Next Rice critic to emerge not exactly a sexist conservative cavedweller

posted at 10:31 am on November 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

So far, defenders of Susan Rice’s attempts to flack a false narrative on behalf of the White House have tried smearing her critics as either racist or sexist conservative troglodytes. After Kelly Ayotte took the lead among the Senate Republican caucus in opposing Rice’s rumored nomination to State, at least temporarily, the same defenders dismissed her as window dressing.  However, the next potential critic won’t be so easily dismissed.  Maureen Dowd checked in with Susan Collins, one of the GOP’s moderates, who will meet with Rice today to get answers to a few questions on her mind as well:

Collins drew up a list of questions to ask Rice at their one-on-one hourlong meeting slated for Wednesday. She wants Rice to explain how she could promote a story “with such certitude” about a spontaneous demonstration over the anti-Muslim video that was so at odds with the classified information to which the ambassador had access. (It was also at odds with common sense, given that there were Al Qaeda sympathizers among the rebel army members that overthrew Muammar el-Qaddafi with help from the U.S. — an intervention advocated by Rice — and Islamic extremist training camps in the Benghazi area.)

The F.B.I. interviewed survivors of the attack in Germany and, according to some senators, had done most of the interviews of those on site by Sept. 15, the day before Rice went on TV, and established that there was no protest. Collins wants to learn if the F.B.I. had failed to communicate that, or if they had communicated it and Rice went ahead anyway?

When Rice heard the president of the Libyan National Congress tell Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation,” right before her appearance, that 50 people had been arrested who were either foreign or affiliated with or sympathized with Al Qaeda, why did she push back with the video story? “Why wouldn’t she think what the Libyan president said mattered?” Collins wondered.

Why did Rice say on ABC News’s “This Week,” that “two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security”? Rice was referring to the two ex-Navy SEAL team members who were C.I.A. security officers working on a base about a mile away. “They weren’t there to protect Ambassador Stevens,” Collins said. “That wasn’t their job.”

Rice also said that “we had a substantial security presence with our personnel” — which was clearly not the case. Collins wants to know Rice’s basis for saying on ABC that the attacks were “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.” And why did she say “a small number of people” came to the consulate to protest, when that phrase is not in her talking points? Collins is curious why Rice is not angrier, if, as she insists, she was repeating what she was told. “I’d be furious at the White House and F.B.I. and intelligence community for destroying my credibility,” the senator said.

This will be an interesting story to watch today, and it will probably determine Rice’s viability.  If Collins pronounces herself satisfied with Rice’s answers, it will cut the ground from underneath Ayotte, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.  If not — and it’s difficult to see how Rice can provide answers that will satisfy anyone at this point other than “I was duped,” which isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for a Cabinet position — then John Kerry should start preparing his confirmation-hearing testimony.

Collins tells Dowd that she’s been supportive of Rice in the past, but this episode has the Senator “troubled.”  She asks Dowd rhetorically a question that moves the story from being a dupe or even a protector of the President to something more like naked self-interest on Rice’s part: “Did they think admitting that it was an Al Qaeda attack would destroy the narrative of Libya being a big success story?”  Dowd connects the dots in the final sentence:

As one of the administration champions of intervening in Libya, Rice was surely rooting for that success story herself.

Indeed — and it was not just in Obama’s interest to see that narrative survive.

Jim Geraghty puts the stakes in perspective:

Collins indicates that she’s willing to support Rice if she gets good answers. But the confirmation hearings may turn out to be brutal, with senators asking fair, basic, and extremely important questions, and Rice’s answers will either indicate a suspicion/belief that she was telling the American people false information, or a level of blind credulity that is deeply disturbing in any U.S. official, never mind a Secretary of State.

It will be interesting to watch Democrats insisting that Susan Collins is motivated by sexism and racism, and that she only is expressing doubts about Rice’s honesty because she’s just another rabid, right-wing, hardline conservative ideologue…

UPDATE: I’ll bet Democrats think Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire who is pledging to put a “hold” on any Rice nomination, is just as driven by sexism…

Keep an eye on the outcome today.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Next Rice critic to emerge not exactly a sexist conservative cavedweller

Yeah, but she’s white, so that makes her a racist.

UltimateBob on November 28, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Republicans unveil new Civil War on Wimmin.

CorporatePiggy on November 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM

She’s merely a Ricist.

Flange on November 28, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Where’s condi?

the_nile on November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Lsm will bash anyway….just can’t believe people won’t take her at her word

Pathetic lsm defense

cmsinaz on November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Collins, another member of the Armed Services committee, has questions that essentially boil down to this……

How is it that you got the story so wrong when you went on those talk shows? And if you were given information this wrong, how is it that our Intelligence Community wasn’t doing a better job?

And I strongly believe all the unanswered questions deserve public scrutiny. I am more than a little disappointed at so-called conservatives that are too cowardly to demand answers from Rice and the administration instead of rubber stamping the nomination to high office of a confirmed liar.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Where’s condi?

the_nile on November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Doing what she has done for over a decade. Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Arrogant on November 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

White women hate Black women, because they know that their husbands want to rape all their slave women. Remember Chuck Connors in Roots? “I paid a lot of money for you Kizzy, so now I’m gonna enjoy you”.

ardenenoch on November 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

…not exactly a sexist conservative cavedweller

She will be, now.

PersonFromPorlock on November 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

As Americans, we must not relent in seeking the truth in this rapidly evolving scandal.
No matter how many revisions to their initial lie-filled explanation of the attack that they offer.

President Harry S. Truman had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said, “The Buck Stops here.”

I firmly believe that President Barack Hussein Obama has one on his desk that says, “It’s Not My Fault.”

kingsjester on November 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

just can’t believe people won’t take her at her word

cmsinaz on November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

IMO- It’s a little bit more complicated than that.

The LSM was complicit in spreading the lies and furthering the cover-up. THEY were the ones that took the lying partisan Rice at face value without any interest in questioning the absurdity of the story that a YouTube video sparked a spontaneous protest which lead to a twelve-hour gunfight complete with flanking movements and RPGs.

The story didn’t make sense from the time that the rat-eared wonder and the pig-in-a-pantsuit lied their asses off in the Rose Garden on September 12th. Yet four days later this was still the story being told by Rice. The LSM needs it to be nothing more than bad intelligence and not outright lies because that is what covers their backsides as well. In other words, they were only reporting what the adminstration was giving them as the best intelligence available.

And as I posted above- anybody who wants to give Rice a pass on her part in the lies and cover-up because Obama won the election and Rice is a black female is not doing the conservative movement any favors. Conservatives should stand with the truth not cower when angry black Congresswomen or the President suggest that Rice should not come under scrutiny because she is a black female. Doesn’t Maxine Waters prove the fact that black women are, indeed, capable of lying?

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

So if Rice isn’t qualified to be SOS because of her obvious false testimony how could Kerry be qualified. After all he testified that he spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia at the direct orders of Richard Nixon. How can that be other than a bald faced lie. Nixon didn’t take office until January of 1969. Maybe he was confused and got the times wrong. That doesn’t speak well for someone who wants to be a Cabinet level officer.

chemman on November 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Can’t wait to hear today’s version of the story.

forest on November 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the senators who are being accused of being racist concerning Susan Rice the same senators who had no trouble confirming Condi Rice?

That’s wierd.

loudmouth883 on November 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

A battered party turns it’s hopes to it’s new Champion. Susan Collins.

aquaviva on November 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Holy smokes. Cuba is getting everyone to pay taxes. The U.S. is now to the left of Cuba and Russia.

John the Libertarian on November 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

First, all this focus on what Rice said or did takes away from the real issue. Who issued the stand down order? Were we holding prisoners at the CIA Annex? What was the Ambassador doing meeting with the Turkish guy there, that day? What exactly did Obama do or not do in relation to the attack?

Second, I do not see what it matters which incompetent lying sack of crap gets confirmed to this incompetent lying sack of crap administration. As in Syria, there are no good guys.

Night Owl on November 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

So if Rice isn’t qualified to be SOS because of her obvious false testimony how could Kerry be qualified. After all he testified that he spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia at the direct orders of Richard Nixon. How can that be other than a bald faced lie.

chemman on November 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Fair enough a question. If anybody wants Rice to be SecState in 44 years (when she will be 92), I will be the first in line to defend her nomination to the job.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Still tossing out distractions………..Still using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals……….add a complicit media…….SUCCESS.

It really is turning my stomach knowing we have 4 more years of this.

CoffeeLover on November 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the senators who are being accused of being racist concerning Susan Rice the same senators who had no trouble confirming Condi Rice?

That’s wierd.

loudmouth883 on November 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Yeah in the same sorta way that Senate Democrats who spent decades screaming about the evils of sexual harrassment in the workplace had no problem voting not to toss out Bill Clinton after his impeachment.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Where’s condi?

the_nile on November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

She’s too busy calling for U.S. troops in Syria to weigh in on Benghazi.

steebo77 on November 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM

It says a lot about the GOP when a squish like Susan Collins is the one doing the questioning.

Man up, y’all!

kingsjester on November 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Next Rice critic to emerge not exactly a sexist conservative cavedweller

It would be 100 times easier to understand A little riddiculus gibberish then to understand the twisted sick convoluted reasoning of a Liberal.

SWalker on November 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM

If past is prologue Collins will support Rice.

Collins has made a career of shining the bright lights on herself, inflating the value of her specious opinions and then delivering a decision which does not comport with the evidence or common sense.

Marcus Traianus on November 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM

As one of the administration champions of intervening in Libya, Rice was surely rooting for that success story herself.

Kenosha Kid on November 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM

What excuse will MSNBC put forward now on this story?

Tater Salad on November 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Lying liars lie.
Anyone who believes anything coming from the Federal government is delusional.
The narative is all important, and they will continue to massage it until the next squirrel shows up.
At this point, we are nothing but a source of funds to maintain the Elite NWO lifestyle.
War is coming…be prepared.

dirtengineer on November 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

What’s the sensitive-liberal term for woman on the outside, man on the inside?

They use OREO for conservative blacks all the time, surely there is a moniker that can be applied to others who leave the leftist reservation.

Bishop on November 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

They use OREO for conservative blacks all the time, surely there is a moniker that can be applied to others who leave the leftist reservation.

Bishop on November 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I believe in the Liberal lexicon the correct word is TRAITOR

SWalker on November 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Over at “The Corner” Jonah Goldberg weighs in on the nonsense of deflecting the opposition to the Susan Rice potential nomination as SoS as absurd.

He weighs in on the bigger problems of the Obysmal administration’s foreign policy:

I think Andy McCarthy focuses on the right approach below. The scandal of the administration’s response to Benghazi has as much to do with policy as it does with politics. From the outset, Obama sought to deflate the war on terror, as a matter of policy. He wanted to treat it as a crime-control issue for the most part, moving terrorists to civilian courts, unwinding our military presence in Iraq and — if politics would allow — Afghanistan. Remember all of that nonsense about cleansing the word “terrorism” from the government’s lexicon? That was all part of the same effort. Meanwhile, the facets of terrorism that required a military response could be dealt with surgically: special ops, drones, and other resources that can be managed (or give the illusion of being managed) via a video screen in the Situation Room. That sort of approach is appealing to a man who believes he’s uniquely qualified to pluck names from a kill list.

As Steve Hayes has been arguing over and over, the White House always downplays terror attacks. In the wake of the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bomber, etc., the administration pushed the “isolated incident” explanation as much, and for as long, as plausible. When the facts finally make such claims impossible, the administration grudgingly admitted them (although the administration still considers the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence”). But by then attention and anger dissipated somewhat and the no-drama Obama approach to foreign policy remained unscathed.

Obviously, there are political motives behind this approach, too. And as the election loomed larger the political no doubt swamped the policy. The campaign didn’t want a terror attack on Obama’s watch right after the president and Biden had spent so much time and effort crowing about their foreign policy successes. Obama defenders who cite Obama’s few rhetorical concessions to “terror” in the wake of the attack are either in denial or being outright dishonest when they suggest the White House treated this like a terror attack. Any reasonable person following the Obama administration’s response would conclude this was “all about a video.” That was how liberals interpreted Obama (these same liberals are remarkably comfortable with the fact that Obama misled them). Go back and read the op-ed pages or listen to NPR broadcasts right after the attack. It was all about the limits of free speech, the heckler’s veto, etc. (I remember in part because I wrote a couple columns expressing my disgust with the idea that our free speech is contingent on rioters in another country). The White House thought it could get away with blaming Christian zealots in America or in some other way denying this was a “real” terror attack until after the election. In other words, they relied on the same old strategy.

One last point. In scandals like this, sometimes outrages fall by the wayside. One in particular has been bugging me for months now. It’s worth remembering that in the aftermath of the attack — when most people believed that our Ambassador was, in the words of Mark Steyn, “asphyxiated by a spontaneous class-action movie review”– that the administration was still in hot water for being unprepared and for failing to provide adequate security in Benghazi. When Susan Rice appeared on ABC’s This Week Jake Tapper asked her about this:

TAPPER: Why was there such a security breakdown? Why was there not better security at the compound in Benghazi? Why were there not U.S. Marines at the embassy in Tripoli?

RICE: Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence with our personnel…

TAPPER: Not substantial enough, though, right?

RICE: … with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.

Now, my understanding is that this was a lie (whether Rice realized it or not). The CIA knew why those men were there and it wasn’t to be Ambassador Stevens’s bodyguards. Bodyguards (never mind ones who were former Navy SEALs) do not die in a safe house miles from the person they were protecting. In other words, the inadequate security Rice claimed the administration provided for Chris Stevens was in fact non-existent.

Of course, pointing this out means I’m a racist.

onlineanalyst on November 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

What’s the sensitive-liberal term for woman on the outside, man on the inside?

Bishop on November 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Rachael Maddow.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Will these who are holding the hearing today on rice, have the information from yesterdays hearing? If so, they will be able to see if rice is lying or not with her answers and if the answers change?
L

letget on November 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Will these who are holding the hearing today on rice, have the information from yesterdays hearing? If so, they will be able to see if rice is lying or not with her answers and if the answers change?
L

letget on November 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM

That would be raaaaacist…. So of course not…

SWalker on November 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Rice’s answers will either indicate a suspicion/belief that she was telling the American people false information, or a level of blind credulity that is deeply disturbing in any U.S. official, never mind a Secretary of State.

Affirmative Action in action.

She’s in full CYA mode and unqualified to be Secretary of State.

Bork her.

MichaelGabriel on November 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Where’s condi?

the_nile on November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Busy with her fantasy football

portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Republicans made this about her instead of focusing on the loss of lives. They gave away the narrative regardless of how incompetent she is.

tomas on November 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Well said happy nomad

cmsinaz on November 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Rachael Maddow.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Bwaaaaaa!

Susan Collins is a Maddow!

Bishop on November 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

If Collins pronounces herself satisfied with Rice’s answers, it will cut the ground from underneath Ayotte, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.

Collins will weasel, giving the Dems just enough ammo to fire back. It’s her SOP.

petefrt on November 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM

She’s in full CYA mode and unqualified to be Secretary of State.

Bork her.

MichaelGabriel on November 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

She’s trying to cover a whole lot more than her own backside.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Republicans made this about her instead of focusing on the loss of lives. They gave away the narrative regardless of how incompetent she is.

tomas on November 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM

nope…rice is a surrogate for the great incompetent bo. the gop will get to bo by the back door when hillary opens it. it’ll be cutains for the clown in the oval office if we keep pushing. even chris matthews is getting worried. good…we’ll remember our 4 men…just keep thinking of them and you’ll know what we have to do.

gracie on November 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

0bama said a few weeks ago that instead of going after Susan Rice, critics should be going after him.

He said the he would be happy to have that discussion. And we are more than happy to oblige.

As Dean Vernon Wormer would say, “You’ll get your chance, smart guy.

UltimateBob on November 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Republicans made this about her instead of focusing on the loss of lives. They gave away the narrative regardless of how incompetent she is.

tomas on November 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Republicans never made it about her! There is only so much they can do with the real meat of the attack and subsequent cover-up because the administration is deliberately stonewalling and hiding stuff even though Congress has oversight authority. Openly questioning Rice’s role in the cover-up is legitimate and a way to force some truth out of the administration.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

+1 happy @11:10

cmsinaz on November 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Rachael Maddow.

Happy Nomad on November 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Eggzackly.

kingsjester on November 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Let’s not forget Susie Rice’s role in disguising the genocide in Rawanda.

onlineanalyst on November 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The question is best asked here. “What about the damn movie? Who in the White House knew?

http://amuchbetterquestion.com/what-about-the-damn-movie/

Windsweeping on November 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Let’s not forget Susie Rice’s role in disguising the genocide in Rawanda.

onlineanalyst on November 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

And the failure to go after Bin Laden in the 90s.

MichaelGabriel on November 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Dowd wrote this column? Maureen Dowd???

Where’s Bearded Spock? We’re surely in a different dimension.

nukemhill on November 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

“…not exactly a sexist conservative cavedweller”

She will be, now.

PersonFromPorlock on November 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

This. She’ll be pilloried starting in 3 .. 2 .. 1….

nukemhill on November 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Kerry will get the Democrat Senate ok as SOS, as he is the best and most senior liar they have.

Obama will need Kerry to swear to the Presidents lies.

Pure Commie Democrat Party Gold.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

On the issue of bho/carney/rice blaming the video, egypt has sentencd seven to death for the video! Good job bho/rice/etc. just keeps flinging gas on the fire to see more people get killed?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/egyptian-court-sentences-seven-christians-to-death-for-muhammad-video.html
L

letget on November 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

This will be an interesting story to watch today

No it won’t. There are no “interesting stories” anymore. It is just all the same. The same day after day as we slowly slide deeper into political serfdom and squalor. The media makes sure our slow-motion descent is not marked or impeded by “interesting stories.” It’s their job, and they’re absolute professionals at it.

rrpjr on November 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Has someone done a flow chart of the adm.’s lies and statements on Begazie.

A visual thing like that would make it easy to see they have fraud in mind seems to some.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 28, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Bork Rice before she’s confirmed and prevent the Benghazi cover~up narrative from becoming a part of unknown history!!

DevilsPrinciple on November 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM


Update

“Senator Susan Collins criticized Ambassador Susan Rice’s handling of the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi after meeting with Ambassador Rice today. Collins stated that she believes Rice carried political water for the administration during the presidential election.”

petefrt on November 28, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I’m surprised how directly Collins criticizes Rice. Rice is in deep doo doo now. (And Obama is in pee pee.)

petefrt on November 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I want the CIA and Hillary telling us just what was Amb. Stevens doing? The population of Benghazi is about 3 citizens and all the rest terrorists.

tim c on November 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I’m surprised how directly Collins criticizes Rice. Rice is in deep doo doo now. (And Obama is in pee pee.)

That was interesting what collins had to say! And it does seem rice is in… and bho is in… also!
L

letget on November 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Ohhhh..so the new Racist!® Blamestream Media meme is going to be white wimmyns vs. black wimmyns?

*orders pallet of popcorn from Sam’s Club*

98ZJUSMC on November 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Susan Collins may not be sexist or conservative, but I think she does qualify as a cave dweller.

bw222 on November 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

No it won’t. There are no “interesting stories” anymore. It is just all the same. The same day after day as we slowly slide deeper into political serfdom and squalor. The media makes sure our slow-motion descent is not marked or impeded by “interesting stories.” It’s their job, and they’re absolute professionals at it.

rrpjr on November 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Jeff Zucker (former head of NBC) appears to be the frontrunner to head CNN so nothing will change, excepot CNN will move even farther left.

bw222 on November 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

That is probably one of the most lucid columns MoDo has ever written. I know that is not saying much, but still. Wait, I think I see a pig circling overhead…

rcpjr on November 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Susan Collins is a Maddow!

Bishop on November 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Actually Collins got married last summer. Fortunately, she is too old to breed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/fashion/weddings/susan-collins-thomas-daffron-weddings.html?_r=0

Collins should be a favorite with the HA Harpies.

bw222 on November 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Susan Collins is a senile old GOPelitist fencesitter showing up late for the game again.

RoyalFlush on November 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Why would you announce the questions to the NYT and give them a chance to construct a bunch of lying spin? Seriously, if you were a senator about to meet with Rice, wouldn’t you keep your questions close to the vest?

My guess is that she had to announce the questions because she plans to say she was satisfied with Rice’s answers and those answers will have some “classified” elements so you can’t report those. Without us knowing that she had some good questions ahead of time, the assumption would be that Collins didn’t question her at all and is just a leftist pretending to be a Republican.

Buddahpundit on November 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I firmly believe that President Barack Hussein Obama has one on his desk that says, “It’s Not My Fault.”

kingsjester on November 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Obama’s desk sign: “There are no bucks in this administration.”

rwenger43 on November 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

First, all this focus on what Rice said or did takes away from the real issue. Who issued the stand down order? Were we holding prisoners at the CIA Annex? What was the Ambassador doing meeting with the Turkish guy there, that day? What exactly did Obama do or not do in relation to the attack?

Second, I do not see what it matters which incompetent lying sack of crap gets confirmed to this incompetent lying sack of crap administration. As in Syria, there are no good guys.

Night Owl on November 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

This is what happens when Obama “sleeps on” all his decisions, like that bold masterstroke of courage, taking out bin Laden.

Sometimes when you “sleep on it,” your people are dead before you awaken. And your enemies filmed it, and everyone knows how unprepared you were, but the complicit media censor themselves so the innocent can remain victims for the bullies of the world.

rwenger43 on November 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

President Obama said of Susan Rice , “She is extraordinary”. What does this say of his ability to judge people? Or is “extraordinary” just a Democratic President Bill Clinton Code word for “GIVES GOOD H—D”?

jpcpt03 on November 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM