"...besides walking like a lumberjack, she also has some shady dealings like Holder in her past"
Posted on 11/28/2012 2:44:36 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
So far, defenders of Susan Rice’s attempts to flack a false narrative on behalf of the White House have tried smearing her critics as either racist or sexist conservative troglodytes. After Kelly Ayotte took the lead among the Senate Republican caucus in opposing Rice’s rumored nomination to State, at least temporarily, the same defenders dismissed her as window dressing. However, the next potential critic won’t be so easily dismissed. Maureen Dowd checked in with Susan Collins, one of the GOP’s moderates, who will meet with Rice today to get answers to a few questions on her mind as well:
Collins drew up a list of questions to ask Rice at their one-on-one hourlong meeting slated for Wednesday. She wants Rice to explain how she could promote a story “with such certitude” about a spontaneous demonstration over the anti-Muslim video that was so at odds with the classified information to which the ambassador had access. (It was also at odds with common sense, given that there were Al Qaeda sympathizers among the rebel army members that overthrew Muammar el-Qaddafi with help from the U.S. — an intervention advocated by Rice — and Islamic extremist training camps in the Benghazi area.)
The F.B.I. interviewed survivors of the attack in Germany and, according to some senators, had done most of the interviews of those on site by Sept. 15, the day before Rice went on TV, and established that there was no protest. Collins wants to learn if the F.B.I. had failed to communicate that, or if they had communicated it and Rice went ahead anyway?
When Rice heard the president of the Libyan National Congress tell Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation,” right before her appearance, that 50 people had been arrested who were either foreign or affiliated with or sympathized with Al Qaeda, why did she push back with the video story? “Why wouldn’t she think what the Libyan president said mattered?” Collins wondered.
Why did Rice say on ABC News’s “This Week,” that “two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security”? Rice was referring to the two ex-Navy SEAL team members who were C.I.A. security officers working on a base about a mile away. “They weren’t there to protect Ambassador Stevens,” Collins said. “That wasn’t their job.”
Rice also said that “we had a substantial security presence with our personnel” — which was clearly not the case. Collins wants to know Rice’s basis for saying on ABC that the attacks were “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.” And why did she say “a small number of people” came to the consulate to protest, when that phrase is not in her talking points? Collins is curious why Rice is not angrier, if, as she insists, she was repeating what she was told. “I’d be furious at the White House and F.B.I. and intelligence community for destroying my credibility,” the senator said.
This will be an interesting story to watch today, and it will probably determine Rice’s viability. If Collins pronounces herself satisfied with Rice’s answers, it will cut the ground from underneath Ayotte, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. If not — and it’s difficult to see how Rice can provide answers that will satisfy anyone at this point other than “I was duped,” which isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for a Cabinet position — then John Kerry should start preparing his confirmation-hearing testimony.
Collins tells Dowd that she’s been supportive of Rice in the past, but this episode has the Senator “troubled.” She asks Dowd rhetorically a question that moves the story from being a dupe or even a protector of the President to something more like naked self-interest on Rice’s part: “Did they think admitting that it was an Al Qaeda attack would destroy the narrative of Libya being a big success story?” Dowd connects the dots in the final sentence:
As one of the administration champions of intervening in Libya, Rice was surely rooting for that success story herself.
Indeed — and it was not just in Obama’s interest to see that narrative survive.
Jim Geraghty puts the stakes in perspective:
Collins indicates that she’s willing to support Rice if she gets good answers. But the confirmation hearings may turn out to be brutal, with senators asking fair, basic, and extremely important questions, and Rice’s answers will either indicate a suspicion/belief that she was telling the American people false information, or a level of blind credulity that is deeply disturbing in any U.S. official, never mind a Secretary of State.
It will be interesting to watch Democrats insisting that Susan Collins is motivated by sexism and racism, and that she only is expressing doubts about Rice’s honesty because she’s just another rabid, right-wing, hardline conservative ideologue…
UPDATE: I’ll bet Democrats think Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire who is pledging to put a “hold” on any Rice nomination, is just as driven by sexism…
Keep an eye on the outcome today.
Funny. I didn’t see any outrage about “sexism” or “racism” when CONDI Rice was Sec of State and the Dems blasted her.
Those folks are so far removed from us that it is tragically comical.
They out and out lied to the public and they simply do not care to take any responsibility.
Again, they are laying mind games with the public.
“sexism” and “racism” are other narratives the democrats use to demonize their opponents.
Ugly Specter Of Right Wing Racism
Susan Collins is motivated by sexism and racism, and that she only is expressing doubts about Rice’s honesty because she’s just another rabid, right-wing, hardline conservative ideologue…
"...besides walking like a lumberjack, she also has some shady dealings like Holder in her past"
Ah, but Collins is white, so she’s racist. We need to find a black homosexual woman to question Rice. That’s one more aggrieved group than Rice is a part of, so we’d win “Victimology Bingo”!
This is really about the Eastern establishment maneuvering to get John Kerry into the Sec State job.
If Rice learns that her credibility and future political ambition has been destroyed by her either willingly acting as a shield or her being duped, it could send a strong message to many other Democrats in the Administration.
If you look at General P. and others it looks like the Obama administration will sacrifice anyone or anything for political gain. They don't even mind a few deaths on their hands whether it is Fast and Furious killed boarder agents, or ex-Navy Seals in a foreign country.
Afterwards, she implied that Kerry would be better.
"Collins said that, while she needed “more information” before supporting Rice for secretary of state, Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts—who is also reportedly being considered for the post—would be “easily confirmed by his colleagues.”
A "moderate" what, exactly?
Obama may be determined to get her confirmed...or if not her, another "person of color" (so that the five most powerful people in the executive branch would be black--himself, Michelle, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and Susan Rice or some other "person of color").
If Rice is knocked out, whoever is sent up in her place is likely to be just as bad...or worse. Remember Clinton and his determination to have a woman as attorney general...probably his first two choices would not have been as bad as Janet Reno turned out to be.
I imagine they’ll just pull out the old feminist/Markist routine about how Ayotte has a “false consciousness” and has been brainwashed into doing the bidding of the evil, capitalist, phallocentric meanies.
Wow. Dowd’s column is devastating.
The libs do read her. Or do libs not really read at all?
Rice seems like a first class idiot. The ideal Obama appointee. She will fit right in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
