These Republicans apparently haven't figured out yet that if they don't want their b.s. talking points challenged, they might not want to appear on Soledad O'Brien's morning show on CNN. Here she is with another one twisting himself in knots
November 21, 2012

These Republicans apparently haven't figured out yet that if they don't want their b.s. talking points challenged, they might not want to appear on Soledad O'Brien's morning show on CNN. Here she is with another one twisting himself in knots attempting to explain their latest witch hunt of Ambassador Susan Rice -- CNN Host Exposes GOP’s Hypocrisy On Benghazi:

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to press his case against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the target of Republican criticism for initially claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi were inspired by spontaneous protests to an anti-Islamic video. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rice’s potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.

Host Soledad O’Brien challenged Burgess’ opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administration’s role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bush’s intelligence failures than Obama, but when O’Brien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan: Read on...

It seems these Reps are determined to make themselves look just as foolish as Grampy McCain and his BFF Lindsey. Never mind the facts. We've decided we don't like Susan Rice and we're going to continue to change our excuses as to why she's unfit to be nominated as Secretary of State, no matter how hypocritical it makes us look.

Full transcript below the fold.

O'BRIEN: Good morning to you, too. Are you one of the 97 who signed this letter?

BURGESS: Yes, I am. I've got to tell you that Sunday when the -- I don't know the four or five interviews occurred, you just knew something wasn't right as you were watching that.

First off, why is our Ambassador to the United Nations is the one on talking about this in the first place? Did we not have anyone available from the State Department or from the administration itself? So it was a little unsettling to have the Ambassador herself out there on the -- on the shows. And you know, I frankly I don't understand why -- why you in the media have not been more critical of the fact that your outlets were used in a way to put forward information that, you know, everybody now believes was not correct and we believe it was known that it was not correct at the time it was put out there. So that's what's so troubling about this.


O'BRIEN: You know what's interesting about that -- yes and you know and I think what we have been trying to do -- and by we, I think I speak media in general, is like figure out, so what has happened? What was the timeline and who did know what, when and who gave what talking points to whom?

And what we seem to know now, in fact, it looks as if that the intelligence was wrong and that the folks in the intelligence community have said that they gave the talking points to Susan Rice and they -- they changed those talking points so that she wouldn't talk about al Qaeda. She was talking about extremists.

So to me, some of the takeaway seems to be the intelligence community should bear the bulk of the blame. You don't see it that way? Why not?

BURGESS: Well, it had to fit within the narrative of the President's campaign at the time that al Qaeda was on the run. It was no longer a threat. So to have put someone out there, saying al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia was responsible for this or was sponsored by al Qaeda that would have been -- they would have fit with the narrative that had been really the main talking point since the Democratic convention.


BURGESS: So in my mind, I think that I think was influenced it.

O'BRIEN: So let me just clarify that. But wasn't that the CIA change, right? They're the ones who edited the talking points so that it wouldn't say al Qaeda. And I think they used the word to protect their sources, it would say "extremist". So they made that edit, which to me again seems to go back to the intelligence community.

It's not that Susan Rice got a long list of talking points and said, "Ooh, I don't want to say al Qaeda. Let me cross that out. I'm going to use the word extremist." She was given talking points that had removed that word "al Qaeda" and put "extremist". Isn't that correct?

BURGESS: Well really the big question is who in the administration said Susan Rice should be the person out there talking about this in the first place?

O'BRIEN: So you just don't like her?


BURGESS: And look the more we learn about this there was the real time information -- no. The real time information that our -- that our consulate was under attack. And I'll tell you what -- what bothers me is that someone in the White House situation room or at the State Department or at the Pentagon said it's not worth it. We can't go in and help them.

And to understand how long the attack continued, that's really troublesome, the fact that the United States cannot respond within an hour's time to an attack like that on its own State Department? I mean, that's just incredible information to -- to give to the rest of the world and I think if I were a member of the diplomatic corps, I would be troubled.


O'BRIEN: I'm sure they are. And I think that when they talked to General Petraeus he talked a lot about sort of the intelligence. Again, it sort of all goes back to the intelligence for me.

Let me ask you a question though.


O'BRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security advisor, right? She had information and she talked, I remember, to Wolf Blitzer about you know let's not have the smoking gun become a mushroom cloud.

And then fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be Secretary of State, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Senator John McCain who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?

BURGESS: Well the difference is the scrutiny provided by our -- our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I don't see that happening now. Maybe I've missed something in the talking points, but I don't see that happening.


O'BRIEN: So, let me --

BURGESS: The ambassador of the United Nations should not have been the person on the Sunday shows. Someone from the administration or the State of Department should have been.


O'BRIEN: So you're confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press -- are you saying five days after comments about weapons of mass destruction, that -- that you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I don't think that's true, sir. I think that most people say that is not the case. That it took a long time. I'm talking about three years before she was up for Secretary of State.

I -- I see, if you're blaming the press, how does it go back to Susan Rice?

BURGESS: That's a different situation with different timelines.

O'BRIEN: OK so how does it go back to the Susan Rice?

BURGESS: They're different situations with different timeline.

O'BRIEN: How is she to blame is my question.

BURGESS: Again, first -- first thing is I do not understand who in the administration thought that this would be a good idea and why. What was their reasoning behind that? No one has answered that question.


O'BRIEN: OK. I think that's a valid question. How do you blame Susan Rice for that?


BURGESS: I've written letters to the President. I've asked the State Department to discuss this with me.

O'BRIEN: How do you -- what Susan Rice did was say something that was incorrect. We know now, the intelligence community says we gave her the talking points. The information, the Intel was incorrect. How does that go back to blame Susan Rice? And my question of course is because you're one of the 97 people who signed saying that you believe that her misleading statements causes irreparable damage to her credibility and she should not be Secretary of State. And I don't see the difference between Condoleezza Rice situation.

BURGESS: It does damage her credibility. Now look, you know as well as I that House members do not get a vote on presidential appointments. But in the purpose of this letter was to let our senators know this is something that we believe deserves their scrutiny. And I think you -- And I think you -- you would want that.


O'BRIEN: Of course. You know hey, I'm all about scrutiny. But I guess I like consistency, too. But you were not calling for more scrutiny and you weren't saying that this is -- that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her -- her credibility as Secretary of State.

You know again, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems just contradictory to me.

BURGESS: Well, you'll have to -- you'll have take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham. But the fact of the matter is --



BURGESS: -- from where I sit right now, the credibility for Susan Rice to be our Secretary of State has been damaged by this. It may have been damaged by the administration itself. It may have been an error for the administration to put her out there rather than someone from the State Department or rather than a campaign spokesperson.

But what it appeared to -- to the great masses out here is that Susan Rice was put out there to place a story line into the -- into the print or into the national media that was, in fact, inconsistent with the facts. And that is something that has been very, very difficult for her to get around.

O'BRIEN: I'm completely out of time but I've got to throw a quick question to you. We talked to Congressman Clyburn. And he said, listen, "Because she's black and because she's a woman that you guys are doing this", meaning the 97 Republicans who signed this.

BURGESS: Yes and you know that's -- that's absolutely false. I don't know where senator -- or Representative Clyburn gets that, his information. I will just tell you he is factually incorrect.

O'BRIEN: Michael Burgess, is Republican Congressman and a doctor. Dr. Burgess joining us from -- from Dallas, Texas. It's nice to have you sir, thank you. I appreciate it.

BURGESS: Thank you.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.