So it appears that the GOP leadership is going to draw the battle lines over Benghazi.
QuoteOn Benghazi attack, angry words from Obama and Republicans
On Benghazi attack, angry words from Obama and Republicans
By Karen DeYoung, Published: November 14
An escalating showdown between President Obama and leading Republican lawmakers over a deadly September attack in Libya turned angry and personal Wednesday.
Obama accused Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) of trying to "besmirch" the reputation of Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and to hold her potential nomination as secretary of state hostage to their demand for a broad Watergate- and Iran-contra-style investigation of alleged intelligence and security lapses surrounding the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which killed four Americans.
"If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama said at his first news conference since last week's election. Glaring across the East Room of the White House, he called the accusations against Rice "outrageous" and said she had "nothing to do with Benghazi."
Minutes after Obama spoke, Graham issued a statement saying: "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." As for Rice, Graham said, "I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle."
The bitter exchange came on the eve of closed-door hearings by the Senate and House intelligence committees on the Sept. 11 incident, which the administration now says was an organized terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the assault.
The Senate Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees also have indicated that they will hold hearings on the attack, which is also the subject of an internal State Department investigation. McCain, Graham and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) on Wednesday introduced a resolution calling for the Senate panels to be combined into a temporary select committee. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) has proposed a similar select committee in the House.
The resignation of CIA chief David H. Petraeus, who left office Friday after an FBI investigation uncovered an extramarital affair and possible national security breaches, also has become ensnared in the Benghazi controversy.
Petreaus, who traveled to Libya to investigate the attack, has agreed to testify before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said details of his appearance "will be worked out." The administration had said that Michael J. Morell, the CIA's acting director, would appear in place of Petraeus at separate hearings Thursday before the House and Senate intelligence panels; the House committee announced Wednesday night that Petraeus would appear before it in a closed session Friday morning.
At his news conference, Obama suggested that Republican vehemence on the Benghazi issue overall and toward Rice in particular stemmed from bitterness over Mitt Romney's loss in the presidential race. "You know, we're after an election now," Obama said.
At issue in the various investigations is whether the administration ignored requests for more security assistance in Libya, failed to respond quickly once the Benghazi diplomatic outpost came under attack or has subsequently tried to conceal its actions. Some Republicans have suggested that the White House tried to avoid preelection negative publicity.
In a Sept. 12 statement, Obama referred to "acts of terror" in condemning the Benghazi killings. But for more than a week afterward, he and other administration officials said the attack had begun as one of a number of spontaneous, anti-U.S. street demonstrations that swept the Arab world that day in protest of a privately produced video, deemed insulting to Islam, that had been posted on YouTube.
Rice, who was designated by the White House to appear on five television talk shows the Sunday after the attack, was the most prominent spokesperson for the initial characterization of the assault as a protest that turned violent. As one of the country's most senior diplomats, she was seen as "uniquely qualified" to speak not only about dangers to diplomats in general and the deaths in Benghazi, but also about "the broader unrest in the region at the time," with anti-U.S. demonstrations reported in at least 22 nations, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Wednesday.
The early information about what happened, the administration has since said, came directly from the CIA. Only later, officials said, was it clear that militant groups using heavy weapons, some of them with ties to al-
Qaeda, had stormed the Benghazi compound in a coordinated attack that indicated at least some planning.
Some documents released by the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed requests by the top U.S. security officer in Libya for additional help. The State Department supplied two large binders of diplomatic cables and other documents to Congress ahead of this week's hearings.
But Republicans have complained that the administration has been slow to produce requested documents on the matter and has made examination procedures unnecessarily cumbersome. Senate staffers said the documents provided contained no major revelations about security conditions ahead of the attack.
McCain, Graham and Ayotte said in a news conference Wednesday morning, and when they later introduced their resolution on the Senate floor, that scattered testimony among a number of panels is inefficient and that a select committee is the only way to get at the truth.
Both Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated that they were not convinced that the individual committees cannot handle the matter.
McCain and his colleagues reserved their most incendiary words for Rice, and the Arizona Republican said they will do "whatever's necessary to block the nomination that's within our power."
Obama said he had made no decisions on Cabinet changes, but senior administration officials have made no secret of the fact that Rice is the president's top choice to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Rice, who was among a handful of Obama supporters when he began his run for president in 2007, is in his "inner, inner circle," one official said.
Rice, Obama said Wednesday, "has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill, and professionalism, and toughness, and grace."
If the senators want to talk about Benghazi, he said angrily, "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 and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received — and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."
Less than an hour later, McCain took to the Senate floor to say: "I understand the president of the United States today took some umbrage at our statements."
Whoever is accountable for the Benghazi attack "must be held responsible," the senator said. "This president and this administration has either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a coverup."
It's not like McCain has been completely honest about this whole thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2012, 06:32:18 AM
It's not like McCain has been completely honest about this whole thing.
I thought it was particularly interesting how he characterized it as the greatest intelligence failure of his lifetime. Must've been in cryogenic freeze during 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003.
Shame watching him fall apart from 2000 to 2008, and 2008 to now. It's accelerating.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2012, 06:37:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2012, 06:32:18 AM
It's not like McCain has been completely honest about this whole thing.
I thought it was particularly interesting how he characterized it as the greatest intelligence failure of his lifetime. Must've been in cryogenic freeze during 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003.
Shame watching him fall apart from 2000 to 2008, and 2008 to now. It's accelerating.
Wouldn't Pearl Harbor be greater than any of those?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2012, 07:03:30 AM
Wouldn't Pearl Harbor be greater than any of those?
Nope. Now go fuck off.
Has anyone pointed out 9/11 to these guys?
QuoteMr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.
Really? Because I hold Al-Qaeda ultimately responsible. The President was out there shooting rockets?
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2012, 08:29:03 AM
QuoteMr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.
Really? Because I hold Al-Qaeda ultimately responsible. The President was out there shooting rockets?
Yes. His middle name caused that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2012, 07:03:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2012, 06:37:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2012, 06:32:18 AM
It's not like McCain has been completely honest about this whole thing.
I thought it was particularly interesting how he characterized it as the greatest intelligence failure of his lifetime. Must've been in cryogenic freeze during 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003.
Shame watching him fall apart from 2000 to 2008, and 2008 to now. It's accelerating.
Wouldn't Pearl Harbor be greater than any of those?
Actually, I'd say that the greatest intelligence failure of McCain's lifetime was when the Soviets stole the A-bomb plans from us.
Someone needs to give them the memo that the election ended a week ago.
McCain never seemed to recover from losing the election. What a pathetic man he has become.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2012, 10:36:25 AM
Someone needs to give them the memo that the election ended a week ago.
I don't see how that is relevant.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 11:56:13 AM
I don't see how that is relevant.
It is the Benghazi affair that is irrelevant. The only thing that impelled it forward was the hot air of a Presidential campaign. Why is this still an issue?
Because the media has put out there that there are questions that still need answering. Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others :D).
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 12:59:01 PM
Because the media has put out there that there are questions that still need answering. Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others :D).
"Because the media put it out there", is not a relevant reason. You can investigate the crime with out being such a goddamn blowhard.
It's relevant to why it is still an issue. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 12:59:01 PM
Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others :D).
That's because it was mostly a bullshit op-ed piece. ZOMG TOTAL FAILURE
Whatever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2012, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 12:59:01 PM
Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others :D).
That's because it was mostly a bullshit op-ed piece. ZOMG TOTAL FAILURE
Whatever.
:huh:
I was being honest and making it not sound like he agreed with the op-ed.
It's all good, esse.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 01:19:59 PM
It's relevant to why it is still an issue. :mellow:
No, it's not garbon. The amount of media coverage is not a good indicator of relevance. The Republicans are going all Vince Foster/Whitewater on this. They desperately want this to be important, but there just isn't much there.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 12:59:01 PM
Because the media has put out there that there are questions that still need answering. Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others :D).
I think there are many questions - not least because it's classified - and it's justifiable for Congress or the media to look into it. What I don't get is why it's a scandal or is supposed to reflect badly on the US government.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2012, 01:56:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 01:19:59 PM
It's relevant to why it is still an issue. :mellow:
No, it's not garbon. The amount of media coverage is not a good indicator of relevance. The Republicans are going all Vince Foster/Whitewater on this. They desperately want this to be important, but there just isn't much there.
Joan's question was "why is this still an issue". It is still an issue because the media and elected Republicans are all over this. That doesn't mean that it should be a relevant issue - but simply that mentioning media and Repubs are relevant to why it is still an issue. :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2012, 02:09:38 PM
What I don't get is why it's a scandal or is supposed to reflect badly on the US government.
It's a tempest in a teacup, and the GOP can't stand to see the Democrats do anything regarding foreign policy, which has traditionally been "theirs".
Remember, this is the same party that thought Kosovo was going to be the "greatest foreign policy failure of all time", too.
It's fine for the Congress to hold hearings; the violent death of a US ambassador overseas is an appropriate subject for such inquiry.
It's also fine that if Rice is appointed by the President to a cabinet level position, that the Senate ask questions about comments she made to the press as part of her job, and treat those answers as having some potential relevance to their overall evaluation of her suitability.
What is not fine, and kind of outrageous, is for a Senator to prejudge the matter, to declare Rice verboten before a single hearing has been held, and to presume to lay down ultimatums to the President of the United States concerning whom he should be permitted to appoint. McCain of all people should know better.
Lindsay Graham OTOH I would not expect to know better, which explains why he goes even further and makes profoundly disrespectful statements about the President, one week after the President was returned to office by a majority of the voters following a campaign in which the general public rejected the premise behind these attacks on the President's conduct.
God* only knows what would happen if Obama actually did something worthy of serious criticism.
*Or Richard Dawkins
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2012, 02:24:05 PM
It's fine for the Congress to hold hearings; the violent death of a US ambassador overseas is an appropriate subject for such inquiry.
And they'll come to the same conclusion they always come to when it comes to unfortunate events like this: that CIA doesn't talk to State who doesn't talk to DOD who doesn't talk to CIA.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2012, 02:27:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2012, 02:24:05 PM
It's fine for the Congress to hold hearings; the violent death of a US ambassador overseas is an appropriate subject for such inquiry.
And they'll come to the same conclusion they always come to when it comes to unfortunate events like this: that CIA doesn't talk to State who doesn't talk to DOD who doesn't talk to CIA.
And the same solution: create yet another agency to coordinate!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2012, 02:24:05 PM
following a campaign in which the general public rejected the premise behind these attacks on the President's conduct.
What are you basing that on?
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
What are you basing that on?
I suspect the exit polls which had concerns about foreign policy being tiny.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2012, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
What are you basing that on?
I suspect the exit polls which had concerns about foreign policy being tiny.
5% called it their most important issue. They broke for Obama 56-33%.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2012, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
What are you basing that on?
I suspect the exit polls which had concerns about foreign policy being tiny.
Gotcha, I thought Joan was talking about public opinion on Obama's handling on Benghazi specifically. I've no idea what public opinion is on that.
The exit polling results, the fact the Romney's attack in the 2nd debate notoriously went over like a lead balloon, and the fact that Romney shied away from mentioning it during the entire foreign policy debate are all strong indicators the issue had zero traction with the general public. If there is evidence that there is widespread outrage over the President's handling outside of a core group of GOP punditocracy, the burden has now shifted to the proponent of that hypothesis to adduce proof at this point.
Thanks for answering my question.
And thanks for making me look up what "adduce" means. :glare:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2012, 03:12:32 PM
And thanks for making me look up what "adduce" means. :glare:
WHAT'S IT MEAN?
Today China, for better or worse, choose it's new leadership for the next decade; meanwhile sections of America's political classes act like last man standing is an appropriate way to run a country.
Great comparison!
Lets put lead in our dog food and toothpaste too.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2012, 06:41:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2012, 03:12:32 PM
And thanks for making me look up what "adduce" means. :glare:
WHAT'S IT MEAN?
It's when you hold a "two" in your poker hand.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 15, 2012, 07:03:32 PM
Lets put lead in our dog food and toothpaste too.
Oh please. Those responsible have been taken out back and shot ages ago.
Quote from: Josephus on November 15, 2012, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 15, 2012, 07:03:32 PM
Lets put lead in our dog food and toothpaste too.
Oh please. Those responsible have been taken out back and shot ages ago.
A billion more to go.
I'm thinking we should retroactively get a one child policy. Ed off to the gaol.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 07:26:57 PM
I'm thinking we should retroactively get a one child policy. Ed off to the gaol.
That would be unfortunate for my younger brother, but better him than me.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 07:26:57 PM
I'm thinking we should retroactively get a one child policy. Ed off to the gaol.
Breeders rule!
Oh, Johnny....
QuoteWhile Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was leading a press conference Wednesday to condemn the administration's lack of transparency regarding the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, it turns out he could have been attending a classified briefing on the subject.
Due to what his office called a "scheduling error," McCain accompanied Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday to demand before reporters a select committee of Congress to investigate the violence in Libya, rather than attend the scheduled 11 a.m. closed-door briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. At his press conference, McCain continued to rail on the president and his administration - including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice - for botched handling of information in the aftermath of the attack.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, reneged slightly from a report today that she was critical of McCain for missing the meeting, but maintained it's important he's fully briefed on intelligence, and disagreed with his call for a select committee.
"All I was trying to point out is that he's a very valuable member of our committee," she told CBS News. "He would be involved in all the briefings and the hearings and the investigation, and thus I don't think that it's necessary to create a whole new separate committee."
McCain told CBS News he hadn't yet viewed the thousands of pages of classified emails, telegrams, and intelligence reports that the State Department made available to the committee. As a member, he can access the documents by visiting a secure room on the Hill. Collins hasn't requested that viewing either but attended the briefing and viewed whatever documents were presented there.
When asked Thursday about the briefing, McCain reportedly grew angry and told a CNN producer, "I have no comment about my schedule, and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media." Pressed on why he wouldn't comment, McCain said, "I have the right as a senator to have no comment. And who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?"
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details."
I don't know what to say to that. It's sad and bizarre.
QuoteMeanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details."
I'm sure when he does get the details, whatever resolution the Committee agrees upon, he'll still attach a "personhood amendment" to it.
Nothing goes better together than Rand Paul and ignorance.