United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice has been catching all kinds of flak from Republicans about her Sunday talk show appearances in which it now looks an awful lot like she willfully participated in purposefully misling the American people about the true nature of the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in four American deaths. At her own behest, some of her harshest critics — Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte — agreed to meet with her and hear her out on Tuesday morning, along with acting CIA Director Michael Morell, at a closed-door briefing. Apparently, her self-defense was unconvincing:
“Bottom line, I’m more disturbed now than I was before (by) the 16 September explanation about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). …
“We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn’t get concerning some of the evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate,” McCain said. …
Ayotte echoed Graham, saying she was “more troubled today having met with the acting director of the CIA and Ambassador Rice.”
“When you’re in a position where you’re ambassador to the United Nations, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. And that’s troubling to me as well, why she wouldn’t have asked” more questions.
In a nutshell, it seems like the meeting helped to get to the bottom of approximately nothing, except to confirm that the “spontaneous protest” line that Amb. Rice peddled was very clearly incorrect and we’re no closer to getting the basic answers about who changed the talking points. So, kind of back to square one — as Sen. Graham wondered again, why did she have to definitively say anything about the attacks? Why not just say, ‘We don’t have enough information to be sure, here are the possibilities, and we’ll keep you updated’?
The senators didn’t explicitly say that they were still committed to blocking her potential nomination to Secretary of State, saying that they’d need more information — I’m sure they’d like to leave themselves some wiggle room on that one — but they’re clearly not satisfied with Susan Rice’s side of the story.