Maureen Dowd no defender of Susan Rice

If U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was expecting women in the national media to defend her, then Rice must be disappointed by Maureen Dowd’s November 27th newspaper column pertaining to Rice’s meetings with Senate Republicans.

In her column, Dowd describes the perspective of U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) and the questions that Senator Collins intended to ask Ambassador Rice during a meeting scheduled for November 28th.

In short, Dowd reveals to her audience (perhaps unintentionally) that Ambassador Rice actually has a credibility problem pertaining to her role in the Obama Administration’s spin on what happened in Benghazi. Dowd writes,It seems as if it would have been simple enough for Rice to quickly admit that the administration talking points she used on the Sept. 16 Sunday shows about the slaughter in Benghazi were misleading. But she went silent.

In her column, Dowd appears to tell her readers, “Hey, Everyone, Senate Republicans may have a legitimate complaint about Ambassador Rice.” That message coming from a liberal New York Times columnist is perhaps the last thing that Ambassador Rice needs right now.

To make matters worse for Ambassador Rice, in a November 28th news report titled “Who changed the Benghazi talking points?”, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson writes the following:

Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on behalf of the White House five days after the attacks, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice did not directly say an al Qaeda affiliate was suspected or point to terrorism. She said the “assessment at present” was that the attacks began “spontaneously” in response to an inflammatory anti-Islam video posted on YouTube. She added that “extremist elements” then joined the effort.

Tuesday, for the first time, Rice stated outright that there was never any protest or demonstration. Republicans who have read the same intelligence that Rice accessed say it’s laced with references to al Qaeda and terrorism, and they’re mystified as how she could have come away with a primary narrative about a spontaneous protest and a video.

I don’t know how others are going to respond to this soap opera, but I’m grabbing popcorn and settling down to watch the show.

Here is my popcorn:

No, I’m not sharing. You get your own.

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 28, 2012.
Filed under People In The News, Politics.
Tagged with: .
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane. [*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

    That is one ugly dress.

  • Commander_Chico

    I rule Susan Rice out for her hair alone, not just for being a warmongering banshee and a BS artist.

    That limp scraggly hair is not making it.

    Get a new hairdresser or go natural, Susan.

  • Oysteria

    Well, my take is that she was totally clueless (or at best, incurious) about the whole affair or she knew better and pushed the spontaneous-protest-over-a-video story anyway. Neither is good.

  • Hugh_G

    Little entertainment for little minds. Hope you didn’t pay too much for your popcorn.

  • Wild_Willie

    Butter comes to mind. Hmmm!
    The greatest quote concerning her being Secretary of State is: “If she cannot diplomatically calm senate republicans, how can she even try to deal with China or the Middle East?” A very good point. ww

  • 914

    Time for a bus trip Susan!

  • Joe_Miller

    Susan Rice or John Kerry–either one represents the low quality of appointments we’ve come to expect from this guy. Why bring in anybody competent at this point?

    • jim_m

      If you brought in someone competent it would make obama look bad.

      • Joe_Miller

        Look bad? How much worse could he look…for those actually looking at him, that is?

        • 914

          The only way he could look worse is if he could run for a 3rd term.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    She couldn’t be worse or more misleading to the public than the other Rice (“no one could have imagined”), who was much as anyone responsible for the massive American intel lapse of 9/11 and for pleading the case to the public on Sunday talk shows of the surety of WMD of Saddam, (while ignoring intelligence dissent) which led to the disastrous Iraqi war; both intellgence failures got completely wrong by George W. Bush’s feckless, bureaucratic and weak national security advisor, Condolezzaa Rice, whose duty was to protect the USA. Rice’s reward for these enormous security failures, thousands of times more catastrophic for American lives than Benghazi, which Susan Rice had no had responsibiity for, was to be nominated by President Bush to become a triumphant Secretary of State, whose passage thru the Senate was spearheaded by senators Graham and McCain. Naturally, wizbang like the two senators, ridicules one Rice and has high praise for the competence and record of the other.

    • 914

      I could care less about either. I don’t watch Fox news. I think for myself. Good riddance to Saddam. Cant stand Gramnesty or McCain or this lying White House.

      • Commander_Chico

        That’s an opinion I can respect. To hell with them all.

    • jim_m

      So you think that the entirety of the responsibility for the intel lapse falls on the Bush admin when they had been in office for less than 9 months and the 9/11 operation had been planned for years and the terrorists in the US for years? You believe that the intel that Bush had (which was the same intel that Clinton had) is all Bush’s fault?

      I think that we would all be highly entertained by your reasoning as to how it was Bush’s fault that Clinton got all this wrong.

      George W Bush is the left’s version of Jesus Christ. Where Christ payed for all sins past and future, Bush is to blame for all leftist policy failures past and future. Regardless, it is an article of faith for the left that everything is Booosh’s fault!

      • SteveCrickmore075

        jim m, it is old history but important. Bush and his Rice had disbanded some of the Clinton subcabinet meetings of terrorism. Richard Clarke, the Clinton holdover, and terrorist expert was at his wit’s end trying to get the new Bush adminstration to take the threat as seriously as Clinton.
        Frankly, I don’t know enough about Susan Rice. Yes, she has been no Pat Moynihan as UN ambassador (who has), but as for John McCain saying Susan Rice is” unqualified” with all her experience and post graduate degreees, it is bit rich coming from someone, who of all the people possible in the US, selected Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential nominee.

        • jim_m

          You ignored everything I said about intel on 9/11 and how much of it could and probably should have been uncovered by Clinton. You ignore that so you can point fingers at conservatives in hopes that no one will notice you have no answers for why you excuse them and blame their failures on others.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            RICE:But it would not be appropriate or correct to characterize what Dick wrote to me on Sept. 4 as a warning of an impending attack. What he was doing was I think trying to buck me up so that when I went in to this principals meeting I was sufficiently on guard against the kind of bureaucratic inertia that he had fought all of his life.

            ROEMER. What is a warning if Aug. 6 isn’t and Sept. 4 isn’t to you?

            RICE. Well, Aug. 6 is most certainly a historical document that says here’s how you might think about Al Qaeda. A warning is when you have something that suggests that an attack is impending. And we did not have on the United States threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest that something was coming in the United States. The Sept. 4 memo as I’ve said to you was a warning to me not to get dragged down by the bureaucracy not a warning about
            mnnnnnnnnnnn

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Steve -

            A warning, to me, would be something on the order of…

            “There’s an organized group in the US, and they’re going to attempt a hijacking on Sept. 11th.”

            Whereas:

            “There’s a group of Muslims who hate the US and are going to attempt an attack”

            Would fall under the category of “Well, what the fuck is new about that?” It’s nebulous, non-specific, and pretty much worthless.

            Plus – IF there had been actionable intelligence, ie names, flight numbers, dates and such, AND we’d pre-emptively arrested them, can you imagine the civil rights uproar that would have resulted? (Which would have been a lot less trouble than what actually happened…)

            Here the government’s stopped people from traveling, WITHOUT DUE CAUSE! They hadn’t done anything! And that’s just crazy talk about them hijacking the planes with the intent to fly them into the WTC – what hijacker would do that? It doesn’t make any sense!

            As she said – “And we did not have on the United States threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest that something was coming in the United States.”

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Since you asked, From wikipedia In his memoir, “Against All Enemies”, Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, “her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.” He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke’s memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

            Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking ‘urgently’ for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been ‘framed’ by the Deputies.[10]

          • jim_m

            Yes, I’m well aware that you are completely ready to believe the self-serving spin of a Clinton appointee who desires to ensure that he is not found to be accountable for the failures.

            You still have not addressed the fact that Jamie Garelick was responsible for the inter agency firewall that lead to many intelligence failures.

            You’re still a truther.

          • 914

            “Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking ‘urgently’ for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. ”

            If it was so “imminent” Why was nothing done during Clintons last months in office?

          • jim_m

            It’s clearly a bunch of BS. It’s just ass covering that is taken as gospel by a truther.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I’m certainly not a truther for a number of reasons: I don’t think government agencies, could organize “a pizz up in a brewery”. If you read the commisions report there was absolutley no cooperation between the FBI and CIA of even consideration given to cooperating, and 9/11 would have needed hundreds of ordinary Americans, such as firemen to high officials to commit to, and carry out a mass killing of complete innocents, with no dissenters..No 9/11 was just aided by government neglience or ineptitude -I never said the Clinton adminstration was blameless, they cozied up to the Saudhis and allowed all these saudhi students to come in to US far too easily or illegally- and some luck drawn by a few suicidal extremist brainwashed nuts.

        • jim_m

          Richard Clarke, the Clinton holdover, and terrorist expert was at his wit’s end trying to get the new Bush adminstration to take the threat as seriously as Clinton

          Yes indeed. Clinton took the threat so seriously his administration erected a wall of separation between every intelligence agency so they could not share information. They took the threat so seriously that they allowed the hijackers to enter the country in early 2000, over a year before the attack and they did nothing about it.

          You imply that Bush therefore knew about the attack and did nothing. I had no idea you were a truther!

        • 914

          “Bush and his Rice had disbanded some of the Clinton subcabinet meetings of terrorism. Richard Clarke, the Clinton holdover, and terrorist expert was at his wit’s end trying to get the new Bush adminstration to take the threat as seriously as Clinton.”

          Ha hahahahahahahahahahaha

          • 914

            The only thing Clintock took serious was the location of a hidden blue stained dress

    • Hank_M

      “She couldn’t be worse or more misleading to the public than the other Rice..”

      Hellofa defense of Susan Rice you have there.
      Problem is, Condi is gone.
      You have your own Rice now, and she’s a dishonest disaster.