Letter: Republicans opposing just to oppose

After getting the wind knocked out of them in the election, Republicans seemed momentarily chastened and half-heartedly willing to work with the president to actually govern the country. Apparently, they were just kidding.

In recent days, the Party of No has caught its breath and has once more reverted to trench warfare. Instead of mustard gas, the Republicans use opposition as their weapon of choice. It’s not even loyal opposition, just opposition.

Their latest attempt to make life difficult for President Barack Obama focuses on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Seems that three Republican senators are still not satisfied with explanations they have received concerning Rice’s statements on Benghazi.

These three self-appointed grand inquisitors have arbitrarily decided they will not be satisfied by anything they are told by Rice or anyone in the administration and that they are therefore justified in smearing her reputation and casting unsubstantiated aspersions on the entire administration. They have vowed to block Rice’s nonexistent nomination to the office of secretary of state.

Rice is merely the latest excuse for Republican immaturity and a rationalization for them to scorch the earth as they recede into irrelevance. If they cannot have all the toys in the toy box, they will destroy the toys and the box they came in. Be assured, if Benghazi had not presented such an illegitimate opportunity, Republicans would have found some other excuse for their irrational obstructionism. For Republicans, it seems elections have no consequences, at least none they recognize.

Michael Russo

librarian

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 05/12/2012

Among the points raised by people seeking to discount those in the opposition party's criticism of the handling of this year's 911 event are such things as that before the first 911 Bush received intel that terrorist might use airplanes, that they got the intelligence wrong on WMDs in Iraq, and changing stories because of the fog of war. Well there wasn't a fog of war here. We are talking about a single incident. As far as the U.S. learning for mistakes, doesn't this incident point out the truth in the old saying that "The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history". Given the similarities between reading the tea leaves available in both 911s, one might reasonably conclude that had Gore won the 2000 election, it could likely have made no difference as far as what happened on 9/11/2001 is concerned. We just have role reversal in exemplified in the two 911 incidents.

2) Comment by InPVille - 05/12/2012

In less than a week it will be three months since this year's 911. Given the technological and manpower resources which could be directed to the task and the need to gather the information sooner rather than later from those involved because of human memory, it is difficult for me to believe that the story of what happened and why isn't clear to those in the government seeking the answers. There may still need to be curtains installed to finish building the story, but little else to develop the understanding. As was stated by Amb. John Bolton in a quote I posted earlier, people in positions of great responsibility in govt. should be able to look at what is handed to them, understand what it says, and ask intelligent questions about it. When I was starting out this much is expected of case workers looking at individual applications for public assistance in local offices by their supervisors. Don't think for a minute that the White House wasn't aware of what was being reported about by the media both in the U.S. and International press. They were certainly aware that members of the media had "rescued" documents from the sites well before the govt. went on site. They asked for the return of the documents. That the handling of the incident was less than stellar. But you are correct that Amb. S. Rice's part of it is the least of the story. That emphasis was still being played to the video as the reason for the attack long after reasons to seriously doubt the story is reason enough for questioning by the opposition party.

3) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 03/12/2012

IP, Take a deep breath. I referenced agagent’s post as an example of the RW hyperventilation over Ambassador Rice. If you go back and look at my post, at no time did I say that you referenced FoxNews, nor did I state that you shared agagent’s views. I only intimated that if you believe that Republican’s motives are for the US to learn from its mistakes instead of purely partisan grandstanding (mixed in with other ulterior motives such as the one I outlined in one of my first posts) then you are trying to feed your fellow posters a load. We all agree that this incident deserves an investigation. What the Republicans have done in painting Amb Rice as being complicit is ridiculous.

4) Comment by InPVille - 03/12/2012

@Tea_Slayer: What a load! I've repeatedly listed the sequence of events leading up to the Benghazi attacks on 9/11/2012. It has been a primary focus of my posts on the subject, If not the primary focus frequently citing links that support the point. Since I never cited any of the other arguments critical of the whole affair that have been presented by other posters in an attempt to support the views I've written, don't expect me to accept as valid any of your guilt-by-association arguments either. Actually I've used information from the Huffington Post, The BBC, and Reuters as sources. To my knowledge, none of them are reputed to be "way out right wing" sources. . . quite the contrary. Fox News? Don't remember citing them as a source. If as you say Ms. Rice had nothing to do with the events in Benghazi, she could hardly be put forth as an acceptable expert to discuss the subject in the first place.

5) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 03/12/2012

Thank you Tea_Slayer.

6) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 03/12/2012

Oh Pville, can you not grasp that their are two issues here. One deals with the actual events that took place in Benghazi (these are under investigation). The second is the Republicans blaming Rice. This is simply stupid. But, i did hear a pretty convincing theory over the weekend and I buy into it. Basically, the Republican leadership are cowards and to scared to take on Hillary, who would be in charge of the state dept. Ya know.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to be a sound theory to me since Rice had nothing to do with the events in Benghazi. Now little McCain is taking on who he perceives is a weak link.. what happened to John. A long time ago, he at least had some integrity.

7) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 03/12/2012

IP: From the article OMK posted: “Are their legitimate questions over what happened in Benghazi? You bet. I wasn't alone in thinking the day our ambassador and three others were killed on 9/11: "Why were they there and where was their security?" Those are questions that demand answers and we will have them because Admiral Mike Mullen, former head of the Joint Chiefs, and others are looking into what happened and will shortly report on their findings.”/// No one is avoiding it. They are waiting for the results of the investigation, not going on a witch hunt like the Republicans whose motives aren’t as well hidden as they think they are. Even you stated: “A rational mind at least tries to understand what happened and then seeks to understand why” If you think that’s what the Republicans are trying to do, then you are the one with the “very painful and fatal disease”. Just see agagent’s post below about Susan Rice being the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs prior to the embassy bombings in Africa. That position has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Embassy security, yet the day after Hannity tries to tie Rice to those bombings, agaent dutifully parrots it.

8) Comment by InPVille - 03/12/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "This will be my last word on this: . . ." -[**]- You made the same claim on the 27th of last month in the discussion of another letter. -[**]- As in the previous sources you have linked to, your last linked source makes no attempt to show how in the series of events leading up to and during the Benghazi attacks showed the U.S. was following a wise and prudent course. You and they rigorously avoid dealing with those issues as if to do so would cause you to contract a very painful and fatal disease. A rational mind at least tries to understand what happened and then seeks to understand why, learn from it and not simply latch on to conclusions of others who don't even address the sequence of events. -[**]- But you may be correct that the whole sordid and sad affair may lead to naught. Whitewashing techniques were perfected long ago.

9) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 02/12/2012

This will be my last word on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-mitrovich/benghazi-susan- rice_b_2207368.html>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think the author sums it up nicely. "In due course, this ugly political episode will pass, but given the state of the Republican Party, others dubious causes will be joined and shameful acts will ensue. If you try to understand this in any rational context, you will fail. The rational mind cannot comprehend the irrational."

10) Comment by ScotB - 02/12/2012

Perhaps you're right and the Republicans oppose just because they like to be contrary. Or maybe they oppose additional spending because we cannot afford it? If President Obama gets the tax increases he is asking for, it will still have almost no effect at all on the continued pile up of debt on our kids and grandkids. No generation has ever been so selfish as this one in passing along their burdens to their posterity. I don't give a da.... about what they raise taxes to, as long as they do not increase the debt ceiling! Balance the budget. Stop being Republicans and Democrats and be responsible Americans!

11) Comment by Attila - 02/12/2012

I agree tradewinns. I hope we go diving off of that cliff doing a double somersault, in the pike position, with a full twist. Both sides will blame the other and if we are lucky when the 2014 elections come around we will throw out everyone of them.

12) Comment by tradewinns - 01/12/2012

one thing i think we can all agree on is the republicans need a better PR firm. republicans are always reacting instead of being proactive. republicans are always allowing the democrats to set the stage and control the debate. as an example; the fiscal cliff. whose fault is it going to be if the cuts go into effect jan1? the republicans! why isn't it the democrats' because they will not cut the spending? the republicans allowed the democrats to take control of the debate. personally i hope we fall over the cliff. it'll be the best thing for the nation IMHO.

13) Comment by Attila - 01/12/2012

Warp7: What makes you think that your opinion ( and you know that they say that opinions are like a certain body orifice...every body has one) is more legitimate than someone on the right? I think that you may have missed a good chance at being the poster child for left wing psychobabble. You need to be "beamed up"...if Scotty would have you.

14) Comment by DMJ - 01/12/2012

After you guys figure out what REALLY happened in Benghazi, I'd like to know who shot Kennedy and where Jimmy Hoffa's body is buried. Also, I'm pretty sure the moon landing was fake as well. Ya'll should look in to that.

15) Comment by InPVille - 01/12/2012

@Warp7: Appropriate handle by the way given your blathering ideological rambling comments. According to common sense and several studies by economists on the subject I've read. Minimum wage laws tend to make it harder for the people who most need entry level jobs. Those people who have little education and few job skills. It enables them to gain work skills, develop good work habits, and the vast majority of them move up into higher paying jobs either where they start or somewhere else. Higher minimum wages for which the work output can't justify the salary and benefits required result in fewer entry level positions or encourage people with more qualifications taking the entry level positions. Minimum wage laws benefit lawmakers and unions that have contracts based on some computation against minimum wage laws.

16) Comment by bourbon-soda - 01/12/2012

It's always tax now, cut later; like Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football.

17) Comment by Warp7 - 01/12/2012

The majority of Americans spoke loudly on election day, but the right still does not get it and will continue with their angry, hate filled agenda. One would have thought that they would have saw the light, but no, these guys are too blinded by hate. With right everyone is wrong except them. They like to throw out a lot of babble to try to justify their own ideology in hopes that they can continue to convince a following of like minded angry, hate filled individuals that their course is the wrong one. During the later stages of the Bush adimistration and the previous 4 years of President Obama, we saw were that got us. The right continues to be obstructionist who are only concerned with one segment of American Society, old white rich men. Also when you look at the results of the election and look at some of these red states, you see that it contains the the same states that supported the Confederacy and unfortunately Louisiana under Jindal is one of them. The right is still stuck in it's pre-civil war way of thinking. After all it was the right that was against women and miniorities having the right to vote. It was the right that supported segregation. It was the right that was against the rights of workers. It was the right that was against child labor laws. It was the right that did not supporty minimum wage laws. It is the right that continues to support tax codes that support the super rich. It is the right that targets that targets state employees, teachers and uninon workers for the sake of private sector profits. It is the right that continues to say no to anything that would benefit the average red blooded American.

18) Comment by InPVille - 01/12/2012

@ABayouBoy: Sorry Bud! The middle class is going to have to fork over more tax dollars if the nation is ever going to avoid finally going off an ever growing fiscal cliff. President Obama campaigned for reelection on the idea of tax increases on the most wealthy balanced by spending cuts. Now that he doesn't have to worry about the election his real goals are coming out. He now wants to double the amount of his tax increase and he wants to put off the spending cuts he campaigned on to a later date. In the mean time he wants immediate new spending in the form of another Stimulus spending package in the neighborhood of 50 billion dollars. That amount will probably be increased in the Senate as time passes. There goes the the majority of any spending cuts he might possibly agree to. But really it casts doubt that either he or his party was ever serious about real spending cuts. Whether they would even eventually agree to reductions in the rate of future spending increases(which is what Democrats have historically called spending cuts) come into question. The situation is reminiscent of what happened when President Reagan agreed to increased taxes based on the promise of later spending cuts. Those spending cuts never happened. There is absolutely no reason to believe this time the story will be any different. My last point is supported by President Obamas demand for the permanent removal of Congress's power to place a cap on federal spending. The hubris of the man is gobsmacking! -[**]- The President is spinning a "cake and eat it to" scenerio. There is no way the country can extricate itself from the debtors prison we are creating for future generations of Americans by only taxing the most wealthy 2%. Add to the existing deficit, the unfunded liabilities of SS, Medicare, and etc.which make up the nation's real financial situation and even if you cut every penny of defense spending the math still does not work. You might be able to keep this house of cards from toppling over for while longer. But the mess to be cleaned up by and the quality of life it will leave for our children and grandchildren . . . I don't want that on my conscience.

19) Comment by ABayouBoy - 01/12/2012

Yes. It is pure D obstructionism by the Republicans. This so called fiscal cliff is also just a gimmick by the political system to get their concessions for their backers - namely defense contractors to avoid or postpone any spending cuts. Lets face it, Obama is trying to do the right thing by the majority of the American people - increasing taxes (personal, not corporate), on individuals making over $250,000 per year, and if you are one of the middle class taxpayers, you know as well as I, that they can well afford to bite the bullet. Just as my family has to at the grocery store every week.

20) Comment by agagent - 30/11/2012

In 1998 Susan Rice was head of African affairs for Clinton’s State Department. As with Benghazi, ambassadors were denied repeated requests for additional security. Two of our embassies were bombed and many people were killed, including Americans. Those 2 embassies were under Rice’s supervision.

21) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "It would be dangerous for her, or any other politician, to ignore our experts and go with their gut. As McCain apparently wants her to do." -[**]- Ignoring experts is dangerous?! The so called experts thought keeping the Benghazi Embassy open was acceptable under then existing conditions. Blindly accepting expert opinion without gathering sufficient information to have confidence in the expert opinion can also lead you wrong. Given the senior cabinet level position held by Ms. Rice, she should be something of an expert herself. She served on the staff of the National Security Council in the early 1990s for four years, later as Senior Director for African Affairs for three years, and held many other high level positions before becoming U. N. Ambassador. Refer to my earlier posted quote below by Amb. John Bolton.

22) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "I don't suppose any of you on the right want to acknowledge all the budget cuts that your guys forced on the State Dept?" -[**]- I'll bite. The U.S. government is in debt up to its eye-balls. However, having worked in a government bureaucracy for most of my working life it is hard for me to believe there aren't numerous areas where economies could be put into place(The recent GSA Scandal might provide a clue). Priorities have to be established. Security at one of, if not the, greatest security risky places on the planet should have been assigned a high priority. If a way to provide the security still couldn't be provided within the budget(which I very much doubt), the prudent course, given the April incident where two fired security guards were suspected of having thrown an IED over the Benghazi Embassy wall, the May attack on the Benghazi Red Cross Office, the June hole blown in the U.S. consulate's north gate followed by the ambush by RPG on the British ambassador's car, after which both the Red Cross and the British closed up shop and left Benghazi, for the U.S. to have taken was to also close our Benghazi embassy and reassign the office staff.

23) Comment by Chucky - 30/11/2012

Benghazi was and is a cover up. Russo, you should have picked another example.

24) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

Now even the environmental left is on Amb. Rice's case. -[**]- "Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine." . . . "In 2010, for instance, when Rice and her husband held at least $1.5 million in Royal Bank of Canada, the institution was labeled Canada's most environmentally irresponsible company by the Rainforest Action Network for its support of tar sands development." . . . "It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” said Bill McKibben, a writer and founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sands Action, which have organized protests against the Keystone XL project. “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.” http://www.onearth.org/article/susan-rice-obama-secretary-state-tar-sands-finances -[AND]- from another source we have a petition: "Outrageous: Keystone XL conflict "It's indefensible that Susan Rice has millions of dollars invested in oil companies and banks that will make huge profits if the State Department gives approval to the XL pipeline. Demand that Rice immediately sell every dollar of stock in every one of these companies." http://rootsaction.org/ -[**]- After thinking about this, they might have a point. It could conceivably point out a possible conflict of interest?

25) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "i suggest you find a video of Rice on the shows. She very clearly said the review was preliminary-- stressed it." Thanks. But I've seen them. . . several times. That defense provides about as much protection to open eyes as a pocket hanky would from a driving rain storm. As I've written before, it was known within 24 hours that there was a terrorist element behind the attack. "Why not instead say something that was not classified but could be later shown to lead in the proper direction? Why not say that the investigation was ongoing or in its preliminary stages? To say that the cause for the attacks was a spontaneous response to some stupid video wasn't going to hold up for five minutes under even the slightest scrutiny by what was already out by 9/16/2012. It certainly doesn't hold up against what is known today."

26) Comment by Whatnow - 30/11/2012

OMK, since the White House watched all of Benghzai happening in real time, and Patreaus said that they knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack. So why blame it on a video? They even broadcast a video all over Libya to say that it wasn't the US government behind the video, that it was one man? They even endangered that man's life for giving his name out. Just like the doctor's name with the Osama bin laden raid. Why? Benghazi was not over a video. Witnesses even stated that they never knew about a video. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-1-2012/american-terror-story) (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/21/3108559/little-sign-of-libyan-probe-into.html) Even Jon Stewart doubts the White House's story.

27) Comment by agagent - 30/11/2012

Budget played no part in the Benghazi situation, according to reports. The Obama administration was trying to make the situation appear “normalized” and did not want the outward appearances of heavy security. The British and the Red Cross left because of the unstable situation. It was a situation where we should put in the necessary security precautions or remove our diplomatic personnel. Maybe we had friends in the region, and they warned us, but we knew there were enemies, too.

28) Comment by Sandy - 30/11/2012

Hopefully they remain the party of no for at least four more years.

29) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "May I ask, where do you get your news?" Certainly! If you will look down this page to where I have three posts in a row, you will find links to a number of the sources I've used to document some of the things I've written here about the Benghazi/Rice issue. It includes that information that the fact that there was no spontaneous demonstration that went south. But if you don't have the energy to type InPville instead of Pville, I've no confidence that you will look them up. But it would make me happy were you to prove me wrong. -[**]- Yeah! The video played a role. One of the sources I linked to, I think, mentioned that witnesses to the attack stated the attackers picked out about 20 kids to yell about the video as a cover. Once again, you don't show up for a spontaneous demonstration with RPGs and mortars. It didn't happen at any of the other protests about the videos. The idea that it was the video has more holes in it than the colander I use to drain my noodles.

30) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

You guys can have this issue if you want. Heck, go on Jesse Ventura's TV show. Say hello to the 9/11 truthers for me while you're there.

31) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

Nimby, we are still learning about the first 9/11 attack and how many security briefs were ignored. Investigations take time. And, by the way, the President accepted responsibility during the second debate.

32) Comment by potkcalb - 30/11/2012

When I read these sparring and unconvincing comments "It's all your party's fault"..."No it's your party's fault" I'm reminded of the quote from Romeo and Juliet: "A plague on both your houses."

33) Comment by nimby? - 30/11/2012

OMK , we all would like to know the truth , perhaps learn from the mistakes made . why the delays , why the foot dragging ? what games are being played ? Ms. Clinton was the only one in the administration with b*lls enough to claim any responsibility . at least she'll be free to run in 2016 ....

34) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

I don't suppose any of you on the right want to acknowledge all the budget cuts that your guys forced on the State Dept? Although Mrs. Clinton said that didn't play a role, I can't see how it helped. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And No Nimby, the attacks are important, investigating them is important, finding out what went wrong and preventing the next ones... all of this is important... playing stupid political games and blame games are what is not necessary or constructive.. But, we are used to you guys..

35) Comment by nimby? - 30/11/2012

in the grand scheme of things I guess it's just not that important . just like those on Staten island wondering , wandering , waiting for help .

36) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

Aggy, prey tell, what lies did Ms. Rice tell? Or, are you getting your Rice's confused?

37) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

Pville, i suggest you find a video of Rice on the shows. She very clearly said the review was preliminary-- stressed it. She very clearly said their were ongoing investigations. And, our security experts to this day are saying the riots throughout the Middle East played a role.. >>>>>>>> May I ask, where do you get your news?

38) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

InPville, someday is today, yesterday, and for the last two weeks. Our security systems, you know- homeland security, wrote the brief that Rice used. It would be dangerous for her, or any other politician, to ignore our experts and go with their gut. As McCain apparently wants her to do.

39) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/11/2012

Accountable? Libby's sentence was commuted…

40) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "Who was held accountable for outing a CIA agent?" That would be Irve Louis "Scooter" Libby. Although he was actually found guilty of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice. He wasn't found guilty of outing a CIA agent. Actually Richard Armitage of the State Department is the person who outed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. Mr. Armitage never denied his part in the event and was never prosecuted. Apparently in and of itself Mr. Armitage's disclosure wasn't a serious enough infringement to warrant prosecution by the Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald. As the late Mr. Novak later stated, the leak was no great crime. No charges were made against Mr. Novak either.

41) Comment by agagent - 30/11/2012

I think Rice lied and the Obama administration tried to cover up the Benghazi terrorist attack which murdered 4 Americans because Obama had just proclaimed that al Qaeda was on the run in a recent campaign speech. The terrorist attack in Benghazi was made by an al Qaeda affiliate.

42) Comment by agagent - 30/11/2012

The real issues are: the Obama administration drew down security even as attacks were occurring on the consulate in Benghazi; the Obama administration ignored warnings and did not enhance security prior to the 9/11/2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; the Obama administration should have done more to help save the lives of Americans once the attack was underway; and Rice knew she was not telling the truth on her TV appearances 5 days after 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi. In her recent meeting with Senators we learned she had the original intelligence assessment which said the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a planned terrorist attack and not as she said.

43) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

I recommend a great and relevant piece of literature called The Boy Who Cried Wolf. You see...when you hype up a situation for your own selfish needs, you lose credibilty. Look it up. It's a good one.

44) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

Yeah, 'cause we know how it just infuriates Republicans when ladies with the last name of Rice who are in the running to become Secretary of State give the American people wrong intelligence. What a joke. You guys have long since overplayed your hand on this one. At some point you're going to have to stop digging that hole you're standing in.

45) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "InPville, the notes that "Somebody" gave her? Who was the somebody? And why did they redact certain claims?" -[----]- Hopefully we will one day know who composed the notes* Amb. Rice used and why what was known within 24 hours of the 9/11/2012 attacks on the U.S. Benghazi Embassy** wasn't explained by Amb. Rice in her Sunday media appearances five days later(September 16) but instead, as Amb. Bolton said, talking points were parroted. One can only speculate why the tale Amb. Rice spun was chosen by the composer. 1.) That an attack by an al Qaeda affiliated group didn't fit with the administration's claims that the al Qaeda problem wasn't much of a concern any longer because bin Laden was no more and al Qaeda was on the run -OR- 2.) There were national security concerns -[OR]- 3.) Some other reason that doesn't immediately come to mind. -[OR]- 4.) Why Amb. Rice didn't perform the due diligence suggested by Amb. Bolton. But let us assume for the sake of conversation that it was #2. Why not instead say something that was not classified but could be later shown to lead in the proper direction? Why not say that the investigation was ongoing or in its preliminary stages? To say that the cause for the attacks was a spontaneous response to some stupid video wasn't going to hold up for five minutes under even the slightest scrutiny by what was already out by 9/16/2012. It certainly doesn't hold up against what is know today. What was done only makes those involved look like people who would rather not tell the truth when a lie will do. It shows people too often tend not to learn from the mistakes of previous administrations as cited in the example provided by T_S. But of course everyone thought Saddam had WMDs. The topic had been in the media and the threat denounced by both the Democrat members of Congress and the Republican members of Congress just about every day for years(and not only in the U.S. but throughout the western world). Perhaps if years before Congress hadn't made it virtually impossible for Intelligence Agencies to gather intelligence by human assets but instead placed them in the position where they had to rely almost exclusively on satellite intelligence a better estimate of Iraq's weapons potential could have been made. But even with human intelligence, intelligence has never been 100% reliable. -[----]- * I have a vague recollection of seeing somewhere someone in the CIA took out the al Qaeda affiliate reference -[----]- ** see the links(there are numerous other sources) I provided earlier that there was no spontaneous protest AND that it was a planned attack with rocket propelled grenades and mortars.

46) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

Oh please whatnow, put your crocodile tears away. Benghazi was an attack on us. There is no cover up. Investigations are under way. The case McCain is trying to make against Rice is weak. That Rice should not have stuck with the CIA reports and should have known better. Hogwash. Do we really want our politicians ignoring the experts? The sad fact is that the Republican leadership politicized Benghazi for personal gain. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> After9/11/2001, the Democrat leadership and followers supported Bush. 90% of the American people joined together. A decade latter when we are attacked again, like we all knew would happen, the Republican leadership leads in using it to divide, to blame, and in an attempt to win an election. Sad and disgusting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking of accountability, who was held accountable for the 3000 killed in 2001? Who was held accountable for outing a CIA agent? Who was held accountable for the lies that led us into the Iraq war? No one.

47) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/11/2012

"Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a consumer -- of a highly defective product." -- Charles Krauthammer /// Of course, this quote is in reference to Condoleezza Rice and her assertion that Saddam had WMDs. What's good for Condi should be good enough for Susan, right? Of course not. Condi's "defective product" got many more Americans killed. Hypocrisy in action. -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43146-2005Jan27.html (and before you yahoos dismiss the article because it is from WaPo (that commie rag), it is actually the Krauthammer article from which I got the quote.

48) Comment by gofigger - 30/11/2012

Achtung! Ve have Veys to make you verk!

49) Comment by Whatnow - 30/11/2012

Inventing issues out of Benghazi? Four dead Americans isn't an invention and could be alive today if something or anything was done. But, I guess Democrats don't care to know about this and hopes it blows over. Heaven forbid that this administration does anything wrong. Get ready for the lies, blaming, scapegoats, more scandal and people being thrown under the bus, just like Fast and Furious. It all doesn't matter to Democrats. Their guy won because they don't care except when a Republican does something wrong. Anything else is just thrown under the rug.

50) Comment by Whatnow - 30/11/2012

@twinkie1cat, would you care to read the facts or would you rather just spread false information? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/17/woodward-gets-scarborough-apologize-misreporting-mcconnells-make-obam And you might want to read the whole interview where McConnell stated that he didn't want Obama to fail. He wanted him to change. Obama used the fail statement throughout his campaign and as usual, he only told people what they wanted to hear and not the whole truth. Just like you are doing.

51) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

Actually Atilla, the Republican leadership is quickly becoming irrelevant. And that is because they can do nothing but obstruct. O did just win the election, and his plan was the centerpiece of the debate. The Romney plan lost, yet the Republicans are still pushing it. It lost because it was a bad economic plan. >>>>>>>>>but by all means, keep obstructing. Keep inventing issues out of Benghazi. Keep being a know nothing party.

52) Comment by nimby? - 30/11/2012

this continues to be a no-fault administration . misunderstandings/mistakes will be excused , ignored , to be explained later . major media outlets will not question them , take them to task . to paraphrase Ms. Pelosi why don't we just let it go over the cliff and see what happens ...

53) Comment by Attila - 30/11/2012

If anyone had any doubt that BHO believes he is the Messiah his ludicrous attempt at negotiating a deal to stop the cliff diving that is about to occur demonstrates it to a tee. This fool comes in and demands 1.6 trillion in tax increases, and "maybe" he will agree to 400 billion in spending cuts, but not until next year when "we" have had a chance to look at it....and he is surprised that the Repubs call him out on that? He, and the libs obviously believe that the 59 million plus that voted for Romney are inconsequential and irrelevant. This arrogant excuse for a leader, in his own mind, believes that he actually has a "mandate" to steal from the producers and redistribute the wealth. What is it about the fact that increasing the tax rate on the rich to Clinton era levels will only produce enough revenue to run the country for 8 1/2 days escapes liberal comprehension? I say let's go cliff diving. When the carnage is over the people who voted for this train wreck of a president will finally understand.

54) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 30/11/2012

InPville, the notes that "Somebody" gave her? Who was the somebody? And why did they redact certain claims?

55) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

"I think part of the problem here is the continued focus by the White House, by Susan Rice, by people looking at it on these so called talking points that somebody provided to her. I'll just put it this way based on my own experience in government. Nobody who's truly competent reads talking points for any purpose. If you are good enough to be a senior American official you ought to be able to use your own words. I'm not saying you make up policy. You obviously follow policy as set by the President. But the notion that you can be a cabinet level official and be given talking points that you simply parrot without further question is mind boggling to me." . . . "Look there are basically two ways you can perform in the government at a senior level. You can be the tool of your bureaucracy, and I've known Secretaryies of State I'd basically put in that category, or you can be a real policy leader. And that frequently means, it inevitably means, questioning and challenging what the bureaucracy serves up to you. But I think if you do not perform that role, then you are not performing to the expectation of being a senior official in the government. That's why I say there two basic philosophies of how you perform in government here. If you want to promote somebody who reads talking points that's fine. And let me say, I believe the president should basically get his nominee for executive branch positions. But if that's what you want, that's the defense. I just read my talking points. That's the way she'll be a Secretary of State too." former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton

56) Comment by Whatchange - 30/11/2012

As soon as I started reading this letter and the republican bashing, not even bothering to finish reading the letter, I went straight to the writer, No Surprise Here and no surprise in some of the ill informed commenters either.

57) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18344092 6 June 2012 "Last month, the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Benghazi was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade." The Red Cross closed the Benghazi office and left the city shortly after the attack. -[**]- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18401792 11 June 2012 "Two British bodyguards have been injured in an attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya, embassy officials have said." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19605322 14 September 2012 "Both US and British diplomats in Benghazi came under attack from suspected Islamist militants in June, as did the International Committee of the Red Cross. -[paragraph]- Britain then closed down its permanent presence there that month, moving staff back to the capital Tripoli."

58) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49420839/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-officials-unhappy-handling-benghazi-suspects-april-attack/#.ULjHVtdNmCg "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official emails obtained by Reuters." . . . "The April 6 incident involving an improvised explosive device (IED)" -[**]- http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-officer-on-state-department-blocking-requests-for-me-the-taliban-is-inside-the-building/ "The former regional security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, recalled talking to a regional director and asking for twelve security agents. -[paragraph]- “His response to that was, ‘You are asking for the sun, moon and the stars.’ And my response to him – his name was Jim – ‘Jim, you know what makes most frustrating about this assignment? It is not the hardships, it is not the gunfire, it is not the threats. It is dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added (sic) it by saying, ‘For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.’” -[paragraph]- Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, the commander of a Security Support Team (SST) sent home in August – against his wishes and, he says, the wishes of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens – said “we were fighting a losing battle. We couldn’t even keep what we had.” . . . "Wood said that when he heard of the attack on the Benghazi post on September 11, it was “instantly recognizable” that it had been a terrorist attack. -[paragraph]- Why? -[paragraph]- “Mainly because of my prior knowledge there,” Wood said. “I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time.”

59) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/benghazi-attack-libyan-wi_n_2032005.html -[**]- Benghazi Attack: Libyan Witnesses Recount Organized Assault -[**]- "TRIPOLI, Libya -- It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses." . . . "Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film." . . . "They evacuated staffers to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound's building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans." The administration expects people are gullible enough to believe that rocket propelled grenades and mortars are brought to a spontaneous protest. They are apparently correct as far as their choir members are concerned.

60) Comment by tradewinns - 30/11/2012

and you, mr. russo know all the facts, right? you condemn the republicans, WHO ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED MS. RICE---I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE THERE, "justified in smearing her reputation and casting unsubstantiated aspersions on the entire administration". i wasn't there either, but because I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING PERSONALLY, i'll just read the reports and await some answers. for instance, the press- not the republicans- have reported the administration knew it was not an isolated spontanious riot but chose to present it as such for whatever reason. mr. russo please try thinking for yourself and stop reguritating party lines.

61) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

I hope the Senate Dems are able to finally reform the filibuster rule. Instead of simply stating their intentions to initiate a hypothetical filibuster which, currently, is as effective as an actual filibuster, they must actually get up and talk for the whole time and engage in a real filibuster....with cameras rolling. Republicans would have to put their money where their mouth is. Best of all...Vitter's only tactic would be rendered useless. Still...I think eventually, Republicans will view naked obstruction as bad politics. If doing the right thing won't motivate them, perhaps the prospect of losing elections might.

62) Comment by bourbon-soda - 30/11/2012

Rice was incompetent, dishonest, or both and, like Obama, implied or expressed willingness to limit speech to appease mostly foreign religious fundamentalists.

63) Comment by [e-mail] - 30/11/2012

A good reason to not have Rice as anything much is the way she walks; the way she talks is also a problem.

64) Comment by twinkie1cat - 30/11/2012

When looking at the prime directive of the Republicans we need to remember their prime directive: Make Obama a one term president. That was it from the day they lost the election in 2008 until he was re-elected this month. They have made total fools of themselves for the last 2 years and have disrupted all the n progress that America needed to recover from the recession they were working on since Ronald Reagan. Why would they do anything but obstruct like the destructive two year olds they imitate? Oh, I forget. They will not get elected in this lifetime again if they let us fall off the fiscal cliff and not only become the well deserved Party of No but also the cause of a second recession perhaps even worse than their first one.

65) Comment by nimby? - 30/11/2012

Benghazi ; bump in the road , some other excuse . no problems here .

66) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/11/2012

The opposition to appointing Susan Rice as Sec of State is political craftsmanship at its best (or worst). You see, there were two names proposed to succeed Clinton as SoS. One was Susan Rice, the other was John Kerry. If John Kerry was appointed then his Senate seat would be vacated and, due to Massachusetts law, a special election is required to fill the seat. It is a chance for the Republicans to put Scott Brown back in Congress even after he lost to Elizabeth Warren. Having a Senator (R) from Mass is their ultimate goal.

67) Comment by Being_Stupid - 29/11/2012

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - -

68) Comment by Bighug - 29/11/2012

One has to admit, though, that the GOP is humorous. Imagine using the arguments they have against Rice being used as a reason to get rid of those voicing them. "If you don't know, just admit it." How could a senator make that statement with a straight face?