name. Robert Bennett didn’t bother to
do that in his article but he sure has stirred up some readers in here with wild
broadsides fired at unnamed parties. If you know who on my side is making such
charges of racism and sexism, please share the info with me. Otherwise,
I’ll conclude that you and Robert Bennett are the ones who are making
SoCalChris: Ignoring danger signs before the incident, ignoring pleas for more
security beforehand and pleas for help during the incident, lying about the
incident, lying about lying about the incident. Uh ...Where has all
this outrage been for the last decade?"Secretary Rice failed to take a
July 2001 warning (Osama bin Laden intends to launch terrorist attacks inside
the United States) seriously when it was delivered at a White House meeting by
Tenet, Cofer Black, then the agency's chief of top counterterrorism, and a
third CIA official ..."Pure politics now.
Owen, If Bush had had 7 hours notice that planes were headed for the
Twin Towers and just sat there and watched the planes crash into the buildings
in real time and didn't lift a finger to stop it, yeah -- there would be
outrage. I doubt a generic warning that Bin Laden was planning another attack
was news to anybody at the time, but prior to 9-11 we didn't have the
political will to do what needed to be done -- go after Al Qaeda, Patriot Act,
etc.After the earlier attacks in Benghazi we should have pulled out
like the British or at least beefed up security as they had been begging for.
It was a disaster waiting to happen and when it did happen it looks like little
if anything was done to help Americans in distress. But if you see
the world as Obama - good, Bush - bad, I guess you just see outrage over
Benghazi as all politics.
SoCalChris... do you have any idea how many "possible threats" the
government gets daily, most of which never come to anything. Point is Bush and
his administration had weeks notice, not 7 hours. And exactly what response
did you expect the administration to do in that time frame. Send troops into a
foreign area, with no plan, no idea who these people were what their
capabilities were? What, you just wanted a bigger body bag count so we can
pretend we are John Wayne riding over the hill to save the day.Fortunately the US military leaders have learned from these kind of unplanned
and unprepared type of "rescues" in both Iran, Iraq and Somalia. You
want to play loose with our militaries lives - have at it. But these generals
take their jobs a tad more responsibly. Maybe in the books and movies you
watch, there is a standby team of Seals ready to swoop in to any theater at
anytime.... but in the real world.... that doesn't exist.
I think the questions are still quite simple. For me it is who knew what
(specifically the President, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, CIA Director, UN
Ambassador, etc) and more importantly, when did they know it? The answers thus
far (if any there be) seem to me quite implausible. Deny and distract. The best
this Administration can hope for is that the American people will get tired of
all the denials and distractions and Benghazi will become old news. Deny and
distract. It took several months for the truth regarding Watergate to be known.
Once again the DMN is taking its ideas from Fox News. Can't you people
think for yourselves?
Well Utah Blue Devil, we have these things called airplanes now (taking a page
out of Obama's debate book). I'm not a military expert, and I doubt
you are either, but I have a feeling any kind of response would have made a
difference. The seals lit up that mortar, that ultimately killed them, for a
reason -- they thought. How in the world did Bush have weeks notice
of 9-11? (Maybe YOU'RE watching and reading the wrong things.)I've seen your posts for a while and you seem like a thoughtful guy.
I'm puzzled that you're not disturbed by the absolute baloney we were
told for so long or about the fact that we didn't seem to pay as much
attention to the safety of our citizens as the British did. Everything about
What an ironic editorial. If Bennett wants to criticize the media for being
misleading, he shouldn't mislead the public by saying the U.S. embassy in
Benghazi was attacked. *The U.S. does NOT have an embassy in Benghazi.* The
embassy of the U.S. in Libya is in Tripoli, not Benghazi. It was the consulate
office in Benghazi that was attacked.Does Bennett not know this, or
was he being intentionally misleading?
@Craig Clark"If you know who’s doing this, by all means
please identify them by name"Nov.14: Obama states that the ONLY
reason anyone could possibly have to question Rice is to "besmirch" her
reputationNov. 16: Rep. Maria Fudge, D-Ohio, Rep Gwen Moore,
D-Wis., Rep Elanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., and NINE other House members hold news
conference to claim that opposition to Rice was both racist and sexistNov. 21: Rep. Jame Clyburg D-S.C. states on national TV that criticisms of
Rice are based on racism and sexismNov.19: Former top Newsweek
journalist and current MSNBC.com editor Richard Wolffe claimed a "witch hunt
going on the right about these people of color ... Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett,
now Susan Rice."Nov. 29: MSNBC Toure' Nesblett defined
McCain as one of “old, white establishment folks” who only oppose
Rice because he is "bitter" but excuses himself with "I'll
leave it to you to decide how much of the tarring of Rice as incompetent and
unqualified is about the myth of black inferiority and female inferiority,"
Anyone actually reading diverse news sources would find this and