President Obama held a press conference this afternoon, and both the questions and the answers about the Benghazi consulate attack and the scandal surrounding David Petraeus were revelatory in their omission of one aspect of the story. Obama offered a tetchy response to a question about UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was tasked with selling the administration’s line that it was an anti-Islam filmmaker who was responsible for the events that led to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others that night. The president’s defense of Rice was another salvo in the ongoing fight over whether she should even be nominated to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. (Obama’s defiant air seemed to suggest he does plan to submit that nomination.)
And the Petraeus affair is sordid and steamy–a combination we simply cannot expect the press corps to ignore. But the events of the last week have made clear that Clinton is off the hook for what may have been the most consequential mistake of anyone in this episode. Yes, the CIA seems to have made mistakes in Benghazi, and yes, Susan Rice misled the American people (on the administration’s orders, we can presume). But the State Department was responsible for handling the diplomatic mission’s request for more security–a request they denied. Yet no one is suggesting Clinton should tender her own resignation.
It’s true that Clinton plans to leave her post soon, but that’s no reason for her to avoid continuing scrutiny over this debacle. What’s more, if Petraeus’s actions deserve his resignation, and Rice’s actions warrant insistence from John McCain and Lindsey Graham that they’ll block her nomination (thus costing Rice the job she expects and covets), it’s hard to imagine how Clinton, who owns the lion’s share of responsibility for this fiasco, can keep her job.
The State Department has responded to the revelation that they denied the security request by saying that no one knows for sure whether the requested security would have saved Stevens and the three others killed that night. But that doesn’t change the fact that, as Jake Tapper reported at the time, the whole episode smacked of unpreparedness and incompetence:
But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country.
Just so. Whatever the mistakes of the CIA personnel at the annex and their superiors, the State Department left its ambassador woefully underprotected in a war-torn country and ignored pleas for protection and warnings of danger. Because of the nature of the CIA mission in Benghazi, there is much we still don’t know about the annex. And Rice was almost surely just repeating talking points she was given. That doesn’t exonerate Rice or Petraeus, but it certainly doesn’t exonerate Clinton, who has slipped quietly–and irresponsibly–from the conversation over the ramifications of a tragedy that began with her failure.
"Obama’s defiant air seemed to suggest he does plan to submit that nomination." Given what John Sununu has had to say about a previous Sec of State, I think we can guess what he would say about Obama's "tetchiness" where Obama is concerned. (Hey maybe he will nominate Valerie Jarrett for the job, since it is rumored that she has been carrying on secret negotiations with the Iranians. Comforting, no?) n nIf the Repubs hadn't run some of the people they did for the Senate in 2010 and 2012, they might be able to block objectionable nominations now. But they did run the fools (e.g., Christine O'Donnell) and troglodytes (e.g., Atkins) that they did, so they are the minority party in that chamber. Too bad.
could not agree with you more. O'Donnell was a disaster, but the tea party didn't learn anything fro that debacle. I couldn't believe it when I heard Republicans defending Akin's moronic statements! n nthank goodness the Repubs still have the House. altho Obama has shown that if Congress won't do what he wants, he'll do it anyway. I expect this tendency to get worse.
And remember, when one party loses a seat, the other party gains one, so it isn't that had they nominated the person who had never been defeated before in a run for statewide office, the Republicans would have just been 1 more toward regaining the majority in the Senate, they would have gained an advantage of 2 votes there. Same with Sharron Angle. And this time around with still more Tea Party favorites, like Atkins and Mourdock. (Ought we include Linda McMahon in that grouping, both for 2010 and 2012, or would the Republicans likely have lost both times even with a better candidate?) n nNow, have I undercounted the number of Senate seats the Republicans might have gained in 2010 and 2012 had they not gone with those who pleased the Tea Party faction, but not the general electorate? Should we include the Senate seat the Republicans lost because Olympia Snowe, a RINO(!), had enough of it and packed it in, making way for Angus King?
Oops, meant to say “Obama’s ‘tetchiness’ where Rice is concerned.”
hopefully the simultaneous blowback on the idea of Rice at State and Kerry at Defense will somehow wind up having everyone relieved to have Kerry at State. Although, I think I would rather have Kerry as CinC than O, given the circumstances the world is in. n nNo reason for Hillary to resign now. n nexcept to maybe end the 26-year psychodrama of bushclintonbushclinton
“The State Department has responded to the revelation that they denied the security request by saying that no one knows for sure whether the requested security would have saved Stevens and the three others killed that night.” !!! How idiotic is that? n nThis is tantamount to saying that Stevens was potentially on a suicide mission. They decided that could not guaranty his safety so they left him with diminished protection in a consulate that was below State Dept. code (wrt security), systematically withdrew protection, and denied repeated requests for additional security. n nHillary stated last month that she was “responsible”, which is absolutely true; however, one must factor in the Clintonian definition of “responsible” (= total irresponsible when and where it counts) to understand how she can skip town when it is time — actually way overdue — to answer questions and take REAL responsibility.
So who (names please) was responsible for the phony Mean-spirited video narrative? n nWe all know now that the raid was watched and assessed in real time, and that the intelligence confirmed within 24 hours that it was an organized terrorist attack. n nSo, of course, the phony Mean-spirited “video” narrative was a deliberate lie. Who was responsible for coaching Ambassador Rice so that she was prepped to peddle that BS on five Sunday morning talk shows? n
Todd Akin was not "a Tea Party favorite," they supported Sarah Steelman against Akin.
One should also ask why Rice not only has her job, but will soon be promoted to secretary of state if Hussein Obama gets his way. Perhaps as a black woman Rice merits a special exception to the normal rules. Currently being pounded for having ignored minorities to their detriment, the Republicans will now need a double dose of courage to reject Hussein's appointment, especially when the media has shaped a powerful narrative that all opposition to his policies are nothing but a crude reaction of white racists to the skin color of his Kenyan father.
Well, Republicans get pounded for their treatment of minorities no matter what, so who cares? Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Clarence Thomas…
NOBODY is going to be held accountable for what happened in Benghazi (lose their jobs, go to jail, etc). It doesn't matter what political party is in charge. Pols take care of their own!
Of course you think that any of these people are given the latitude to think or act on their own. Rice, Clinton, Petraeus, Panetta, all of them are mere mouthpieces for Obama. Obama is an autocrat through and through ruling as a nearly unaccountable dictator with the occasional prodding of Jarrett and Axelrod. In fact it's hard to tell who's in charge of that Trioka.
There’s the easiest answer possible: She’s a Democ-rat. If It Were A Repbulican (IIWAR) she’d be looking for a new job with the media scum hounding her but as a Democ-rat she is immunized from any scrutiny. Today she’s in Australia far from the Committees’ subpeona power (kinda like Bill O’Dwyer getting appointed Ambassador to Mexico, eh? At least he spoke Spanish–educated at the University of Salamanca).