Archive for time to go away

Dems blast GOP over "false, extremely irresponsible" Benghazi charges, demand apology to Hillary Clinton


gop benghazi tweetLink

benghazi cartoon 2

Which party was it again, that withheld all that money for embassy security improvements, the money that would have kept our diplomats abroad safer?

As I posted previously, per a fascinating post at Down With Tyranny, the loudest nonstop accuser, McCain, said that Ambassador Stevens “sent concerns about security, voiced them to me.” And then McCain himself chose to do nothing, instead doing his “look over there” routine with the help of his faithful sidekick Lindsey Graham. Why is that? Well, maybe because of his own failure to support an increase in the security budget, or maybe his story isn’t true, or maybe to divert attention away from the fact that he chose to do nothing when he got direct information from Ambassador Stevens about his safety concerns.

The Economist explained why a Benghazi cover-up by the administration would make absolutely no sense.

Now, per The Hill, Dems are blasting the GOP over the absurd Benghazi charges against Hillary Clinton. More like this, please:

Republicans should apologize to Hillary Clinton for the “false accusations” that she personally signed off on security cuts at the Benghazi mission prior to last year's attack, the top Democrat on the House oversight panel said Thursday.

The allegations are “false, extremely irresponsible, and lack even a rudimentary understanding of how State Department cables are processed,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) wrote in a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “I respectfully request that you retract your erroneous staff report and apologize to Secretary Clinton on behalf of your Chairmen and your Republican conference.”

Here are a few screen grabs of Rep. Cummings' letter. He put the Republicans in their place with a blistering exposé of their embarrassing and false claims:

benghazi letter 1benghazi letter 2benghazi letter 3


VIDEO: Ann Coulter calls Bill Clinton a "forcible rapist" at #CPAC2013


not funny Via

Thank you @MzYun for linking me to this tweet from NBC's Domenico Montanaro (@DomenicoNBC):

tweet ann coulter bill clinton rapist

Ann Coulter:

"The keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year was forcible rapist, Bill Clinton."

Did you catch the audience reaction? Everything from gasps and ooohs to laughter and applause. Yes, you all heard it, many in the audience expressed their approval of Coulter accusing former President Bill Clinton of forcible rape, loudly and clearly.

So tasteful. So family valuesy. So rational. Add that to Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush commenting on the failures of their fellow Republicans and it is crystal clear that this party is in total disarray, and that CPAC has allowed them to strut their deranged stuff for the whole world to see.

Additionally, I'm sure rape victims everywhere (not to mention the Clintons) got a real kick out of Ann's little remark. Of course, she'd deny that there's a GOP war on women (or anything else, for that matter), but she's there for the attention and book sales, not political correctness. Sensitivity and taste have nothing to do with her self-serving agenda.

Coulter's oral flatulence urped up so many offensive things that I lost count. I will not post the entire video (nor did I watch it), so you'll have to find it for yourselves; but if you do, make sure you have some Valium and/or a good stiff drink and/or some Pepto Bismol handy.

family values my ass


GOP Senate aide: "Opposing Susan Rice is a way to score points, even though it's a sideshow."


the truth comes out

Doyle McManus has an op-ed in today's L.A. Times about Susan Rice being targeted by Republicans until she felt she was becoming a distraction and withdrew her name from consideration to be the next Secretary of State. She didn't want time and energy to be spent on a bitter confirmation battle at the expense of other priorities on the president's agenda, like immigration reform.

He goes on in some detail about John McCain's role, the Benghazi excuse, and more, but this is the part that caught my eye:

A Republican Senate aide spelled out the situation for me more clearly, on condition he not be identified. "Voting for higher taxes is a tough vote," he said. "Opposing Susan Rice is a way to score points, even though it's a sideshow."

And there you have it. A moment of truth and repugnance all rolled into one big,  shameless, politicizing, obstructionist Ball of GOP.


Susan Rice withdraws name for consideration as Secretary of State


NBC's Brian Williams is reporting that Susan Rice wrote a letter to the president asking that her name be withdrawn and is saddened by the politicization of her possible nomination as Secretary of State.

President Obama said he would have withdrawn her name sooner, but did not want to back down in the face of all the political attacks. (If I heard that correctly, please let me know if not)

UPDATE: (more at the link)

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly – to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” Rice wrote in a letter to President Obama, saying she’s saddened by the partisan politics surrounding her prospects.

“That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country...Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time,” she wrote in the letter obtained by NBC News. [...]

“The position of secretary of state should never be politicized,” she wrote, adding, “I’m saddened that we have reached this point, even before you have decided whom to nominate. We cannot afford such an irresponsible distraction from the most pressing issues facing the American people.”

Brian Williams will have an exclusive interview with Rice on tonight’s “Rock Center With Brian Williams” at 10p/9c.


VIDEO-- Is Kerry's Senate seat real target of GOP Benghazi suicide squad? And GOP, about those embassy cuts...


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

To put it quite simply, if Obama backs down from appointing Rice due to the Republican Benghazi brigade, conventional wisdom has it that he is likely to appoint John Kerry to become Secretary of State.  If that were to be the case, Kerry's seat would become vacant.  [...]

Enter Republican Scott Brown [...]

As BuzzFlash at Truthout reader Emiliano de la Fuente e-mailed us today: "If the GOP is successful in squashing the idea of Susan Rice for Secretary of State and the President nominates John Kerry, it will immediately eliminate a Democratic senator and will give Scott Brown a chance to wiggle into position... Since he just ran in 2012, his name will be fresh in many voters’ minds."

In modern campaigns, political brand names are significant and Brown is one of those guys who even Democratic pundits and politicians in DC like to call in their village way "a very likeable person."   

It may be Massachusetts, and this theory may be a stretch, but remember that Brown was elected to the Senate once already – and remember that not too long ago Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney as governor.

And remember that the Republicans are indicating that they would be prone to give Kerry a relatively easy confirmation hearing in the Senate.  That's a scenario that will test Obama's mettle and how many chits he wants to call in for Rice at a time he is trying to proceed with budget negotiations.

Please read the whole post here.  And Mark has added this post: Colin Powell's Fabricated UN Iraq War Speech Was Fine With "Bomb, Bomb" McCain and Graham

And just for good measure, this L.A. Times letter from the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Senators unswayed by talks with Rice," Nov. 28

Isn't there just one donkey willing to call out the elephant in the room when Republicans insist on ranting on and on about Benghazi? Simply put: Which party was responsible for the hundreds of millions of dollars withheld for embassy security improvements over the last few years, adversely affecting the work and safety of our diplomats abroad?

Perhaps the questions about U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice's statements after the Benghazi attack should be aimed at Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his Republican colleagues in Congress who refused to properly fund embassy construction and security.

Dean James Loomos



GOP Senators embraced Condi Rice as Sec. of State after she ignored 9/11 warnings, but pummel Susan Rice



Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Condi Rice, as National Security Advisor, was generally the funnel through which such intelligence alarms went through before getting to Bush.  She also had separate meetings with George Tenet, head of the CIA, who reportedly told her of the agency's concern about Al Qaeda launching attacks in the US, including hijackings.  In fact, at one point during a public inquiry about the 9/11 attacks, Rice was forced to read the headline of the infamous August 6th CIA memo:  “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

Yet, despite all the signs pointing to willful negligence – which included not even taking the minimal step of heightening security against hijackings at airports – Condi Rice was confirmed as Secretary of State by an 85-13 vote of the United States Senate on January 26, 2005, with the full support of the Republican caucus.  Dissenting votes included Democrats such as Barbara Boxer and the late Robert Byrd who felt that Rice was not being held accountable for her role in ignoring the 9/11 warnings and her support of the Iraq War.

So when Reuters headlines its article about Susan Rice's meeting with GOP senators this morning, "Rice meeting with senators fails to dampen criticism," you know that the Republican double standard of hypocrisy is in full swing.  Whatever the explanations that occurred after the killings in Benghazi were, Susan Rice is UN Ambassador, not the National Security Advisor.  The Republican pummeling of Rice -- given its historical support of the Bush administration/Condi Rice failure to even try and prevent 9/11 coupled with its bloody war policies – is more than just partisan politics.  

After all, we are talking about national security here – and the only security that the McCain/Graham Republican Party appears to be protecting is their own jobs.  More than 3000 people from all nations died in the Twin Towers on 9/11 and in the other hijacked planes.  Thousands upon thousands more perished in two wars launched by the Bush administration. [...]

It's all part of the same shameful bullying that we have seen for years, one that puts the national security interests of the United States in partisan peril.

Please read the whole post here.


There go the Benghazi conspiracy theories! Intel community, not White House, changed Susan Rice’s talking points


Aww, the intel guys are trying to ruin all the GOP's fun! Whatever will John McCain and his trusty sidekick Little Lindsey Graham do without their talking points to deflect from important stuff... like becoming irrelevant and losing elections and global crises and stuff?

CNN -- The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

Now he's gone and ruined 97 House Republicans' fun, too! So who will John McCain block now?

Spokesman for the director of national intelligence, Shawn Turner:

"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback," Turner said, referring to the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and FBI. "There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community."

Something must be done to rectify this, stat! How in the Sam Hill are Republicans supposed to create an effective scandal? Intel community, how could you?

A senior intelligence official familiar with the drafting of the talking points said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes:

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

*Heavy sigh.* Oookayyyyyy.

But none of this will likely stop the "incompetent" John McCain, even though he seems to know more than we think he knows.

UPDATE: McCain Backs Away From Benghazi Conspiracies... sort of.