Top Menu

Top Story — Lindsay Graham after Rice Meeting: “More Disturbed Now Than I was Before” *Updated*

IT’S REALLY difficult not to reply with serious snark on hearing Senator Graham’s response to his meeting with U.N. Ambassador Rice, along with C.I.A. Acting Director Mike Morell. But he got the sound bite of the day from the meeting, which I have little doubt was pre-planned.

“The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before … about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Amb. Rice does not to do justice to the reality at the time,” Graham told reporters after meeting with Rice. [USA Today]

What was meant as offense by Obama and Rice in requesting a meeting with McCain now appears to have rendered the Administration fallen prey to the sinister ploy of the Senator, a man who had no intention of ever giving Rice the benefit of the doubt. Preening on TV that he would be open minded and talk with her, the whole thing was simply show in order to resurrect his own reputation after he overplayed his hand. McCain now can portray the magnanimous man for meeting with her, even if his intentions were always self-serving and trained on taking her down for spite.

The national media will do the rest.

NBC News, along with Fox News Channel, which caught the Graham live when he came out of the meeting, also report that GOP senators were anything but satisfied with Rice’s explanation of Benghazi aftermath, which led to her Sunday show appearances and the resulting furor.

Republican senators emerged from their meeting Tuesday with United Nations envoy Susan Rice saying they were more disturbed than before the meeting about the misleading explanation she gave after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when Rice said in TV interviews that the violence was due to an anti-Islamic video that was circulated on YouTube.

Susan Rice is trending on Twitter and there’s nothing good being said.

As I’ve written before, the aftermath of the Benghazi attack was handled badly by the Obama administration, with Ambassador Rice taking one for the President in her Sunday show appearances.

Now, after a meeting she requested and came prepared for with the CIA’s Acting Director Mike Morell, Ambassador Rice may be more embattled than she was before.

“The American people got bad information on Sept. 16, bad information from the president after that, and the question is, should they have been given any information at all?” Graham said. [Buzzfeed]

Senator Graham did note that he’s got new questions for the intelligence community, which came during his brief presser after meeting with Rice, which means Morell may not have done Rice much good. But as I’ve been writing since the start of this fiasco, that’s mainly because the security, and the consulate itself, which was always intended to be a place when Amb. Chris Stevens could get closer to the Libyan people, was a risky proposition to begin with, as is all diplomatic missions in countries that are teetering on chaos, as Libya has been since Gadhafi’s fall.

President Obama still has the votes in the Senate to confirm Rice as secretary of state, should he send her nomination to the Senate, but it looks like he’s got another headache today over the nomination that he didn’t need.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

51 Responses to Top Story — Lindsay Graham after Rice Meeting: “More Disturbed Now Than I was Before” *Updated*

  1. TPAZ November 27, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Please read my comment in the earlier posting about the Rice affair. This is just a gambit by conservatives to ensnarl Pres. Obama in something larger.

    • Solo November 27, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

      And again they ill fail!

  2. Taylor Marsh November 27, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    It hardly needs to be “larger,” because we’re talking about the second term curse, which has hit every president from FDR to Truman to Ike to Johnson to Nixon to Reagan to Clinton to Bush.

    • Solo November 27, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

      I think President Obama has a good chance to avoid that second term curse because he recognizes the history of Presidential overreach during second terms. He said as much in his press conference last week.

      • Taylor Marsh November 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

        I’m uninterested in the “curse” but mentioned it in passing, but even more uninterested in your cheer leading about it, especially Obama’s claim of knowledge of it.

        The Benghazi terrorist attack was a result of the Administration’s bad Libya policy, but hardly anything close to what McCain has asserted.

        However, now this situation with Rice is serious and is important.

        • Solo November 27, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

          Cheer leading? Hmmm! Exactly how is stating a simple fact cheer leading? All I said is that the President is aware of the history of what tends to happen to Presidents in their second term. Bad Libya policy? Hmmm! Let’s rewind for a second, President Obama was able to accomplished something in 8 months, that his immediate 7 predecessors couldn’t in 42 years and that was the removal Muammar Gaddafi from power! As for the Benghazi attack, it is simply impossible to protect everywhere and prevent everything. Where most people see a tragedy the Presidents opponents see opportunity. Under this President the number of Americans who have died in terror attacks has been remarkably low, even if you include the Benghazi deaths. Not cheer leading those are simply the facts.

          • spincitysd November 27, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

            Solo your support of regime change in Libya begs the question. Actually it begs two questions.

            The first question was if regime change in Libya was advisable. This question was a lot harder than one would think. There were other options, setting up a safe harbor for opponents of the regime and innocent bystanders was just one. Other questions also poped up because of the humanitarian cover given the intervention, ei why was Syria not a humanitarian casus belli.

            The other question, the one I’m asking, is why the hell was there no plan B after the fall of Gaddafi. The military tactics of “look Ma no hands” may have kept the somnolent public from asking too many questions about intervention in Libya, but it left Libya a soup sandwich after the grizzly end of nasty dictator.

            It’s chaos on the ground in Libya, with centrifugal political forces ripping the nation to shreds. Into that lethal mix we tossed a brave public servant to no good purpose. I don’t see how replacing the mis-rule of Gaddafi with a failing state can be see as anything other than a mixed blessing at best and an oops-aw-shucks at worst.

            As for the meme of “Under this President the number of Americans who have died in terror attacks has been remarkably low” you can not be serious. Please tell me you forgot to turn on your irony detector today because if it is in the “on” postion, then your irony detector is malfunctioning, or no longer working (if it ever did). Your repurposing of a Bushite talking point, “hey, we have not screwed the pooch as bad as we did back on September 11, 2001″, has me shaking my head. Sweet Baby Jesus On A Pogo Stick, the lengths partisan fan-bois go to.

          • Solo November 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

            Spincitysid: Let’s see now. Exactly when is it not advisable to remove a murderous dictator from power? If you went to Libya right now and asked the average Libyan if they could go back to the way things were would they do it what do you think they would say? Your attempt to equate Libya with Syria is absurd the situations couldn’t be move different. The rebels in Libya asked for outside help, in the beginning the Syrian rebels said they didn’t want any outside intervention (they later changed their minds of course). Plus Assad doesn’t have American blood on his hands Gaddafi did! Muammar Gaddafi was directly involved in numerous terrorist attacks against Americans during the mid to late 1980′s with the most famous incident being the Lockerbie bombing.

            No one tossed Amb. Stevens into Libya, he loved the country and wanted to be there despite the risks, risks which he and every foreign service officer is keenly aware of. History clearly is not your thing, if it were you would know that all new democracies are chaotic in the beginning. How long do you think it took for this country to become the stable democracy it is today. Do you really think that America achieved it’s stability the second after Cornwallis surrendered to the rebels at Yorktown? Democracy took time to take root here and it will take time to take root in Libya.

            That grizzly ending you spoke of? Maybe you should save your compassion for all the people Muammar Gaddafi killed of the years. What happened to him is not the first time that has happened and it probably won’t be the last. I definitely see Assad ending up the way Gaddafi did and countless other dictators have. That’s what happens when you spend your life abusing and murdering people, what goes around comes around. Gaddafi got what he deserved, so did Saddam Hussein, so did Mussolini, so did Hitler and so on and so on.

            As for your last paragraph? To ridiculous to respond to. The numbers are the numbers!

    • TPAZ November 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

      True

  3. T-Steel November 27, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    My comment from your earlier post on this:

    “McCain, Graham, and Ayotte have all said that they are now more troubled after today’s meeting than before. And all three kept mentioning Rice on queue and too damn much in my opinion. Since when is a U.S. Ambassador the end-all-be-all for an intelligence failure in a foreign land? McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are not even talking about the INTELLIGENCE community. Just Rice/Obama. Rice/Obama. And Rice/Obama. They are all having tantrums and looking flat out stupid.

    The questions SHOULD be to General David Petraeus and the other intelligence agencies. Rice is being singled out hard for being a good soldier and following directions given. Something McCain should understand. If McCain was going off on Petraeus and other intelligence community folk, then I wouldn’t have a problem. But all I see is “I’m going get Obama early because he won the election”.

    And one of the DUMBEST things said today was from “The Three Amigos” is that Obama and Rice should have been quiet instead of giving bad information. HAAHAHAA!! McCain would have blew a gasket if there was NO WORD AT ALL from the Obama Administration.”

    Why aren’t we finding out how four Americans died? What about why were we there in the first place? How about what we are going to do better to avoid this in the future? REAL QUESTIONS. McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are full of it.

    • Taylor Marsh November 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

      I was hoping you’d repost it. Thanks for doing so.

      • T-Steel November 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

        No problem Taylor. This situation is REALLY bothering me. The Three Stupids have framed this TOTALLY as Dr. Susan Rice’s fault. They’ve taken “she lied to the American people” to a level where the next step is that she was treasonous. No they haven’t said that but I’m just getting that feeling. A U.S. Ambassador to the UN is NOT the problem in this. We need to be talking to the CIA, State Department, and other agencies. Pull President Obama in for a talk on foreign policy toward Libya. Not Rice. Not at all.

        It flat out stinks and does a disservice to those four Americans to have Rice singled out like this.

        • Taylor Marsh November 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

          “flat out stinks…”

          In a nutshell, friend.

  4. secularhumanizinevoluter November 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    Gee…the repugnantklaners dishonestly try to shaft the woman….big surprise.

  5. secularhumanizinevoluter November 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    And I might add I sincerely hope President Obama rams Ms. Rice right down their fracking, disingenuous throats!

    • Taylor Marsh November 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

      Well, as I said before, I’m partial to Senator John Kerry, but that’s because I know him & have worked with/for him through Patriot Project years ago, nothing to do with Amb. Rice.

      However, I’m rooting for her at this point, so I’ll sign on, sech.

  6. Lake Lady November 27, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Dumb, dumber and dumbest. They look so stupid and mean. McCain has blown his halo sky high. Now people can see him for what he has always been a trigger happy fly-boy whose intelligence and integrity are about an inch deep.

    • Taylor Marsh November 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

      The national media just might give the advantage to McCain-Graham-Ayotte, though I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

      The trouble will rise if Senate Dems start believing this is too much trouble, which doesn’t take much for that bunch, OR if the fiscal scheme plan starts spiraling to stalemate, which progressives in Congress don’t worry about, but Obama & his aides likely do.

  7. spincitysd November 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    I think that Obama will have to double-down on Rice. If he does not, he will be a lame duck right out the gate. Obama is infamous for his avoidance of confrontation, but he will have to run against type if he wants any kind of “legacy.”

    Still, we are on track for an impeachment in 2014, with the bogus j’accuse probably being Benghazi. And in a way it be Obama’s own damn fault. His political malfeasance in 2010 let the Republicans Gerrymander themselves into relevance until 2020.

  8. Cujo359 November 27, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    “IT’S REALLY difficult not to reply with serious snark on hearing Senator Graham’s response to his meeting with U.N. Ambassador Rice,”

    Like “Do we have units of measure that big?”

    Anyway, it’s still amazing to me how little of any real importance is discussed publicly by our national politicians these day. Anyone discussing China, for instance, or the pending Asian arms race? Not so much.

  9. angels81 November 27, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    This has nothing to do with Libya or four dead people, it is nothing more then gotcha politics. This is all about finding anything that will bring the President down. Plan A of the republicans was to hold Obama to one term, failing that we have now moved to plan B. Plan B is to try finding something that they can impeach Obama on.

    I’ve asked in the past if people know how many embassies were attacked/bombed and how many embassy personal have been killed since 9/11? Most people don’t have a clue because nobody attacked the then sitting president about who said what, when and who was covering up something. The reason nobody asked those questions was everybody knew that there were armed terrorists who were fighting a war against us, and bad things can happen in times of war.

    If McCain and these clowns were really concerned, they would be asking, what are we doing to catch the terrorists who attacked us and what can we do to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Instead they are playing gotcha politics with the President hoping to sling some dirt on him.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter November 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

      “This is all about finding anything that will bring the President down. Plan A of the republicans was to hold Obama to one term, failing that we have now moved to plan B. Plan B is to try finding something that they can impeach Obama on. ”

      Indeed…these are the same mob of assmonkies that impeached a sitting President for a consensual sex act between two adults but thought an out of control village idiot lying us into a war and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings who never, NEVER posed any threat to the United States what so ever is just fine and dandy. And don’t even ASK about the hundreds who died in attacks on embassies during his mismanagement.
      This is just another salvo in the repugnantklann/teabagger war on the American people and economy. These domestic terrorists have time and again shown themselves not only willing…but EAGER to do anything they can to sabotage the economny to try to weaken this President. Hurt people and destroy lives? BOO FRIKIN HOO if it will hurt President Obama or the Democrats the public is just collateral damage.

      • jinbaltimore November 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

        “…but thought an out of control village idiot lying us into a war and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings who never, NEVER posed any threat to the United States what so ever is just fine and dandy..”

        You can add “Impeachment is off the table” Nancy Pelosi to that group too. SHE is the one who argued against accountability and look where it has gotten us.

        • angels81 November 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

          Of course she was against it. We had a new President, a economy falling off the cliff, thousands of people losing their jobs, homes and savings. If she had sent the house into the mess of the Bush years over the war, this country would be in a lot worse shape now then it is. Also, if she had went down that road democrats would have lost a hell of a lot more seats in 2010 then they did, and we might be looking at a different President come January. Sometimes you have to not fight the fight you can’t win, no matter if it would have been the good fight, especially when the country is slipping into a depression.

          • jinbaltimore November 27, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

            Wrong.

            You make people accountable for their wrongdoings. If we say we are a country of law, then back it up. Otherwise, you end up with Presidents thinking they can just torture and KILL people all willy-nilly. And this leaves you with NO credibility either at home or abroad. Bush/Cheney committed war crimes. Those who allowed it, beforehand, MIGHT be forgiven for being blind. Those who ignored it after the fact are complicit in those crimes, however.

            Your logic lets the Secular’s repugnants, cited above, off the hook as well.

            It’s time to go back to thinking about right and wrong, not just your side vs mine.

          • angels81 November 27, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

            Reality is a bitch. Nothing would have ever got threw the house or the senate, and that is a fact. We would have torn this country farther apart then it is all ready. There’s a lot of blame to go around and most all the people of this country are part of that blame for not raising up and trying to stop it. It will have to be left to history to decide who was a war criminal. I didn’t see anyone who had the stomach to bring Bush or anyone else to any kind of trial and that includes the majority of the people of this country.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter November 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

            “Also, if she had went down that road democrats would have lost a hell of a lot more seats in 2010 then they did, and we might be looking at a different President come January.”

            I can’t say that I agree with you there Angels. Dems got hammered in 2010 BECAUSE President Obama hadn’t come through with the grand promises made during the campaign. It wasn’t that the repugnantklan convinced one single person their stupid delusions were right…there were just a WHOLE lot of Dems, progs and Libs who said why bother…it didn’t change anything when we did vote.
            Had Bush and his crime family been hailed before the world court or even OUR courts it would have energized and rekindled the spirit of democracy that fueled Obama’s first general election victory.

  10. angels81 November 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    You may be right sec, thou I don’t think the world court would have touched bringing the ex-President of the most powerful nation in the world to trial unless there was a clear indication that a majority of the people of this country would support it, and like I said, I saw no stomach in this country for that.

  11. mjsmith November 28, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    From ABC News: http://tinyurl.com/d54lvqh

    By RUSSELL GOLDMAN (@GoldmanRussell)
    Oct. 17, 2012

    “… With Romney insisting that Obama did not blame it on a terror attack for another two weeks, Crowley piped up to say he had cited a terror attack the day after the Americans were killed.

    “He did call it an act of terror,” Crowley said of the president’s remarks, but then told Romney, “you are correct” that it took the White House two weeks to fully admit that the attack was the result of planned terrorist operation and not part of protest against an anti-Islam video.

    Crowley said on “The View” she was not coming down on the side of the president and those accusing her of bias should “listen to the thing I said right after, which is you’re point Mr. Romney, you’re absolutely correct. It took them weeks to get past the tape, the riot.”

    Obama seized on Crowley’s comments during the debate, asking “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” and fueling conservative accusations of bias.

    Obama went into the White House Rose Garden the day after the Americans died and told reporters, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

    • mjsmith November 28, 2012 at 8:58 am #

      All this talk about Ambassador Rice not mentionioning extremists or terrorists for National Security issues is complete hogwash.

      I am not saying that Rice said what she did because to advance a political agenda. I do not know why she repeatedly attempted mislead the public. I am saying I do not know why she said what she did, repeatedly.

      Something about this reminds me of what former White House Chief of Staff said:

      “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel.

      Obama did not let “Frankenstorm Sandy” go to waste either. He took that opportunity to do something he had not done before… work with a Republican.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter November 28, 2012 at 11:18 am #

        I was going to point by point respond to this delusional bilge but it is SO unconnected from reality…even for you….it can just stand on it’s own for laugh value.

        • mjsmith November 28, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

          secular.. let me help you out little buddy. Did President Obama call it a terror attack the next day – YES Did Susan Rice call it a terror attack: NO

          It really is that simple.

    • DaGoat November 28, 2012 at 9:21 am #

      That’s one of the problems I have with the whole Benghazi issue mjsmith, Democrats are trying to have it both ways. Obama called it a terror attack the day after (apparently despite it being classified information). A few days later Rice goes out and says the attack occurred because of the video, supposedly because she had no access to the classified information.

      My take on this is that Obama was using the term “terror” in a generic sense in his Rose Garden address, then tried to claim later he had called it a terrorist attack when it helped him during the debate. This ignores the fact that he sent out Rice a few days later to call it something else.

      Now has Fox gone overboard on this? Absolutely. What gives Fox some traction though is that the Obama response has been inconsistent and confused. There is less there than Fox claims, but more there than the Obama administration claims.

      • mjsmith November 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

        DaGoat – We really don’t know everything. That is the problem.Did Woodward and Bernstein and the rest of The Washington Post go overboard on the Watergate scandal? It is the responsibility of the Press to find out these answers that OUR Government refusesto answer, ora at least answer with a consistant response.

        The Press was considered an extra branch of the Government. Now the Press appears to be an extension of political parties.

      • Cujo359 November 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

        “My take on this is that Obama was using the term “terror” in a generic sense in his Rose Garden address, then tried to claim later he had called it a terrorist attack when it helped him during the debate.”

        I took it much the same way, for whatever that’s worth. Still, it was not that clear at the time what had happened. Claiming later that he had said it was an attack by terrorists targeting the consulate strikes me as being a stretch on his part.

        • mjsmith November 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

          Cujo359 – He also said to Republicans not to attack Susan Rice and to attack him instead. I don’t see him stepping up at all on this issue.

          Obama did the same thing to Atty. Gen. Holder. A different tragedy, simialr confusing response.

          • Cujo359 November 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

            Sadly, Obama got what he wanted there. I agree with the folks who are saying he can’t afford to lose here, though, since a good portion of the political establishment is looking forward to the day when they can declare him a lame duck.

          • angels81 November 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

            So what would you have him do? Should he get in the sand box with the kids and get into a back and forth mud fight? I think both himself and Rice are handling themselves quite well. The public seems to know who the clowns are in this hissy fit.

  12. angels81 November 28, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    I don’t understand how anyone can say Rice attempted to mislead the public. She was given the same classified talking points that where given to congress by the CIA and other security agencies. According to Rice she had no contact with the white house about what she was to say and only spoke on what the classified report said. Congress got the same report. so there should have been no surprise as to what Rice was going to say.

    This whole flareup with Rice is nothing but naked politics aimed at Obama and the white house. It seems that this may be payback for what democrats did with Bolton and what Rice said about McCain when he ran for President. I’m still waiting for one republican to ask some serious questions about what we are doing to catch the people who killed four Americans and how can we prevent something like this from happening again.

    • angels81 November 28, 2012 at 9:40 am #

      I meant unclassified instead of classified….sorry.

  13. angels81 November 28, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    What makes all this so silly is that most Americans already understand that anyone who attacks innocent people with rockets and guns are terrorists, and it really doesn’t matter what reason they use for the attack. This whole who said what when is nothing but a distraction by a bunch of sore losers, and a majority of the public see’s it that way..

    • secularhumanizinevoluter November 28, 2012 at 11:23 am #

      It’s kinda like these imbecilic assmonkeys didn’t notice this bilge hgad ZIP influence on the election and the public…by a HUGE majority rejected their alternate universe babble.

    • DaGoat November 28, 2012 at 11:34 am #

      “This whole who said what when is nothing but a distraction”

      Obama seemed to think it was important in the second debate. He even asked Candy Crowley to repeat it so everybody could hear. I agree with you that a lot of this is political, but Mccain et al are hardly the only ones that have used it for political benefit.

      I am open to believing that Rice was just repeating what she was told to say and did not attempt to mislead the public. The implication though is that somebody told her to say something that wasn’t true. I think the excuse that she was just repeating talking points is weak and it makes her look like a toady.

      When public officials go on TV they should be expected to give honest information, and that goes for Democrats and Republicans. Mindlessly spouting talking points is common but I don’t see why anyone would support that approach.

      • ogenec November 28, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

        “Obama seemed to think it was important in the second debate. He even asked Candy Crowley to repeat it so everybody could hear.”

        Sounds like a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument to me. That Obama defended himself from the charge and asked Candy to repeat it does not mean he thought it important. It just means he had a defense to the baseless, political charge and wanted to make sure Romney didn’t get away with it.

        I fail to see what the issue is, frankly. Mike Mullen and Pickering are investigating, as the law requires them to do. Let’s see where that goes. But the notion that a U.S. diplomat gave the public information that was carefully calibrated to preserve maximum wiggle room does not strike me as a bad thing. In fact, I think it’s a very good thing. Are we really going to quibble over whether she should have said “Al Qaeda” instread of “extremists”? Good Lord.

        • DaGoat November 28, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

          “That Obama defended himself from the charge and asked Candy to repeat it does not mean he thought it important.”

          I don’t follow this logic. I would think asking the moderator to repeat something meant Obama thought it was important. Even if Obama didn’t feel it was important the debate audience gave the exchange a lot of applause and it was all the talk the next day.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter November 28, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

          Clearly the alternate faux not news universe is encroaching on the marsh. It continues to amaze me how supposedly adult individuals continue to bleat the made up version of nonreality about a frankly while tragic for the individuals who died doing their duty not very important event.

      • angels81 November 28, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

        So, your telling us that officials should tell everything they know even if it would put more people in danger? There is a reason why some information is classified and not privy to the public at the time. I suspect that catching the terrorists would be high on our list, and I don’t think it would be wise if officials went on the Sunday talk shows and spilled the beans as to what we know.

        Once again I will say, this is all gotcha politics, and the real questions that should be asked by the three clowns are not even on their radar screens.

        • DaGoat November 28, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

          “So, your telling us that officials should tell everything they know even if it would put more people in danger? ”

          I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. When the classified and unclassified versions are opposite, there is no reason to go on 5 TV shows and parrot the unclassified version. Either find an honest way to present it or just wait.

          If Rice didn’t know the classified version then she got royally screwed by whoever asked her to go on TV, and I were her I would be upset.

          • mjsmith November 28, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

            This is the entire point. Obama insisted the he called it a terrorist attack on September, 12.

            This spin of the week on this issue that “calling it a terror attack would of put people in danger or disrupted the investigation and attempt to capture the extremists” is 100% unnacceptable.

            I can’t wait to here what the new spin will be next week.

            I wonder how long until this will be a matter of Executive Privliage. That is what Obama finally had to do with “Fast and Furious.

            On September, 11 President Obama was quick to respond to Mitt Romney. He was able to make his fund raising event in Las Vegas too.

      • jinbaltimore November 28, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

        Wins the comment thread! Spot on.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter November 30, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

          “I wonder how long until this will be a matter of Executive Privliage. That is what Obama finally had to do with “Fast and Furious.”

          Oh, you mean that BUSH idiocy that Holder stopped when he found out about it?

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong