DOWNLOADS: (120)

PLAYS: (924)

Embed

After milking the "What did Susan Rice know about Benghazi and when did she know it?" non-troversy for enough time to render himself ridiculous for missing a critical closed door Senate briefing to get that oh-so-important airtime on cable news and triggering a Twitter hashtag meme, John McCain is back-pedaling....slightly:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today issued a statement essentially conceding that he was wrong in accusing the White House of changing U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points on Benghazi for political purposes. [..]

Intelligence officials told CNN yesterday that the intelligence community was responsible for the changes made to Rice’s talking points. The Director of National Intelligence spokesperson said that the White House did not make any “substantive changes.”

McCain responded today and instead of taking issue with the substance of the report, the Arizona Republican wondered why administration and intelligence officials didn’t offer this information in closed door sessions:

“I participated in hours of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week regarding the events in Benghazi, where senior intelligence officials were asked this very question, and all of them – including the Director of National Intelligence himself – told us that they did not know who made the changes. Now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. There are many other questions that remain unanswered. But this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so frustrated with, and suspicious of, the actions of this Administration when it comes to the Benghazi attack.”

Wait, does that mean that John McCain changed his public stance after receiving new and more specific intelligence? Imagine that.

But that doesn't mean that Grampy McSame likes Ambassador Rice any more than he did last week. Despite being armed with information that exculpates Rice of his major criticism, McCain has not yet retracted his vow to block Rice's presumptive nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Of course, it may be that the same man who thought Sarah Palin was imminently qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency still thinks that Harvard alum Rice is not 'qualified' to be Secretary of State.

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (1534)

Embed

Fox "news" Sunday added a special guest to their "Power Panel" yesterday, famed investigative reporter (and self-described Republican) Bob Woodward, in (what appeared to me) a deliberate ploy to try and get him to compare the Benghazi incident (and the imagined "cover-up" they are fake-outraged over) to Woodward's own famed "Watergate" scandal. Unfortunately for them, Woodward did not see the Benghazi incident as being anything close to the magnitude of the Watergate break-in & sub-sequent coverup:

CHRIS WALLACE: "Where do you think the so-called Libya scandal is now?"

BOB WOODWARD: "Well I think there are some serious unanswered questions, but the suggestion that they should have Watergate-style independent special committees to investigate this... I don't see that yet because the question seems to be: 'What did Susan Rice know and when did she know it?' which falls not very high on the scale of: Do we really need to get to the bottom of this?"

Woodward dismisses "What did Susan Rice know and when did she know it?" as insufficient cause for a sweeping investigation (or rises to the level of Watergate) because in the Watergate scandal, the question was "What did THE PRESIDENT know and when did he know it?", which is several hundred magnitudes more serious than what one lowly Ambassador knew & when.

"Benghazi" is "the scandal that wasn't there." General Petraeus already testified last week that, while they immediately suspected terrorism, they did NOT want that information made public for fear of tipping off the attackers, and the fact is the anti-Islam video behind the riots in Egypt WERE used as cover for the Libya attack, so the idea the attack was connected to the famed YouTube video was indeed the truth.

But Republicans have never let "facts" get in the way of a good argument. Thank your lucky stars the Senate didn't fall into GOP hands this election because we all know what happened the last time a successful Democratic president won reelection with a Republican Congress (endless partisan investigations culminating in impeachment).

DOWNLOADS: (236)

PLAYS: (2618)

Embed

Just after the attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi, Breitbots started the usual right wing whining intended to paint the president as a lily-livered weakling who was somehow intentionally undermining national security. Their specific complaint was that there were no Marines guarding the Benghazi compound. This is not unusual, as I explained last week, but never let the right wing pass up an excuse for faux outrage, especially if Politico bangs the drum right alongside them.

For the benefit of the erstwhile Jake Tapper, here is an excellent article about overseas security, who's responsible for providing it, and why there weren't any Marines guarding the consulate. Hint to Jake: Marines don't guard people or property when stationed at embassies. They guard information. The hired help guards people and property:

Private Security Contractors: Although the host country is responsible for maintaining security outside the embassy, the U.S. State Department will typically employ private guards at the perimeter. Those guards are often residents of the country, or third-country nationals, who are responsible for initial screening measures such as checking cars for weapons or bombs. The State Department also employs companies to provide highly trained protective security details to diplomats. "Diplomats will often have private security details that are ex-military, such as former SEALs," says Doug Brooks, president of the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), a group representing private contractors.

But in 2009, amid growing criticism for its heavy reliance on private security contractors like Blackwater Worldwide, the State Department moved to hire government specialists to beef up diplomatic security. One of the four Americans killed in this week’s attack has been identified as a former Navy SEAL, but he was in the region on a mission to track weapons, not to protect the consulate.

If Jake bothered to read C&L and our comments, he would already have known this and could have gotten Ambassador Rice to nod in agreement rather than pretending he's Andrew Breitbart incarnate to grill her on the non-existent need for Marines to be guarding every embassy and consulate in the universe.

Just sayin', Jake. The Google is your friend.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »