The convoluted campaign against Susan Rice

  • Article by: Margaret Carlson , Bloomberg News
  • Updated: November 29, 2012 - 12:33 PM

Gripes by Sens. McCain and Graham are harder and harder to swallow.

  • 68
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
asdfasdfNov. 29, 1210:34 AM

this isn't' about Rice... this is about Scott Brown. Who do the republicans say they would be okay with? John Kerry. What happens if John Kerry gets the nodd? Why then, there is a special election for his seat and good O'l Scott Brown is sitting there all fresh from the campaign trail ready to go again. I know they don't care about 47% of us, but I didn't know they thought we were stupid too.

74
18
mgmckeNov. 29, 1210:36 AM

This is all about tainting Rice, Obama's first choice for Sec. of State so he picks his second choice, John Kerry. That way we lose a Democratic Senator and there is a special election in Mass. to replace Kerry. Then Scott Brown gets to immediately run again. He would have the upper hand since he just ran months of ads for his Senate candidacy. Also special elections have smaller voter turnout and the Republicans then have a greater chance for success.

71
17
mcleanmNov. 29, 1210:49 AM

The article states "Or because they don't want to talk about how Republicans have consistently denied funds to protect diplomatic posts in dangerous places.". I believe there was enough in the budget to provide Chevy Volts and charging stations at another embassy. It's not budget cuts, it's more so priorities

19
67
goldengoph3rNov. 29, 1211:18 AM

" I believe there was enough in the budget to provide Chevy Volts and charging stations at another embassy. It's not budget cuts, it's more so priorities."-------------Wrong. The House *specifically* cut funds dedicated to the worldwide State Dept security program. This isn't denied even by some House GOP members (eg. Jason Chaffetz).

59
13
puckno34Nov. 29, 1211:27 AM

I still don't understand how people can buy that there was a cover-up here. 1) Bush proved that you can get elected even if there is a terrorist attack on Americans. Obama knew that the vast majority of Americans did not hold Bush responsible for 9/11 and it would be reasonable to assume that stating terrorists attacked Benghazi would not have deterred from his record. Bush's popularity didn't plummet after 9/11 - it soared. 2) It is irresponsible for McCain, Graham and others to be accusing Rice of purposefully misleading others without having reasonable proof that she knew it was due to terrorism but said it was due to a spontaneous protest. 3) A NY Times analysis indicates that the talking points Rice was given by the CIA purposefully left out any mention of terrorism for *national security reasons*. The CIA believed that they had a better chance of catching the culprits if the terrorists thought we didn't know specifically who was responsible. Basically, if she DID mislead people, it seems far more likely that she did it for national security reasons than for political gain.

52
15
drichmnNov. 29, 1211:28 AM

" It's not budget cuts, it's more so priorities" .... those cuts were to specific security budget items.

49
13
drichmnNov. 29, 1211:29 AM

all of the Fox pushed conspiracy theories were hard to swallow and were dismantled by the intelligence community one by one.

57
19
idigbroadsNov. 29, 1211:33 AM

goldengoph3r.....Wrong. The House *specifically* cut funds dedicated to the worldwide State Dept security program. This isn't denied even by some House GOP members (eg. Jason Chaffetz)..... Wrong. The cuts were never voted on in the Senate so the cuts never took place.

18
41
idigbroadsNov. 29, 1211:42 AM

drichman.... all of the Fox pushed conspiracy theories were hard to swallow and were dismantled by the intelligence community one by one............... what world do you live in? Multiple truths came out of the Fox investigations. Keep on living in denial but the truth is coming out.

12
49
ptiltonNov. 29, 1211:57 AM

Oh, come on. Even Maureen Dowd, one of your darling ultra-liberal commentators, acknowledges there is overwhelming evidence Rice knew or should have known her public statements were grossly inconsistent with the facts at the time she made them. Why is it your comments never address the real facts and seek to obfuscate regarding GOP motives or what did or didn't happen during the Bush Administration??

13
45

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT