Initially, Sen. John. McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, of blaming the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on spontaneous rioters to protect the president politically. Now that the CIA admits suppressing information about terrorists for strategic reasons, McCain is still "suspicious" of the administration.
Does he suggest that the CIA acted to help Obama get elected? After all, the CIA is part of the administration.
I used to think that the senator, like Brutus, was an honest man. But now he too seems to be suffering from party paranoia, if not just old-fashioned political hypocrisy.
I agree that it is inappropriate (or at least premature) to blame Rice for her Benghazi reports, as she would not know the specifics and was just relaying on what she was told. However, this does not excuse the administration from communicating a misleading message for some time after the attack, even when more definitive information was available.
Rice appeared on the Sunday talk shows five days after the attack, and there was no clarification forthcoming for some time after that. It was and still is a fair criticism of the administration and not just an attack by the Republicans.
John C. McKinney
Uprising because of a video or terrorist attack — what difference does it make? An attack on a U.S. consulate took place with the resultant death of four Americans, one of whom was our ambassador to Libya.
Is this all the Republicans can collectively latch on to in order to thwart Obama — the verbiage used by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in describing the attack? Is this the beginning of another four years of nitpicking and stonewalling by the Republicans?