Troubled?

Okay, I've had it with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte—Republican senators all—and their outrageous posturing over U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.   It makes me furious that they continue to say she didn't tell the truth about Benghazi.

 

Dr. Rice demonstrated grace and professionalism by going to the Hill to meet with Senators, including these three, responding to their questions about Benghazi.  The interim CIA director came with her and attested that the information provided to her by the agency had turned out not to be accurate.  Their beef should be with the intelligence not the messenger.  

 

After the meeting McCain, Ayotte, and Graham called a press conference to say they were "even more troubled."   Huh?  To those whose lives don't allow for keeping up with this drama, here's the skinny:  The Ambassador appeared on various Sunday morning shows after the 9/11 attack at the U. S. consulate  in Benghazi, Libya.  What she said on those shows came from information directly provided to her by the intelligence community—talking points that didn't include classified information.  Susan Rice repeatedly reminded the various talk show hosts and the viewing public that investigations (plural) were ongoing and this was only preliminary information—with new information likely to come as investigations progressed.   Key:  The CIA confirmed that what she said was exactly the information given her.  So, what the hell is going on with these three senators?

My original theory about the three senators continuing to hammer an invisible nail:   It's a way to bully the president,  another attempt to embarrass him, this time through Susan Rice.  That's a little over the top, but these guys are very comfortable going over the top.  I decided McCain is trying to remain relevant and feeling bitter after a second Obama win.   As for Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte?  Maybe they see themselves as the saviors of a  Republican Party on the skids.  Maybe they're having visions of a Presidential run in 2016; thus, they're manufacturing a "scandal" to get the attention of the electorate.  And Graham probably is antsy about having primary opposition next time, since he's not has hardcore in his "conservative" credentials as some of the hard-right Tea Partiers would like him to be.  So he's using Susan Rice as an easy way to "show 'em" he's one of the serious Righties.  Take your pick among those guesses or leave a comment sharing your own theory, please.

Last night Rachel Maddow presented a theory on her MSNBC show— that  Republicans want Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to be the nominee.  That way  a special election could mean another Senate seat for the GOP,  something they really, really would like.   Rachel's idea seemed plausible last night; this morning it seems likely.   I heard  Senator Charles Barrasso (R-WY) saying he would not vote for Rice and believes Senator John Kerry would be a better nominee.  (Ahhhh.   I'd like to play poker with Senator B!)

Personally I hope Senator Kerry will stay put; we need him in the Senate.  I also believe Susan Rice would be an excellent Secretary of State.  I think it might mean a big, ugly fight with Republican senators—and I think it's a fight worth having.   I'd like to see our President fight the good fight.  I want to see the fire I saw in him it at the press conference where he defended Ambassador Rice. 

 

 I think the votes would be there.  What do you think?