Obama Defends Susan Rice Against ‘Outrageous’ McCain, Graham Attack

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM



IGOR BOBIC 2:13 PM EST, WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2012

President Obama on Wednesday defended Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a possible replacement for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, against criticism from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the Benghazi attacks in Libya.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama told reporters at the White House. "I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi? To besmirch her reputation? It's outrageous."

He further added that if the senators are going after Rice "because they think she's an easy target," "[t]hen they've got a problem with me."

Graham and McCain objected to any talk of Rice as secretary of state at a press conference on the Hill earlier on Wednesday, with Sen. Graham saying she is "so disconnected from reality that I don’t trust her." McCain maintained that they would "do whatever is in our power," alluding to a filibuster, to block Rice should Obama decide to go forth with the nomination.

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-defends-susan-rice-against-outrageous-mccain-graham

[DURHAM D]

1. Those two little shrimps together don't make half an Obama.

[Cha]

7. They equal

palin.

[Sunlei]

2. McCain's home state of Arizona can NOT even finish the vote counting- work on your state JOB McCain

[SpankMe]

3. Holy crap, Lindsey Graham is a piece of shit!!

From Graham's statement:

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack.

“We owe it to the American people and the victims of this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle.”

Mother-fucker Republicans have wasted no time in getting right back to extreme, baseless criticisms of the President and of progress-stifling obstructionism.

They want secession - let the fuckers go!!!

This totally pisses me off.

[beerandjesus]

4. I don't understand McCain

When he sold his soul back in 2000, and renewed his pact with the devil in 2008, it's because he was trying to become president. But what's his angle now?

It's like he's out to erase all memory of the old McCain, a guy with whom I rarely agreed, but who at least seemed somewhat principled. Does he really want to go down in history as just another cookie-cutter right-wing asshole among so many?

[Borgnine]

10. I don't think McCain knows anymore.

You repeat a lie enough times you believe with it. I think he built-up the persona of right-wing thug in order to win the GOP nomination in 2008 and lost all semblance of who the real man was.

[progressoid]

12. I met him in the early 90's.

He acuatally seemed like a reasonable guy at the time. Now, he's gone off the deep end.

[Major Hogwash]

19. He's a senile, racist old fuck.

What's not to understand?
He doesn't like people that aren't white.
No matter what else he says, he is a racist.

And now, in his advanced age, he has gone senile.
He thinks he is in charge.

[Dubster]

5. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

[Volaris]

5. I swear these Republicans have NOOOOO idea

how much of a Christian The President TRULY IS....
Dear Lord, if that were me, I would have said "If they know something I dont, they can come and TALK to me. But if they don't, (and don't apologize) then they can DEAL WITH ME, and I promise they would much prefer the former to the latter.

One of the reasons The Office of the Executive is so powerful in this country is because the President has a damn high Bully Pulpit. I know Obama doesnt always like to use it, but RECESS IS OVER. It's time to start dropping the Hammer on these fuckers.

[LeftInTX]

8. Way to go Pres. Obama!!!!

Thanks for the video

[FreeBC]

11. I agree. Fight for Rice!

[elleng]

9. Was VERY pleased to hear PrezO call mccain + graham statements 'OUTRAGEOUS.'

[amandabeech]

13. Does anyone know if Obama has the votes for Rice?

If there's a conservative brouhaha on this, some Dem senators from conservative states might start to peel off.

The Nelsons, the guy from WVA, Bennett, etc.

On edit: Can Reid get enough votes to override the inevitable Repuke filibuster.

[John2]

15. Why

would any Democratic Senator vote against Rice? She did nothing wrong but what they asked her to put out. Reports also confirm that was what the CIA and Intelligence gave her. Yet they are praising the CIA chief that just resigned. Their target is actually President Obama. If any Democratic senators want to attack somebody then they should attack their President and not attack someone doing their job. If that is the case then we will see where their allegiance lie. If there is any Democratic Senator in a conservative State, then they also have a Democratic constituency too. My own Senator, Kay Hagan comes to mind. I don't think she want to upset her constituency in North carolina with some baseless charge made by rightwing Republican hacks.

[amandabeech]

16. Because I've noticed over many years that it is difficult to get ALL Dems

to follow the leader. Why else is leading Dems often referred to as "herding cats?"

Seriously, conservative Dems in states like yours have to cater to puke-leading independents. As you know, there have been stories in reputable media questioning whether Rice's assertions were accurate given the President's comments in the Rose Garden and some comments attributed to Sec. Clinton in the day or two after the incident.

Rice's comments, from whatever source, also seemed canned. If it was not clear what was going on, then she should have just said so. If there were reasons to not discuss the situation, then stay off the tube and issue a "no comment pending investigation" press release.

I also thought it odd that it was Rice, not Clinton or Donilon, who was out there with the administration's position. It made me think that the other two might not have wanted to say what Rice was saying. Clinton, in particular, would not want to say anything that might come back to haunt her if she indeed decides to run for 2016. Clinton's absence without a good excuse that I can recall makes Rice look like a yes-person rather than someone with independent judgment. While it is good for a President to have loyal subordinates, a President also needs subordinates with good independent judgment.

I guess that I've wandered into why Rice would not be my first choice as SOS. I realize that I am more conservative on this issue than many DUers. I guess that balances out some of my other positions. However, I can see how many the supporters of Kagan, conservative Dems, true independents and R-leaning independents would hold a vote for Rice against Kagan.

Personally, I prefer Kerry. Obama has sent him out as his personal emissary during the past four years, IIRC, and Kerry's results have been very good. Why not give him the job full time?

I also find Richardson to be an interesting candidate. He held the UN ambassadorship and is known for his unusual ability to talk with the N. Koreans. I've heard that he has personal issues, and those may be a disqualifier, but Richardson is, of course, Hispanic of Mexican, and I believe Honduran descent. If he were to be appointed to SOS, a position for which he is highly qualified, he would be the highest ranking Hispanic ever in the federal government since SOS ranks higher than AG, a post once held by the heinous Alberto Gonzales under the shrub.

[Beacool]

20. I'm giving everybody the benefit of the doubt, but something doesn't gel.

The woman who testified from the State Dept. said that they were aware of the attack as it was taking place (the attack lasted 7 hours). Why did the WH send Rice to speak on all the networks about the Youtube video? Why wasn't help sent sooner? I hope that the administration comes up with a reasonable explanation soon. The Republicans are making hay of this issue.

[amandabeech]

22. It doesn't gell for me, either.

Were whoever was watching the video afraid that they would offend the Libyan government if they went in? It seems that the Libyan government would have to yield or couldn't complain if we went in when their militia failed. Indeed, it seems from the State Dept. background briefing that the Libyans who were supposed to be at the gate suddenly weren't there. The Libyans who ended up at the annex weren't the ones who were supposed to be guarding what has been called the consulate or the diplomatic mission.

Why were we the only ones still in Benghazi who were really relying on the Libyans as their sole guards? The folks in the annex were close to a mile and a half away, and it sounds like they didn't have great equipment? Was the real job to protect whatever was going on in the annex?

There was a rumor going around conservative sites, purportedly from ex-military, that Gen. Ham, the commander of our forces for Africa, is on his way out. The reason rumored is that Ham got the e-mail or call that bad things had started in Benghazi. He wanted to send what he could given that his headquarters is in Germany. Supposedly, he received a stand down order from the White House or DOD which he refused to obey. The rumor goes on to state that Ham's second in command relieved him within minutes.

Were we doing secret deals in Benghazi and didn't want to attract attention? Did the Libyans object to our heavy security/intelligence presence and were mollified by our complete reliance on the anti-ghadafi Libyan militias as a face-saving measure?

I'd just like to know what our goals are in Libya. I'm also curious about Syria. Please forgive me, but the CIA bought arms from the Iranians and gave them to the contras in Central America because Congress wouldn't give them the money to arm Contras. Could we be buying from radical Islamists in Libya and giving them to questionable fighters in the Syrian conflict?

A couple of weeks ago, I was watching Charlie Rose. He had on Dr. Brzhinski (sp), some guy who had served in the national security area and the new wunderkinder in that same area now. The Bush guy and the wunderkinder were arguing that we could supply weapons to people we like and still maintain what amounted to plausible deniability. Dr. B, who has seen what happened when we gave weapons to AQ to fight the Russians, argued that once you give one side weapons, you are a participant in the conflict and you can't deny it. I didn't want to be in Libya and I don't want to be in Syria. And I want out of that useless war in Afghanistan, too.

[Beacool]

24. You make some very good points.

I just hope that the results of the investigation give a reasonable explanation of why these people were left to their own devices to fend off the enemy for hours on end.

I just know that if a Republican had been in the WH our side would be yelling bloody murder. So let's not be hypocritical and find out what really happened. Obama can get offended all he wants, but Susan Rice was sent on a fool's errand and he knows it.

[karynnj]

25. may depend on filibuster reform - and while it seems that something might be done,

that is not a done deal because it requires 51 votes in the lame duck session and apparently there are some Democrats unwilling to change it as it is the only real power if you are in the minority. However, there is nothing to prevent the Republicans changing it (to benefit themselves) as soon as they gain the majority.

Most proposals still require more than 50 votes - but less than 60. If more than 55 are required even if we get all the Democrats, we would need a fair minded republican or two. The fact is that I think only about 13 Democrats voted against Condi Rice - this after John Kerry, who 4 or so months earlier, voted against her in committee explaining that she was not truthful in all her answers to the SFRC committee. So, it seems there may be a few Republicans who take the approach that she will represent Obama.

As to any Democrat, the answer is craven politics. In a very red state, there may be too many voters who would have bought the idea that she did something very wrong - even if they are not sure what.

[kestrel91316]

26. Why? Because certain Dems are Dems in name only and never miss a chance to screw things up.

[karynnj]

17. Unless there is filibuster reform, they need 60 votes - which means getting

at least 5 Republicans in the new Senate. ( I doubt they will do this in the lame duck Senate.) The reason for concern is that SUSAN COLLINS has joined the gang in criticizing. In the new Senate, Lugar, Scott Brown, and Olympia Snowe will not be there. (They are all replaced by Democrats or Independents but they are in the 55) Senator Kirk is somewhat moderate but he hasn't been on the Senate floor since January last year.

So, even if ALL the Democrats come home, where do you get 5 Republicans. I know this is not fair, but it seems to be the case. In addition, no one is publicly on the record saying she is the choice - just a story in the Washington Post that makes the rather unlikely claim that she is in and Kerry may get SOD, which is not really a good fit.

[amandabeech]

18. Thanks for your post. That's just the type of scenario I'd thought about.

I agree with you that Kerry isn't really a good fit for SOD.

Rice, along with Clinton and Samantha Power, really pushed our involvement in Libya. I read that others in the defense/security area weren't enthusiastic. Neither was I. Gaddafi is a creep, but he kept down the crazies, like Saddam did in Iraq. He also had oil, just like Saddam, except the oil mostly went to Europe. I noticed that the Brits and the French were very interested in Libya. Also, I remember reading, that Libya wasn't a united country, but one cobbled together by European powers, just like Iraq. I didn't want to get involved because it looked like there were too many factors that could go bad, just like Iraq, and look where Iraq is now--falling apart. At least the Brits got their folks out of Benghazi after the June incident. I still don't know why we were there. Okay, I have a hint of it but don't like it.

Anyone involved in pushing us into another Islamic country for oil is not a good choice for SOS, in my book. I don't like the pubbie attitude toward the President, but I can't say that I'm unhappy that they might prevent Rice from confirmation as SOS.

[RBInMaine]

14. Let these two old ASSHOLES block her. They will SINK their party FOREVER African Americans.

[lonestarnot]

21. We all know about his (McLumpy's) good fucking judgment now don't we! LMAO

[AllyCat]

23. So fix the filibuster rules and the super secret holds

and confirm her.