In your face

By Mustang Bobby

Peter Beinart:

By appointing Susan Rice as his new national-security adviser and Samantha Power to represent the U.S. at the United Nations, Barack Obama is practically shouting a message to the Washington GOP: “I’m no longer afraid of you.”

It’s about damn time.

We saw a little flash of this backatcha from the president when Susan Rice was being roastedlast winter when she was being mentioned as the next Secretary of State, but that collapsed and we got John Kerry. Not that there’s anything wrong with Mr. Kerry, and I doubt that having a knock-down/drag-out over Ms. Rice in the Senate confirmation would have left the State Department hanging out there while John McCain and his wormtongue Lindsey Graham romped all over her on TV. But by making her the National Security Adviser — which does not require Senate confirmation and carries as much heft in actually running the country’s foreign policy as being Secretary of State — Mr. Obama is flipping off the Republicans and he doesn’t give a shit if they carry on about the “culture of intimidation” and how uppity arrogant he is.

Now let’s see if he sticks to sticking it to them.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The Benghazi scandal that isn't: How Republicans and the media are distorting a tragedy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another day, another breathless report of something supposedly "new" in the whole Benghazi saga, which really just amounts to a media-enabled Republican assault on the the Obama Administration -- first the president himself as the target, now, with Republicans looking ahead to 2016, Hillary Clinton.

Today it's from Jonathan Karl of ABC News, who "reports" the following:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

Okay... and? 

As ThinkProgress notes:

[T]he ABC report suggests the State Department "scrubbed" the talking points of terror references as some sort of nefarious cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi for political reasons. This, of course, playing into the GOP's conspiracy theory that President Obama was trying to preserve his campaign theme that his policies has significantly crippled the terror network. 

And I would note that Karl's piece seems to be written from the perspective of those conspiracy theories. At the very least, Karl is playing right along with the right's obsessions. ThinkProgress continues:

The story soon set reporters and Twitter alight. "Scrubbing the truth from Benghazi," a National Journal headline read. Even the BBC speculated that "heads will roll."

But absent in ABC's report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident (thereby negating the need to "scrub" any references in the talking points) and that then-CIA Director David Petraeus said the terrorist references were taken out to, as the New York Times reported, "avoid tipping off the groups" that may have been involved.

Basically, the State Department -- specifically former Cheney advisor Victoria Nuland -- was more involved in the development of the talking points than previously reported.

Republicans and their various enablers in the media -- who may think they're digging for the truth but are really just doing the Republicans' bidding -- seem to think this rises to the level of, well, something possibly worse than Watergate.

Read more »

Tempest in a teapot that doesn't exist: The Republican "outrage" on Benghazi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So we were told by Fox News and pretty much the entirety of the Republican conspiracy machine that yesterday's testimony before the (Republican-led) House committee "investigating" the Benghazi attack and its aftermath would provide the evidence that would finally expose President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, and anyone and everyone else the Republicans have been targeting as liars, and therefore as worthy of impeachment or whatever other severe punishment the vindicated Republicans wished to mete out.

Alas, it was nothing of the sort. Instead the testimony of the key Republican witnesses only served to crush the various right-wing conspiracy theories -- e.g., fighter jets could have been sent but weren't, a special forces team that could have helped was held back in Tripoli, Ambassador Rice's statements on the Sunday talk-show circuit were evidence of partisan-political interference -- that have become gospel among Republicans, not just with the crazies in the House and throughout conservative media but with media-promoted superstars like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Kevin Drum sums up the whole nonsense:

Was Benghazi mishandled? Maybe. Are there lessons to be learned? Probably. Is there a scandal or a coverup? There's never been any evidence of it, and there still isn't. This is a show that goes on and on without end, but it never delivers a payoff. Issa and his colleagues need to start paying more attention to stuff that actually matters, and give up on the Fox-friendly conspiracy theories that never pan out. Enough's enough.

Yes, but it won't be for Republicans, because it's not really about Benghazi. (If Republicans really gave a shit, maybe they wouldn't have voted against funding for diplomatic missions. As usual, their outrage is completely faux.) Before last November's election, it was about taking down the president. But now, with Obama secure in his second term, it's about taking down the Republicans' worst nightmare for 2016, Hillary Clinton. It's obvious. Steve M. looks ahead:

They're going to let up a little on Obama after 2014, and Hillary's going to become the most evil person in the world again. They may even decide they kind of like Obama, if they can figure out a way to use that against her. It's going to be bizarre. And it's going to be as ugly as the Obama-hate has been.

It's ugly, it's vicious, it's pathetic, and it's pretty much all they've got. So expect much, much more of it.

Winning votes with smears, lies, and ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's the Republican way.

Read more »

Mike Huckabee is an idiot extraordinaire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee slammed the president and Democrats for their "war on women" campaign rhetoric — observing that Obama's second term Cabinet is likely to include few women.

"Now a lot of those females who supported Barack Obama are scratching their heads, and they're saying, 'Whoa! How come there is so much testosterone in the Obama Cabinet and so little estrogen?'" the Arkansas Republican said on his radio program Wednesday. "Because if you look around, all of these high-powered appointments that he is making are all white guys."

Since when is a right-wing theocrat like Huckabee, or really any Republican concerned about diversity, whether it's race or sex or anything else? And really, what women bring to the table is... estrogen?

Perhaps someone ought to remind him of the vicious Republican assault on Susan Rice.

Kerry gets State

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With Susan Rice having pulled out of contention, thereby avoiding a contentious confirmation process, it looks like John Kerry will get the Obama administration gig he's always wanted, secretary of state.

Basically, instead of getting Rice at State and Kerry at Defense, we're going to get Kerry at State and Chuck Hagel at Defense.

Which combination is preferable? I preferred Kerry over Rice at State all along, because I have such enormous respect for him and think he's much more progressive and independent-minded than Rice (even if I backed Rice fully when Republicans went after her over Benghazi), but I'm generally mixed about Hagel at the Pentagon. He's fine, as far as Republicans go, but why appoint a Republican at all? You wouldn't find a Republican president appointing a Democrat to such a senior position, and surely there's a Democrat Obama could appoint instead.

I get that these positions usually go to establishment insiders who won't threaten the whole military-industrial status quo, or whatever we want to call it these days, and I suppose Hagel is enough of a cautious realist not to get pulled in dangerously militaristic ways, but still. This is Obama's chance to remake key government departments along more liberal-progressive lines. Unsurprisingly, given that he's awfully establishmentarian himself, it looks like he doesn't care to do anything of the kind.

So what's preferable? How about Kerry at State and a (liberal) Democrat at Defense? There's still hope.

Hagel to the Pentagon, Kerry to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bloomberg reports:

Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has emerged as the leading candidate to become President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense and may be nominated as soon as this month, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Hagel, who served as an enlisted Army infantryman in Vietnam, has passed the vetting process at the White House Counsel's office, said one of the people. The former Nebraska senator has told associates that he is awaiting final word from the president, said the other person. Both requested anonymity to discuss personnel matters. 

***** 

Obama invited Hagel, 66, to the White House on Dec. 4 to discuss the position with him, according to an administration official. The president hasn't made a final decision, said another official. Both asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

There's a lot of anonymous sourcing going on here, but I suppose it's a credible report. And I suppose that as far as establishment figures go Hagel wouldn't be a bad choice, particularly if John Kerry ends up getting State now that Susan Rice has pulled out of contention. (And I much prefer Kerry at State than Rice. He's also an establishment figure, of course, but I think he's more of an independent thinker than she is.)

Read more »

The next Republican ploy to take down Susan Rice

By Mustang Bobby

Now that the attempt to turn the attack on Benghazi into the next Watergate has gone up like a popcorn fart, the Republicans who aren't yelling at Susan Rice to get off their lawn are now demanding that the next secretary of state be "independent." Huh?

I heard Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) make such a demand the other day on NPR. He thinks Ms. Rice is too much of a "loyal soldier" to the Obama administration to be effective in the job as Secretary of State. The Los Angeles Times picks up the story:

Corker, who will be the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the new congressional term, implied that he considered Rice too much of a partisan and urged Obama to pick a more "independent" person as chief diplomat.

"All of us here hold the secretary of State to a different standard than most Cabinet members," he said. "We want somebody of independence."

He implied that Rice, who is close to the president, was, instead, a "loyal soldier." Corker also seemed to contrast Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, with whom he said he has had a positive and "transparent" relationship "from day one."

Collins said that after a 75-minute session with Rice she still had many unanswered questions and remains "troubled" that on the Benghazi issue Rice played "a political role at the height of a contentious presidential election campaign."

This is really very pure bullshit, the kind you can only get from the finest kind of partisan wingnut.

Read more »

Rice and Benghazi: Why is this so fucking hard for Republicans to understand?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And so the Republican obsession with the tragic Benghazi attack and its aftermath -- and specfically with comments Ambassador Susan Rice made on the Sunday talk shows about how the attack wasn't pre-meditated (and so not a planned act of terrorism) -- continues. Rice met with key Republicans on Capitol Hill the past couple of days, but apparently the meetings didn't go well. Or, at least, these key Republicans didn't emerge from the meetings content with what they heard:

The Wednesday meeting in a secure briefing room in the Capitol basement came a day after a similar sit-down Rice had with three key voices on foreign policy and defense issues went terribly wrong. GOP Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, all members of the Armed Services Committee, said they were more "troubled" about the Benghazi affair than they had been before their meeting with Rice.

And Graham and Ayotte went so far as to say they would place a hold on her possible nomination.

And this gang of three was joined by one of the Beltway's overhyped "moderates":

Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, just the type of moderate Republican who might help break a filibuster on a nomination, said there were still too many questions about why Rice incorrectly characterized the Sept. 11 assault in five Sunday talk show interviews as the result of spontaneous protests at the same time the Libyan president was calling it a terrorist attack.

"I don't understand why she would not at least qualify her response to that question," Collins told reporters after emerging from a 75-minute, closed-door meeting with Rice.

Troubled... don't understand...

Seriously, are they fucking stupid?

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: "On Benghazi, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts."


Read more »

Rice burners

By Carl 

It strikes me that the Republicans are being a little disingenuous in their efforts to derail the not-even-announced nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice to Secretary of State, replacing the resigning Hillary Clinton.

Her CV, for one, suggests an intelligent and gifted person who would be adept at managing foreign affairs for the Obama administration, perfect for the job. In this, she would outshine the presumptive second choice, Senator John Kerry, which is no easy feat.

The controversy, as you know doubt know ad nauseam, is Rice's comments in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the Benghazi compound of the American ambassador there.

The facts are pretty clear: an organized attack occured on the compound on September 11. Either coincidentally or in a coordinated misdirection, there was also a protest in Egypt over some bloody idiot's idea of a prank on the same day. It doesn't really matter how Egypt played into this, except it also made a convenient excuse to buy a little time if needed.

Rice went on the Sunday talk shows, and implied that the Egypt attack may have been a part of the Libyan massacre, even if tangentially. This was the talking point the CIA had handed up to the administration, which greenlighted it as an interim explanation, even though it was clear from the get-go this was a terrorist attack.

Why the deception? The CIA had assets on the ground in Libya that would have been exposed if their information had been made public.

Read more »

Rice burners: McCain, Graham, and Ayotte continue to bully Susan Rice over Benghazi

By Mustang Bobby

This was doomed from the outset:

What was supposed to be a make-nice meeting on Tuesday seemed only to make things more contentious between the White House and Senate Republicans over U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's comments following the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Rice came face to face with some of her harshest Republican critics, hoping to allay their concerns about whether she misled Americans regarding what precipitated the assault. President Obama has staunchly defended Rice and is said to be considering her for his next secretary of state, but the meeting apparently only served to deepen GOP skepticism.

"Bottom line, I'm more disturbed now than I was before," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.).

Rice and Acting CIA Director Michael Morell met privately with Graham and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), three members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who have been leading the GOP charge against the administration since the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Ayotte said she left the meeting with Rice "more troubled, not less."

McCain told reporters that he and his colleagues remain "significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate that we tried to get."

Unless Ms. Rice had gone into the meeting and slit open her wrists, there wasn't going to be any other outcome than what we got, so the only thing you can say is that at least she tried. She would have been excoriated if she hadn't made the effort.

Read more »

Pulitzer Prize-winning author gets the bum's rush for disagreeing with the Fox News line on Benghazi

By Richard K. Barry

(Ed. note. See also Frank's post on this from last night. -- MJWS)

Fox News certainly knows how to get people off the air quickly when they disagree with the corporate message. 

Tom Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer on military affairs, was being interviewed about the Rice-Benghazi non-story by a Fox talking head. Ricks stated upfront that Republican attacks on Ambassador Rice are nothing more than political nonsense largely ginned up by Fox fabrications. And then things really got interesting, which is to say that when he called Fox a "wing of the Republican Party," the interview abruptly ended.

So much for fair and balanced. 

Thomas Ricks blasts Fox News

By Frank Moraes

(Ed. note: Make sure to watch the great clip below. Ricks punctured a hole in Fox News's propaganda and was summarily silenced. But he certainly got his point across, to his bemusement. Check out the look on his face when he's told the interview is over. -- MJWS)
 

This is amazing. I can't say that I blame them, but Fox News quickly got rid of Thomas Ricks after he blasted the network over its Benghazi coverage. Jon Scott interviewed Ricks. He is what Fox News claims is a "straight news reporters." I've always felt that these were the most dangerous people on the network because they deceive the audience in much more subtle ways -- in particular, by skewing what they choose to cover. This is clear in the topic of this segment: who else is covering the supposed Benghazi scandal? And now that there is little to report since John McCain has realized that he's only embarrassing himself, Fox is covering the fact that there isn't anything to cover.

Ricks was on for less than one minute. In that time, he does manage to provide answers to two questions, but it is all about the same thing: why are McCain and the others cooling off on what Fox News has trumped up to be a bigger scandal than Watergate? 

Read more »

Let's call it like it is: Those Republicans attacking Susan Rice over Benghazi are full of shit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The ridiculous Republican claim, made by the likes of John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham, among others, is that Ambassador Rice misled the American people by claiming on the Sunday talk shows that the attack was a spontaneous incident rather than a terrorist attack.

But as I wrote the other day, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts. Rice was only saying what she was being advised to say by the intelligence community. The talking point changes weren't politically motivated and reflected caution, which is really the sort of thing one wants and expects from those tasked with figuring out what the hell's going on around the world. A new report by CBS News backs this up:

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

People like John McCain should know better, and maybe do know better. Obviously, they're either completely delusional or trying to score political points by turning this into a major scandal (at the level of Watergate, some of them are crazily suggesting).

"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," [a senior U.S. official] tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."

"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."

Makes sense, no? It's intelligence. It's messy. And it's all happening in a very messy part of the world. For her part, Rice did nothing wrong. She communicated what she thought was right -- and what in fact was right, in nuanced terms carefully chosen by those whose job it is to get it right. To attack her now is just partisan scapegoating, an effort on the part of Republicans to tarnish the credibility of one of President's Obama's chief foreign policy officials and quite possibly his nominee to replace Hillary as secretary of state -- and therefore an effort to tarnish the president himself, to bring him down with a manufactured scandal built, as is typical of Republicans, on lies.

They really are full of shit.

John McCain wants so badly to politicize the Benghazi attack he's willing to paralyze U.S. foreign policy until he gets his way

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, John McCain -- angry, bitter, crotchety, petulant -- told Bob Schieffer on CBS's Face the Nation he wouldn't just not support Ambassador Susan Rice to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state (and he loathes her in a way that is sort of depraved), he wouldn't support any nominee until he got what he wanted on Benghazi:

SCHIEFFER: Until then, you will remain opposed to her nomination?

MCCAIN: Under the present circumstances, until we find out all the information as to what happened, I don't think you would want to support any nominee right now. Because this is very very serious and it has even larger implications than the deaths of four Americans. It really goes to the heart of this whole light footprint policy that this administration is pursuing.

This is ridiculous. And while I would say it sets a bad precedent, Republicans have been obstructionist like this throughout Obama's presidency.

As ThinkProgress notes:

McCain's scapegoating of Rice has been soundly debunked, as the ambassador was simply given talking points provided by the intelligence community. Even other Republican senators have backed away from his plan to block her nomination. Despite the lack of support behind him, McCain appears willing to take his politicization of the Libya attack to new heights in the nomination process.

For more debunking of this Republican obsession with Benghazi (and with bringing Obama down), see my post from yesterday, "On Benghazi, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts."

On Benghazi, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The desperate Republican obsession with Benghazi -- and more broadly with bringing down President Obama no matter what -- ran into a problem on Friday by the name of General David Petraeus.

Yes, yes, I know, l'affaire Petraeus is the current media obsession, but let's detach that scandal from the general's closed-door comments to Congress.

But first, the obsession, courtesy this time of the WSJ:

David Petraeus told Congress Friday in closed hearings that the CIA believed from the start that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were by terrorists. That leaves one VIP who's still missing from Congressional scrutiny: Hillary Clinton.

GOP Congressman Peter King said Mr. Petraeus's testimony differed from what the former CIA director told Congress immediately after the attacks. Mr. King also said Mr. Petraeus said that the CIA's original talking points on the attacks were edited. The altered version became the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's misleading and now infamous comments blaming the attacks on a YouTube video. Both that discrepancy and the issue of the altered talking points need further digging, especially if Ms. Rice is nominated to be the next Secretary of State. 

The overt purpose of this editorial is to smear Hillary (as well as Rice), but the selective "reporting" of events typical of Republican conspiracy theorizing on Benghazi (and on pretty much everything else) is clear from out outset: the talking points were edited, which is proof of a conspiratorial cover-up (that in the warped view of some Republicans rises to the level of, and even surpasses, Watergate).

But what did Petraeus really say? And what are these Republican partisans (and the WSJ is nothing if not a partisan Republican organ) leaving out?

First, the Obama administration did change "consulate" to "diplomatic facility" -- but only for the sake of accuracy.

Second, and more to the point, check out Daily Intel's recounting of the general's testimony, from the AP report. Basically:

-- Yes, the CIA from the outset thought the attack involved a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

-- Yes, CIA talking points referred to it as a terrorist attack.

-- Yes, those talking points were changed to remove references to terrorism, though by whom exactly Petraeus wasn't clear.

-- Yes, Rice's comments on the Sunday talk shows reflected these new talking points, which means she was relaying the CIA's "best intelligence" when saying the attacks were spontaneous.

But: 

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

So why the changes? Well, there was a really, really good reason -- one that contrats starkly with Republican efforts to politicize the entire Benghazi story -- lead-up, attack, and aftermath (we saw it from Romney in the heat of the moment just as we're now seeing it from the likes of McCain and Graham): 

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail...

"There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information."

Which is to say, as Dan Amira summed it up, "there was a conspiracy... to catch the terrorists."

You'd think this would shut Republicans up on the matter. It won't.

Desperate to catch Obama in a major scandal, even more so now after what to many of them was a shocking re-election win, they'll keep playing politics not just with a tragedy but with intelligence and the anti-terrorist effort, including the effort to track down the perpetrators of this deadly attack, even with the facts staring them in the face.

Annals of asshattery: John McCain and Lindsey Graham

By Mustang Bobby

I've always thought that Sen. John McCain has a mean streak to him, proven time and again by his intemperate outbursts, and that Sen. Lindsey Graham is his wimpy little me-too sycophantic sidekick.  They're proving it again by their incomprehensible attack on U.N. ambassador Susan Rice over the attack on Benghazi and her response to it.

President Obama is having none of it, and he's letting us know it:

Bristling with evident indignation during a news conference, Obama said Rice has "done exemplary work" with "skill, professionalism and toughness and grace."

He then made a pointedly and almost personal challenge to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) who earlier Wednesday said Rice is unqualified to lead the State Department because she appeared either misinformed or ill-prepared to discuss the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, on national political talk shows a few days after the attack.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me," Obama said. "For them to go after the UN ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi... to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."

Ironically, as Crooks and Liars reminds us, the last time there was a person named Rice up for Senate consideration, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were all over defending her from unwarranted attacks on her character:

Just for some memory refreshes, here is McCain and Graham's vigorous defense of Condoleeza Rice and her false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But in 2005, Graham was fiercely protective of Rice as she faced confirmation to take over the State Department, chaffing at terms used by Democratic lawmakers to describe her testimony.

"The words like 'misleading' and 'disingenuous,' I think, were very unfair," Graham said on Fox News.

Asked if then-Sen. Mark Dayton's use of the word "liar" was justified, Graham pounced.

"Yes, that's even more unfair. Because it was all in terms of weapons of mass destruction and misleading us about the war and what was in Iraq. Well, every intelligence agency in the world was misled. And to connect those two to say that she's a liar is very unfair, over the line."

Before the vote, McCain noted from the Senate floor that the chamber had enough votes to confirm Rice to the job, questioning why Democrats wanted to debate her nomination.

"So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion," he said, adding that Rice is qualified for the job. "I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election."

Yeah, speaking of lingering bitterness….

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Is President Obama getting ready to pick Rice to succeed Clinton?

By Richard K. Barry

Both Bloomberg and MSNBC's First Read are speculating that President Obama's strong defence of UN Ambassador Susan Rice might bode well for her eventually being named to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to Bloomberg:

Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, administration officials said Obama's unusually blunt language was part political calculation, part trial balloon and part loyalty.

They also suggest there is a political calculation at work:

Said Democratic Party strategist Joe Trippi, Obama's ultimatum to Republicans may reflect confidence he could garner the 60 Senate votes necessary to move Rice to a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate -- as well as a political calculation that Republicans are further marginalizing themselves by targeting her.

And First Read's take:

If you thought that Obama might decide to pass on nominating Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State, think again. [Wednesday's] confrontation might have been the best thing to happen to her chances of being nominated. The president is a pragmatist and is usually someone who likes to avoid confirmation fights for his appointees. But the more the GOP attacks Rice, the more dug in the White House and president might get.

It would be a grand thing if McCain's and Graham's baseless attacks actually help bring about the thing they claim not to want. Also nothing like a strong election win to shake a few votes loose from the other side. 

Tough guy, huh?

By Richard K. Barry

You can call me... "Mr. President."

Is it possible President Obama has seen one too many episodes of The Sopranos or perhaps slipped away recently for a Robert De Niro film festival? How else to account for his recent comments in defence of Susan Rice:

When they go after the UN ambassador... because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me.

Whoa! And you don't want a problem with me. Fuggedaboutit.

I like the defense of Ambassador Rice. I like this new-and-improved post-election president, but it might take some getting used to.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Kerry to the Pentagon, Rice to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

I have enormous respect for Senator Kerry and would love to see him get a senior post in the Obama Administration. He'd be a fine SecDef. (And Rice would a fine successor to Hillary.)

But I have two big concerns:

First, Democrats would lose a key voice in the Senate, particularly on foreign and military policy. Then again, he's almost 69 years old. How much longer does he want to serve as a senator? Maybe four years at the Pentagon -- with the Afghan War drawing to a close, the U.S. continuing to face nebulous threats around the world (and requiring new strategies for dealing witht them), and the military in need of major reform -- would allow him to leave a greater mark.

Second, Democrats could lose Kerry's seat in the Senate, reducing their majority. Because while Scott Brown, still a credible figure (or at least still a big name) even after his big loss to Elizabeth Warren last week, may run for the Republicans, it's not clear who the Democrats have even in solidly Democratic Massachusetts to compete for the seat in a snap election. Sure, they'd find someone, but what if that someone turned out to be as incompetent as Martha Coakley (who ran a terrible campaign and lost to Brown in 2010)? Other than Kerry, the biggest Democratic figure in the state is Gov. Deval Patrick, who proved to be something of a superstar this year supporting Obama's re-election (particularly his outstanding speech at the DNC), and he's already in his second term (having won re-election in 2010), but he's already signalled he'd rather stay where he is. But maybe. Because if not, Scott Brown might very well be a senator again.

So basically I'm fine with Kerry leaving the Senate for the Pentagon, but I'd be a lot happier about it if the Democrats found a strong candidate to replace him.

Exit strategies?

By Carl 

Interesting article in the news today about the Benghazi attacks:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to take responsibility for the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 in a series of interviews on Monday.

"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton told CNN Monday after arriving in Lima, Peru, for a visit. The series of interviews with U.S. television networks were Clinton's most direct comments on the deadly attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she told CNN.

Now, we can take this at face value: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says "The buck stops here." This somewhat insulates the president and vice president from direct responsibility for embassy security and intelligence failures, even if we can rightly lay the blame at the feet of the folks who refused to fund the budget by some $300 million.

Or we can take this as a way for Hillary Clinton to extricate herself from her post at State. It's long been rumoured, even going back to before Barack Obama's inauguration, that Clinton would be a one-term secretary. Indeed, her tenure already sees her serving longer than many if not most in that position.

All she really needs to do here is to clean up this mess, put up something dramatic before January, and clean her desk out, if she so chooses.

Notice that this is not something the president necessarily would support. I think President Obama has genuine respect and admiration for the job Secretary Clinton has done and would welcome her to stay on for the second term.

And certainly, exiting now would be leaving on a down note, no matter what (short of solving the Middle East question or normalizing relations with Cuba) she accomplishes in the short time left before term two. This would prevent her from running for president in 2016 as well, a flat note in an otherwise crystal pitch-perfect performance at the highest levels of government.

Similarly, Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is someone who could -- probably should -- fall on her sword. Her comments on national television that there was little indication the Benghazi attacks were planned discredit her as a diplomat.

It's not important that there was a "fog of war" (Clinton's term) about the attacks. She went off-book too early. The art of diplomacy is two fold: saying nothing while saying something and letting someone have your way. She forgot the first of these.

It was an honest mistake, however, unlike the egregious defenses that folks like Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Dick Cheney engaged in during the run up to the Iraq War. Allowing Susan Rice to resign would be an honorable acknowledgement of that point.

This won't stop Republicans from being Republicans and sniping at President Obama, of course, but it will deflect most of their attacks, and the pleas from the family of Ambassdor Stephens to just shut up about it will eventually make the attacks go away.

Americans don't like to see families tortured. Well, white families, anyway.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)