That was then, this is now.....

[ms maggie]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...usan-rice.html

Why are they upset at Rice and not, say, officials in charge of security at the mission? Or, if they want to go big, why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Probably because they wanted to go after a lesser official whom President Barack Obama would like to be secretary of state. Or because they don’t want to talk about how Republicans have consistently denied funds to protect diplomatic posts in dangerous places. Or because they don’t want to discuss how supportive they were last decade when then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell gave testimony that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Powell and Rice then, like Susan Rice now, were relying on information provided by the intelligence community. There is, however, a major difference: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were testifying before official government bodies to justify going to war. Susan Rice was filling airtime between ads for erectile-dysfunction drugs.

I don't know if I could be a politician. The sheer amount of chutzpah required would be exhausting.

[veritas]

We knew in short order that this was a terror attack. The bigger question is why Rice was told to sell the "spontaneous demonstration" story and why Obama was still peddling it two weeks later.

[zenwalk]

"Fake melodrama."

[ms maggie]

We knew in short order that this was a terror attack. The bigger question is why Rice was told to sell the "spontaneous demonstration" story and why Obama was still peddling it two weeks later.

No. The big question is why it happened period, why the security breakdown, irrespective of the motivation of the attackers.

The other questions are secondary and are crowding out the significant one. On the news, it's all about Rice. Who the hell cares? Let's find out what happened and why it happened. This obsession with the messenger is foolish.

[flyboy56]

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next month. And if you had watched the C-SPAN Congressional investigation THEY ARE focusing on the lack of security at the Diplomatic Facility in Benghazi. Clinton can not discuss the case even if they asked her questions. Just because the news isn't reporting anything substantial, this investigation is taking place.

[flyboy56]

No. The big question is why it happened period, why the security breakdown, irrespective of the motivation of the attackers.

The other questions are secondary and are crowding out the significant one. On the news, it's all about Rice. Who the hell cares? Let's find out what happened and why it happened. This obsession with the messenger is foolish.

ms maggie; you can watch the first Congressional investigation into the Benghazi attack on C-SPAN. The investigation is focused on the lack of security. Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify next month. Until then she can not answer question specific to the Benghazi attacks. So the media is focusing on Rice because they can.

[dsummoner]

When one puts oneself or is put, front and center, as an administration's spokeshole then one remains front and center when the fallout happens.

[DaggerJohn]

From the OP's Bloomberg quote: ... "Susan Rice was filling airtime between ads for erectile-dysfunction drugs".

Good God, is there a connection there too?

[flyboy56]

Secretary of State should be strong, independent minded, and willing to question any and all information given to her. Did we learn nothing from Gen. Colin Powell?

[ms maggie]

From the OP's Bloomberg quote: ... "Susan Rice was filling airtime between ads for erectile-dysfunction drugs".

Good God, is there a connection there too?

LOL. You ever notice how on football broadcasts, a disproportionate amount of ads are for erectile dysfunction drugs and beer? Does anyone else suspect a connection here?

[Byng]

I really think this whole attack on Rice is more to do with trying to force Obama into Nominating John Kerry more than anything else. But if I was Obama I would be looking to replace a Clinton with a Clinton! What is wrong with Bill taking Secretary of State?

The former President loves the limelight and the foreign travel and adulation plus he would be a formidable negotiator with foreign leaders. It might also be good for the Clinton's marriage that seems to be less rocky when one or the other of them is on the road.

[flyboy56]

I really think this whole attack on Rice is more to do with trying to force Obama into Nominating John Kerry more than anything else. But if I was Obama I would be looking to replace a Clinton with a Clinton! What is wrong with Bill taking Secretary of State?

The former President loves the limelight and the foreign travel and adulation plus he would be a formidable negotiator with foreign leaders. It might also be good for the Clinton's marriage that seems to be less rocky when one or the other of them is on the road.

I don't think Bill Clinton would be able to handle the long trips and pressure required of this position Byng. Look how it has aged Hillary with the bags under her eyes and all. Bill looks really thin since his quadruple by pass. I think John Kerry would make an excellent choice. And I'm not saying it so his seat can be filled with a Republican either.

[soulflower]

We knew in short order that this was a terror attack. The bigger question is why Rice was told to sell the "spontaneous demonstration" story and why Obama was still peddling it two weeks later.

No one, not even Dr. Rice, ever claimed it wasn't a terror attack.

Due to the fact that there was a major CIA operation going on in Benghazi at the time of the attack, she was only permitted to say what the intelligence community would allow her to say at the time. Her talking points were vetted through several different intelligence agencies.

The real scandal is the congressional republicans outing the CIA covert op and the Libyans who were helping Americans in Benghazi.

[flyboy56]

No one, not even Dr. Rice, ever claimed it wasn't a terror attack.

Due to the fact that there was a major CIA operation going on in Benghazi at the time of the attack, she was only permitted to say what the intelligence community would allow her to say at the time. Her talking points were vetted through several different intelligence agencies.

The real scandal is the congressional republicans outing the CIA covert op and the Libyans who were helping Americans in Benghazi.

The real scandal was not heeding the Brits' decision to pull out and join them. Whatever the CIA was doing the Risk doesn't seem to fit the Gains.