With all the insulting criticisms she's been getting.

mccain and that other asshole, lindsay, totally insulted Ms. Rice as well as disrespected her. But as has been said, Karma is a bitch and both of these assholes, lindsay and mccain, will pay the price.

I also know that this is supposed to be a "get even" one because President Obama won the last election, but this is not the end by a long shot. I also hope the President knows that we are behind him whatever way he wants to play it. And take it from me, our President is a smart man and will NOT lose to these bozos!

quarantine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

Embattled U.N. envoy Susan Rice is dropping out of the running to be the next secretary of state after months of criticism over her Benghazi comments, she told NBC News on Thursday.

“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.

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

Rice had been viewed as one of the front-runners to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation’s top foreign policy official.

She has been under intense fire from Republicans for initially characterizing the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a spur-of-the-moment response to a crude anti-Muslim film.

“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video,” Rice said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” five days after the attack.

<snip>

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-saddened-by-partisan-politics?chromedomain=nbcpolitics

capital' to get her approved by the Senate.

Just the way it is.

I love your Obama-Biden Icon avatar- and I especially love your statement: You love it when you wake up in the morning and Barack Obama is President.

I do too!

But not because of the bullshit the right threw at her.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13143-why-to-say-no-to-susan-rice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

He said that she wrote to the president that the post should never be "politicized." Thanks Republicans!

Not a senator or rep or any other democratic person currently holding office. I want democrat in that spot. But who the hell do I think I am?

from the old boys' club in the Senate, who have made it clear they won't have her. We've seen this before.

I think the Republicans in the Senate were just kind of elected ringleaders to scotch her nomination.

There seemed to be some jostling between the executive and legislative branches on this one.

Geez!

BTW, I posted the Washington Post link down below if you want to add it to your OP.

Great job, just needed a link, glad I could help...

He can say whatever he wishes-now. I hope he knows I don't respect him or his decisions.

Don't they think anyone's watching or keeping track?!

with McCain as head thug.

I'm beginning to abhor those who didn't vote in 2010 as much as I abhor those who voted for Nader in 2000.

Susan Rice Withdraws Own Name from Consideration for Secretary of State

Embattled U.N. envoy Susan Rice is dropping out of the running to be the next secretary of state after months of criticism over her Benghazi comments, she told NBC News on Thursday.

“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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335599/susan-rice-withdraws-own-name-consideration-secretary-state-nathaniel-botwinick

Susan Rice has more intelligence and class and grace than all of the jackasses in the Republican Party and in the Senate together.

John McCain, may you rot in hell.

sexual outlet. Fucking traitors!

I agree with your sentiments exactly- we can't say it enough. Also remember that everything happens for a reason. In spite of this admonition, may mccain-and lindsay, still rot in hell!

Susan Rice is a war monger with financial ties to DIRTY XL-Pipeline OIL. Interesting traits in light of regional intelligence issues surrounding Benghazi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

Anyone stupid enough to support Bush's phoney weapons of mass destruction bs should not be serving in the Obama administration. A blessing in disquise ,thanks McCain.

Big Time. We'll see how all this turns out for the bullies in this story.

I expect she's part pawn but part valuable asset. Something very interesting will spin out of this situation, possibly for her in the future as well, but certainly for the administration and the RW as well. McCain looks like a total creep and I imagine Graham and McConnell feeling like heroes even as their acts circle around to take a huge chunk out of their asses. We'll see. It's just fascinating.

my thoughts have been going there too..

First of all Susan hadn't been chosen..she withdrew her name from the list.. and Bullies always have of way of getting Blowback when they least expect it.

and now they scared off Susan Rice. That entire party is filled with the most bigoted, hateful fucks around. John McMuffin can go self-fornicate.

Susan Rice withdraws name from consideration for secretary of state

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice has pulled her name out of consideration for nomination as the next secretary of state.

“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 obtained by NBC News. “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.”

Rice has come under sustained criticism from Republicans both for her handling of questions about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

President Obama responded in a statement of his own, saying that he is “grateful” that Rice will continue to serve as ambassador to the United Nations and as a “key member” of his national security team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/13/susan-rice-withdraws-name-from-consideration-for-secretary-of-state/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/hagel-said-to-top-obama-s-list-to-take-over-at-pentagon.html

Why should she? If Obama didn't want her, fine. But she has done nothing to disqualify herself from the position. Why should Obama capitulate to the lunatic right on this?

take her at her word?

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-saddened-by-partisan-politics?chromedomain=nbcpolitics

In Washintonese. The only reason confirmation would be difficult is because of the BS witch hunt by McCain and the other Republican bullies. They have done everything to ruin her career for no legitimate reason, and it turns my stomach.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

Intelligence issues around Libya have been QUITE revealing, after all.

There was no reverse psychology. And if you're going to hold people responsible for Iraq, there is a lot of blame to go around, including for John Kerry. He actually played a role in bringing us to war with Iraq by voting for it. Rice was not in the administration or congress then. The Secretary of State carries out the policies of the President. '
How nice you find solidarity with John McCain and his pals on this issue. I do not.
The point about the administration's misinformation is absurd, and I'm not going to rehash the obvious here. You should know better.

She would have a conflict of interest regarding that Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. Her husband owns oil pipeline stocks, too.

I agree with you cha. I don't see it as a loss.

There are plenty of reasons for most DUers to not want her in that position, as long as you don't frame this as a GOP vs. Obama fight.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13143-why-to-say-no-to-susan-rice

i feel like we just lost the elections

Why do people here have such an attachment to her? From what I have read she is pretty hawkish...she was a big supporter of the Iraq War.

So was Hillary, correct? Don't you/other people have an attachment to Hillary?

Hillary is one of the best known women in the world, she's also extremely popular. Rice is a career bureaucrat, no great loss to the WH. This is politics and that's how it's played. People are expendable, just like in the world of business. Disgusting, but true.

Why not a comparison between Hillary and Mrs. Rice? The only major difference that I see between the two women is that one woman, Hillary, has a famous husband who also served as a Democratic President. Mrs. Rice does not.

I don't see the difference that you wish to imply or infer. Case closed.

I was surprised to see how few on DU were really aware of how far to the right her views on the Middle East really are. But, here's a reminder:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021895778

I totally agree with your sentiment that we should support our President and therefore support the people he supports. After all we all can't nominate an individual person. That's why we elect ONE President. Geez, come on folks. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I can't separate her views from anybody in Washington these days, including President Obama. And I will lay it out. First of all, it doesn't seem like anybody in our Government or very few have a sensible view on the Middle East or their war mongering, even John Kerry. Sure he was against the Vietnam War, but he hasn't shown a steady consistency at all to me.

I'm not too comfortable with his reluctance to criticize his buddy ( John McCain). It shows too much comfort to me. Will he criticize McCain's warmongering, we shall see? Will he stand up and criticize Israel, we shall see? He also at first advocated going into Iraq, only to change his mind, when he ran for President against George W. Bush. Was that just Political expedience? We shall see. He also supported what was happening in libya. We shall see if Senator Kerry is any different than the elite club in the Senate. I would also like to know his position on Scott Brown. I have never seen Kerry come out to criticize Brown. Will he just be a rubber stamp for his pal McCain, after all, he did once consider this guy as his running mate in the 2004 Election, which I found disturbing. So we will see if he is any different from the club.

Then there is Hillary Clinton. She also supported the War in Iraq. She supported the actions in Libya. Netting seemed to be drooling over a Hillary Clinton Presidency also. Does Hillary Clinton really separate herself from being biase towards the state of Israel, or was she also, just a rubber stamp? What is her position on Iran? I've made it very clear, that I don't like the Obama's Foreign Policy directions in the Middle East, because it seems to me both parties seems to be competing with each other when it comes to placating Israel. In my opinion, if the U.S. can't separate themselves from being joined to the hilt as Israel's twin, then they have no business there. They seem to be more part of the problem. And as far as Benghazi, I don't think either Party is being truthful about it, and what the CIA was really doing. President Obama seems to me, to be doing exactly what John McCain want. Especially with this notion, of even spreading U.S. activities in Africa. Not only this, even though they claim, they are leaving Afghanistan, leaving 14-20,000 troops there, isn't exactly leaving. So I can't separate anybody, when people talk about warmongers. It seems like they are all the same, but trying to compete, for seeing who is tougher, to appease the media elite and right in this country.

Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Even by the rather warlike standards of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, she's a hawk. The fact that she will not be the next Secretary of State should give us some reason for hope, if no real relief from worry about the role of the United States in spreading religious wars in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

I was surprised to see how few on DU were really aware of how far to the right her views on the Middle East really are. But, here's a reminder:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021895778

Questions have been raised about why Susan Rice rather than Hillary Clinton, or a Deputy, came forward as the principal Administration spokesperson following the Benghazi attack. Indeed, Clinton has also avoided comment on Rice's withdrawal, just as she avoids making firm statements about many things, except for her certainty that Iran must be confronted, as she expressed last night in her interview with Barbara Walter. (See her comment at 3:30-4:30, the rest is about Hillary's hair):


Was Susan Rice scapegoated over the Benghazi incident? Remember, that Rice, the UN Ambassador, was put forward as spokesman on Benghazi because the State Dept had embargoed comments by Department spokespersons. That embargo came about because of concerns already raised about inconsistencies in statements being made by various people at Foggy Bottom. and the already audible stirring of Congressional protests to David Petraeus' very misleading initial briefing given to Congressional leaders shortly after the attack.

I'm sure Rice volunteered. She was deeply invested in the Libyan regime change, so she felt determined to shape the public perceptions of the attack in order to defend the policy. That decision, foreseeably, blew back on her.

There's more to the Benghazi intel catastophe than is being alleged publicly by John McCain, et al. That's why Hillary is staying away from any and all personal contact. Everyone knows in DC what Benghazi is political and career poison, it's like VX nerve gas. Don't let it touch you. Look what's already happened to David Petraeus, and now Susan Rice.

***

Taking a larger view, the Benghazi catastrophe has more to do with the failure to quickly restabilize both Libya and Syria, and the flow of manpads, arms and Jihadis out of Benghazi than the tragic fact that Amb. Stevens and three CIA contractors were killed by al-Qaeda. There appear to have been were some high-level (mis)representations made in the White House early 2011 akin to Tenet's "slam dunk" claims about selling the Iraq War and finding Saddam’s WMD. That was enough to end some promising careers.

Outcomes in Libya and Syria, and indeed in the region, are far worse than any of those pushing regime change predicted, and we're on the verge of a regional Sunni-Shi'ia civil war with all sorts of blowback potential.

No, there's something much worse going on that the death of four Americans and some misleading statements by Rice five days later. Obama's very hawkish, neocon-influenced foreign policy team has been shown to be very, very wrong about outcomes of regime change across a very, very dangerous region.

The GOP don't know what to do with this because they're also supporters of the same "all roads lead to Tehran" regime change operation that's gone very, very bad.

***

I may be naive, but I thought Obama offered some hope for change and a new policy in the Mideast

Early on in the Administration, John Kerry became Obama's personal emissary for back-channels diplomacy with Syria and was reportedly making significant progress when suddenly, in January last year, the Syrian opposition in exile declared a rebellion. The same thing happened almost simultaneously in Libya, and events in the two countries tracked each other closely leading up to the outbreak of armed insurrection and civil war.

On March 8, the first of a series of deadly confrontations between the Syrian regime and armed demonstrators broke out in Daraa. Snipers killed 16 policemen and a Sunni mob exiting Friday prayers attacked and burned the Ba'ath Party headquarters in that city. Within a week tanks were in the street, and the rest is history.

These early triggering events involving snipers and armed attacks on government buildings were largely overlooked by al Jazeera and the rest of the Gulf Arab media which were covering events live. Most of the western media got its reports of massacres of unarmed protestors, not what actually happened in Daraa to trigger the civil war, directly from the opposition spokesmen in London and Paris, and broadcast it unfiltered and unconfirmed. Diplomacy ended.

The big winner in Syria and Libya is the most radical Sunni Jihadis sponsored by Saudis who were rewarded with huge amounts of Gulf Arab money along with arms shipments coordinated by the CIA, the British, and the French intelligence agencies to bring down the Syrian regime. It looks like militarily, they may succeed, but the US and its western allies will then have to deal with a much larger better armed Salaafist military movement than the one that emerged from similar covert operations against the Soviets and Serbs in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Serbia. That, by the way, also happened under a Democratic Administration under many of the same leadership and top intelligence officers running this operation. The potential for blowback from the Sunni-Shi'ia wars as the conflict grows and spreads regionally makes 9/11 seem almost insignificant by comparison.

If we're really lucky, it may be that some of the smarter people in Washington, including this President, recognize the terrible risks and may be changing course and getting rid of some of the principal regime changers.

Maybe.

His message was that Warren would be a fantastic Senator and he made the case that she would both vote for Democratic control of the Senate and would not vote against the environment, against people needing health care and other government benefits, and she would not vote for tax cuts for the wealthy. This was very much against Brown ON THE ISSUES.

What he didn't do was to attack Brown personally. This was wise on many levels. The compelling argument was that Brown's votes on important issues were often wrong and Warren's were right. He also took the time to give a real, personal endorsement for Warren - as Warren - not just as "not Brown" or the Democrat.

Attacking Brown personally would not have helped and could have hurt - losing people who liked Brown, but were shaky on the positions he was taking. For them, what they needed was for the vote issue to be front and center and to have a trusted person (and Kerry is that) arguing that Warren was a very good alternative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

She was way too militant for a Dem.

"...Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that."

Susan Rice, 2003

Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.


President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.



Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002

for the record, Obama was my second to last choice in 2008. I have never been a fan of either Clinton, and was somewhat dismayed by her appointment to SoS. John Edwards? Really?!!

Bottom line here is every one of them was wrong.

We here in Arizona are living with the result of such appointments everyday; as we were left in 2008 in the bony-fingered grasp of The Wicked Witch Of The Southwest.

Holder?

I think the gop idiots targeted Mr. Holder earlier without much success. It pisses me off to no limit how these gop dogs have targeted Mr. Obama's African-American staff and cabinet members/associates. It is as though since they could not defeat President Obama-either time- they will go after the next best thing, and those closest to him, especially in color. It simply speaks to how racist, stupid and ignorant these gop fools are. They need to be taken to the "woodshed" and thoroughly thrashed for a good spell, until they learn their lesson!

I'd be sure he got a promise from the Mass. legislature to go back to an appointment system first, though, or else Scott "Code" Brown climbs out of his dank, musty grave.

Alternatives: Wesley Clark (though he might be better at the Pentagon), maybe even Al Gore. The suggestion upthread of Juan Cole is a nice, out-of-the-box one.

is practically throwing a party. He's convinced it will be Kerry. I think Kerry would do a fine job, but jeez, Chris, can't you save the glee until the end of the day? You and the Chuckster can go have a drink or something.
Chris is also driving me nuts with his continual pushing of Hillary for POTUS in 2016.

I'm exhausted from the last election, can't we wait a couple years until speculating on Prez? Of course, anything to do with his apparent best friend Bill gives him a tingle.
If I was Hillary (and had half her intelligence), I would seriously question going through that grueling process, which would start in just a couple of years. And running when you're 69 just seems too old to put up with the whole circus. I'm sure she'll savor the next few years - get some rest and maybe Chelsea will provide a grandchild.

Sorry I got OT there. Tweety's glee over this whole Susan Rice thing is very distasteful to me.

This woman makes a comment about an incident at our embassy, and they go apeshit, yet nobody utters a word when the Bush Crime Family lied about reasons to get us into war, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, as well as several thousand American military?

Where is the outrage?

I've always thought we are extremely fortunate to have such an even tempered president. The Republicans are the ones having tantrums, but he doesn't take their bait or stoop to their level. He deserves to be mad as hell, I am, but the president is better than that.

They only didn't like her because she wasn't an R's pick, but she might as well had been one. We need to stand behind better people.

kind of revealing after all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

she was a big time supporter of Bushs Iraq invasion. No big loss.

She was getting it from all sides: from the Republicans over Benghazi; from the environmentalists over her millions of dollars in oil investments (including the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline project); from the peace groups who considered her to be too much of a hawk and even her "prickly" personality was questioned by the Washington Post.

All in all, it was for the best.

I guess we can now expect to call Kerry SOS.

Dennis Kucinich isn't busy right now...

or with proven stature as a Presidential emissary (George Mitchell?) but someone without ties to the regime changers and neocons. That's probably too much to ask.

Expect more of both.

and embarrass McCain and company during their nomination process. Cowards. Is this the start of Obama letting himself again being bullied . ?

Repubs don't want any intelligent people in government. That's why they do such a horrible job of national security. The evidence was in 9/11 attacks and linking the attacks to Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks. In fact, the Bush neocon clown team originally wanted to omit Afghanistan entirely and immediately attack Iraq. Some of the more cautious members of the team like Richard Clarke and General Powell managed to walk them back, but they insisted on Iraq being their 2nd target after Afghanistan.

The klutzes were so embarrassed by their security lapses and the attack itself, that they were ready to use the military to strike out at a non-involved nation to help their guilty national pride. That is why members of that team, particularly Bush and Cheney themselves, should have been put on trial in an international court of law.

Let's use this to show the kiddies how bullying is done.

She's remaining as Ambassador to the UN, and while she was on a list of probable nominees, she was NOT formerly nominated by the POTUS.

Obama will simply turn to others on his short list of probable nominees. No skin off his nose here.

I feel the exact same way as you do. No skin lost here at all-by either person!

In addition, do we know for a fact that Mrs. Rice ACTUALLY wanted the position of Sec'y. of State?!!!! Or are we all guity of making an assumption, incuding asshole mccain. Talk about egg on his face! That s.o.b deserves it- with plenty of yolk.

Will Kerry want on his conscience , making it more difficult for Obama to get his Supreme Court nominees approved.
Do we want Kerry out of the Senate and Scott Brown in..
Don't fall for this trap.. Kerry as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is almost as vital as being Secretary of State. Considering there, he can attempt to keep the Senate's warmongers in check.

not even nominated, was aimed at keeping Kerry in Massachusetts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

I look forward to spitting on his grave.

I think she did the best thing all around.

If you remember in late Summer right after Obama opened up a 3 point lead in the polls, that's when the anti-american riots in response to that anti-islam film started along with the Bengazzi attack.

My belief is that the patriarchal middle east leaders stirred up their base at that time in an attempt to influence the US election because they may see the Democratic party as being the party that is more pro-women.

as SoS for Hillary Clinton's 2017-2025 presidential administration.

Political arguments don't have to be based on reality or make any sense at all.
You just have to repeat them loudly long enough that you win and get your way.

We should remember that when the Republicans act like imbeciles, it's a tried and true way to defeat Democrats.

I hope they don't get their wish, bluntly, but I probably won't get my way.

After all this, the Senator should stay where he is. He is already doing productive good work in the Senate. He already got folks angry at him over this.

but, I have to state that anyone who blames Senator Kerry for this is just wrong nd need to be ignored. She was not the most qualified for this post, and there really is no way of ever knowing if the President would have actually chosen her. For myself, I am hoping he is asked to serve. I think he will be an exceptional SOS.

attacking/blaming him.

While agree that blaming the Senator is wrong, we can't ignore the backlash he will get, especially from the people from MA. That is what is messy and scary. They really value their lawmakers there and demand the best. In addition to climate change, there is also the disability treaty. He has been tweeting about not giving up that fight, but we shall see.

foreign policy.

Nobody has yet explained just why Ambassador Stevens and three other of our people died. Rice's initial explanation was bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo-- it's no surprise deadbeat bureaucrats like McCain and Graham jumped all over this.

an investigation, that is about to finalize its report? You let the investigation complete its report, yet certain people like the one you mention above wanted to make it political. I've never seen someone pointing fingers and making allegations before al investigation has already made its final report until now. And the media pundits in concert wanted to lay some blame on the President. They praised the guy in charge of the CIA but they attacked a person close to the president, whom was only giving information, that same CIA head had cleared. Now they want to blame the President for what they did? What the media and and those hacks did was bully this woman until she couldn't handle it anymore. Now they want to deflect the blame off these hacks and lay it on the president for an nomination he was considering? I've already figured out what probably happened in Benghazi.

Covert operations by definition are secret and legal powers of the CIA. If that is what the CIA was doing, there is no there there! There is no cover up and there is no scandal. If that is all it is, then the Press and McCain with his allies are taking advantage of a covert operation that went wrong and trying to make political hay out of it because classified covert actions can't be discussed in public.

I don't believe that consulate was a consulate but a front for a covert operation which is legal by definition. Congress authorizes it as an arm of the intelligence agency and part of the military. It comes under the CIA's authorization. They can classify information. The only supposedly american civilian killed in that attack was Ambassador Stevens. the other three had roles with the CIA. In fact two of them were killed in a gun battle at the CIA annex less than a mile from this supposedly consulate, the Intelligence authorities had the Administration change the definition to mission.That is the only word the administration changed.

So want embassy or consulate do people know only have CIA agents and one ambassador located there without any other civilian personnel? this is why it is obvious, this was a goose chase period, to attach blame to the President. The blame should be on General Petraeus and his CIA for an operation that failed. And if you look at Stevens role in Libya during the over throw of Qaddafi, He was right there during the overthrow with the same militias and communicating with them. He took it upon himself to take risks for his country. He was also working with the CIA making deals with those rebels, to overthrow those regimes. It was very transparent what he was doing, other than his ambassador role. McCain and his henchmen probably already know this too. So in the end, the only scandal probably will come out of this, will be the the Republicans in concert with the media trying to take advantage of a failed CIA operation, and Susan Rice became a victim of this, just because they want to get the President. And McCain and his cohorts are playing Politics with this country's National Security, just to try and make this President look weak in Foreign Policy.

You have it correctly summed up and have hit the nail on the head on all points! Congrats. Everyone with any sense in the world knows what has happened and what the rotten sobs of the gop party have planted, planned and plotted. mccain is accustomed to this sort of shit and always ends up looking like the baffoon he is. We all know- or those of us who keep abreast of what is really happ'nin- that this is a plot and ploy to "get the President and make him look bad", i.e., Waterloo 102!

And although these gop bastards appear to have won the battle, they will not win the WAR.

Mrs. Rice was only reading the prepared document that was given to her by the CIA and its operatives! She should not be blamed for any of our policies. This idiot mccain shot the effing messenger!

Democrats were beginning to take a closer look at some of her work history and her opinions on issues.

Let me ask what do you mean about her "work history" and her opinions? Isn't what Mrs. Rice says all public knowledge and a part of her public record dossier if they are relevant to the "JOB"? So what is not known about her work history and opinions? You appear to be a rumour spinner as this is how these little "secrets" get started. You seem to want to be so "whispery and clandestine"!

What gives here? What do you know that none of us-or few of us-know that makes you use this type of code-secretive vocalization?

She is certainly a fine woman, very smart and passionate about her work, but it was some of her investments, and dealings with others that Democrats began questioning. She may still end up with another very important position.

She and her husband have millions of dollars invested in Canadian oil companies, including TransCanada (as SOS she would have the approval power over the Keystone XL pipeline project). Some peace groups were questioning her positions on Africa when she was in the Clinton administration and her support for the Iraq war resolution. There are some who even questioned her "undiplomatic" personality. Apparently she has ruffled feathers at the UN with her confrontational style (the WP called her "prickly&quot . So, the Republican opposition to her due to Benghazi may have been the main issue, but there were other considerations too. All in all, the WH may have decided that the confirmation fight was not worth it when they will need all their political chips for the fight over the fiscal cliff. Yes, she withdrew her name, but that's how those things are handled. She probably was aware that the WH didn't want to fight that battle. She'll do fine where she's at or in another position that doesn't need Congressional confirmation.

So what "if some on the left were also questoning whether she was the best choice"? That doesn't make them correct! It also doesn't matter who thought she was the best choice-except the President who had the authority to nominate-no one else.

Again, just for the record, everything else is "so effing what". Everybody can't have a personal PLACE in this matter, they can only have an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions, don't you?

what was read was STILL bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

and BTW, notice who was smart enough to NOT read the mumbo-jumbo to the jackals; Ms Rice should've never agreed to be the substitute.

into the rw talking points.

For that reason alone, IMO, if the President wants to nominate her for SOS, he should just go ahead and do it. And Dems should back him up; he'll certainly have a stronger hand after his inauguration. IMO, having her withdraw her name at this time takes the wind out of RW GOP sails. Now they have to find something else to poutrage about so that their pettiness and obstructionism are plainer than ever.

There may be legitimate reasons to question her nomination, but this Benghazi and other RW GOP TP crap I've seen trotted out - yes, even here on DU - are not among them.

If the nominee is not Rice, who has a lot of credibility with the international diplomats she would have to rub shoulders with, like others here, I hope to see someone other than a professional politician - even a capable, intelligent and highly competent one like John Kerry - in the spot. As for Kerry, I believe that he is much more effective exactly where he is.