Quote of the Day

Except the the 60 Minutes story was debunked.

Republicans also gave bogus emails to the media about the Obama administrations handing of Benghazi.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens is tragic. I think questions should be asked about the security at Benghazi. Unfortunately, the Republicans lack seriousness on security issues. You don't release false emails to the media if you are serious about national security.

Republicans Benghazi Rage Not About National Security

You will be shocked, shocked I say, when you hear Politico's Mike Allen tell Charlie Rose that the reason Republicans are making an issue out of Benghazi is to damage Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016.

ALLEN: Privately, Republicans say that Benghazi probably wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for Hillary Clinton. Unlike the IRS...

ROSE: If this wasn't for her in 2016, this wouldn't be an issue?

ALLEN: Yeah, because it's something that people don't understand. Even the White House will tell you it's never going to be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, but there is going to be a real effort to make it last.

And when we're talking about these three controversies, we should remember, world event history tells us that world events can change everything. Somebody pointed out to me that if the Boston marathon happened next week, this would all look different.

ROSE: Right.

I wish there actually was a debate on improving security for diplomats and CIA operatives. Instead we are debating talking points. Mitt Romney was more concerned about whether or not President Obama called the Benghazi consulate attack an act of terror. Obama did label the attack an act of terror in a speech.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

If there were mistakes made by members of the Obama administration then those people should be held accountable. The problem is Republicans are more concerned about blaming the Obama administration for talking points that were partly crafted by disgraced CIA director David Petraeus. The same talking points Republicans asked Petraeus to give them.

Tas wrote a guest post on how difficult it is for U.S. official to move unseen in a place like Benghazi.

As for the Benghazi “scandal”, that attack happened at a time of protests in Muslim majority cities around the globe. There was absolutely no intelligence about an upcoming attack on a US consulate office in Libya’s second city. After all, usually it’s the embassy in a capital city that is targeted, not a minor office. We don’t even know if the Benghazi attack was planned ahead of time or just happened on the spot. I've lived in Cairo, so I’m familiar with how streets in Arab cities in Africa look; and there’s not a lot of opulence in those streets. If an American ambassador is driving into town in a rich American car, with security in tow, then the city residents can at least deduce that this is somebody important. There are a lot of weapons available in a country that just went through a civil war, and from there the only organizing that takes place is a couple of on the spot telephone calls and, bam, you have an attack.

That’s. It. There was no conspiracy to hide information about this attack because there was probably absolutely no information at all until it happened. And it happened at a time of global protests in Muslim cities, which was enough to make anyone question whether it was a protest gone awry or an attack. Period. End of story.

We do need to improve diplomatic security. Republicans don't care about that. If they did they wouldn't cut funding for diplomatic security. A person warning Republicans in 2011 about cutting diplomatic security was Sec. of State Hillary Clinton.

Noting her own eight years in Congress, Clinton said she understands the tight fiscal environment and the need to trim spending. “But the scope of the proposed House cuts is massive,” she said. “The truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to America’s national security.”

This is why I don't take Republicans seriously on Benghazi.

Republicans Lied About Contents of Benghazi Emails

This is what the media should do to political figures that feed bogus information for political purposes. I wished CBS News went a step further and publicly outed the congressional Republicans that were feeding was quote from the Benghazi emails.

Republicans told CBS News that deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes wrote this in an email. Republicans alleged that Rhodes was trying to protect the State Department and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. This is the bogus quote congressional Republicans fed to CBS News.

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

CBS News reports that Rhodes doesn't mention Clinton or the State Department in the actual email.

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Republicans lied about the contents about an email by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. The CIA had asked the State Department to not reveal their role at the Benghazi consulate. The CIA was running operations out of the consulate. This is the actual Nuland email.

"The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

At the request of the CIA, Nuland cut out mention of the CIA. Republicans made up a fake quote that gave the impression that the State Department was ignoring terrorist threat warnings from the CIA.

"The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

This is an utter smear campaign by Republicans.

BACKGROUND: the CIA was running several different operations in Benghazi. David Petraeus' mistress, Paula Broadwell, was being briefed by the CIA. Broadwell even had classified CIA materials. After the affair became public, Broadwell's house was searched by the FBI. What was more disturbing is Broadwell publicly talking about the Benghazi annex.

"Now I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted," she said.

David Brooks has an excellent op-ed defending his friend Nuland. Brooks also points out that Benghazi was mainly a CIA operation.

Remember, this was at a moment when the State Department was taking heat for what was mostly a C.I.A. operation, while doing verbal gymnastics to hide the C.I.A.’s role. Intentionally or not, the C.I.A. seemed to be repaying the favor by trying to shift blame to the State Department for ignoring intelligence.

Brooks goes on to point out the under-reported fact that Petraeus gave Congressional lawmakers the anti-Muslim video talking points. The question should also be why is a CIA director for a Democratic administration giving Republican lawmakers talking points. Brooks reports that Nuland was asking the same question.

On Friday evening of Sept. 14, the updated talking points were e-mailed to the relevant officials in various departments, including Nuland. She wondered why the C.I.A. was giving members of Congress talking points that were far more assertive than anything she could say or defend herself. She also noted that the talking points left the impression that the C.I.A. had issued all sorts of warnings before the attack.

Remember, this was at a moment when the State Department was taking heat for what was mostly a C.I.A. operation, while doing verbal gymnastics to hide the C.I.A.’s role. Intentionally or not, the C.I.A. seemed to be repaying the favor by trying to shift blame to the State Department for ignoring intelligence.

The whole scandal started by Republicans attacking the false administration reports that Ambassador Chris Stevens death was related to protests over an anti-Muslim video. David Petraeus gave his mistress classified intelligence and Congress horrible talking points. Obama's biggest fault in the Benghazi saga is appointing someone as incompetent as Petraeus.

Quote of the Day

"This is not just limited to the I.R.S. This is a culture of intimidation, a willingness to play hardball politics against your political opponents."

Sen. Marco Rubio

President Barack Obama is the most unintimidating man in Washington. Obama continues to express the belief that Republicans will eventually come around and be bipartisan. This is what Obama at a recent fundraiser.

"I genuinely believe there are Republicans out there who would like to work with us but they’re fearful of their base and they’re concerned about what Rush Limbaugh might say about them. And as a consequence we get the kind of gridlock that makes people cynical about government."

Republicans are taking to cable news and hold hearings on Benghazi and on the Cincinnati IRS office targeting tea party groups. Yet Obama still thinks that Republicans still want to work with him. Tas tweeted remark about Obama.

@pushingrope Obama's incompetent because he won't face reality and treat his opposition like the world's biggest children that they are.

— tas (@13monsters) May 15, 2013

I absolutely agree with Tas. Rubio's remark on the Senate floor is laughable. Rubio needs to sell the Obama as the boogie man to feed the base. If we are talking about intimidation, as Florida House Speaker, Rubio took the committee chairmanships away from Don Brown and Dennis Ross. Their crime was voting against a property insurance bill Rubio backed. Rubio has a lot of balls to be accusing Obama of practicing intimidation.

The Republican's Perpetual Search for the Next Blowjob

Since Watergate — when a Republican president was rightfully impeached and forced to resign before being removed from office for legitimate crimes that he committed — the Republicans have deployed the strategy of trying to grind the government to a halt whenever a Democrat is elected president.  They deploy this strategy so the Democrat administration can get as little accomplished as possible.

Whenever you hear about a “scandal” involving a Democrat president, you must keep the GOP's "Stop Government" strategy in mind because, no matter what the scope of the scandal is, the Republicans will use it to the best of their ability to grind the government’s ability to govern to a halt.

The GOP certainly deployed this strategy when Bill Clinton was in office.  Beyond the budget battles that led to actual Federal government shutdowns, the GOP kept digging into the supposed crimes of the “Whitewater” real estate deal until, after not finding anything illegal, they centered on a blowjob — which isn’t a crime.  It’s a fucking blowjob.  But that didn’t stop the Republicans from using a fucking blowjob to finally grind government to a halt by using it to impeach Clinton.

Right now, there are three “scandals” circling the Obama administration.  The Department of Justice getting phone records of Associated Press journalists is the only legitimate scandal out of the three; and currently, there isn’t a bit of evidence pointing to Obama having knowledge of DOJ actions.  There is a vast gulf of difference between an employee of the executive branch committing a crime and the president directing those crimes; and the latter was the situation with Nixon and Watergate.  Also, due to warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency during the Bush administration being declared legal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, there exists the very real possibility that the DOJ’s actions weren’t even a crime.  

Should there be Congressional hearings into this matter?  Of course.  But there is a difference between having hearings and grinding government to a halt — a difference that the Republicans, due to their post-Nixon strategy, purposely obfuscate.

As for the Benghazi “scandal”, that attack happened at a time of protests in Muslim majority cities around the globe.  There was absolutely no intelligence about an upcoming attack on a US consulate office in Libya’s second city.  After all, usually it’s the embassy in a capital city that is targeted, not a minor office.  We don’t even know if the Benghazi attack was planned ahead of time or just happened on the spot.  I've lived in Cairo, so I’m familiar with how streets in Arab cities in Africa look; and there’s not a lot of opulence in those streets.  If an American ambassador is driving into town in a rich American car, with security in tow, then the city residents can at least deduce that this is somebody important.  There are a lot of weapons available in a country that just went through a civil war, and from there the only organizing that takes place is a couple of on the spot telephone calls and, bam, you have an attack.

That’s.  It.  There was no conspiracy to hide information about this attack because there was probably absolutely no information at all until it happened.  And it happened at a time of global protests in Muslim cities, which was enough to make anyone question whether it was a protest gone awry or an attack.  Period.  End of story.  

There is no reason for the Republicans to drag this Benghazi story out for months, but they have anyway.  Why?  Because they are trying to grind the government to a halt.

Besides the Department of Justice and Benghazi, we have the other new “scandal” revolving around an IRS office in Cincinnati targeting new organizations with words like “tea party” and “patriot” in their name applying for non-profit status as 501(c)4 groups.  The decision to target conservative organizations was, most likely, made at a middle management level in a satellite IRS office outside of Washington DC, so how, exactly, is Obama responsible for this?  Furthermore, groups that wish to qualify for 501(c)4 non-profit status should have a stated purpose and goals for “social welfare”.  One of the groups that was targeted, called “Tea Party Patriots”, spent most of their time rapidly organizing against Obama before the election.  Their biggest accomplishment was producing an anti-health care act movie called “The Determinators”, publishing it on DVD and sending it out to hundreds of thousands of Americans.  How, exactly, is that working towards aiding the “social welfare” of society?

The  IRS saw a sharp increase in organizations claiming 501(c)4 status after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.  And, quite frankly, if you have conservative organizations steeped in anti-tax and anti-government ideology forming blatantly political organizations that were applying for non-profit status as 501(c)4 “social welfare” groups, wouldn’t you be curious, too?  Yes, all organizations are supposed to be judged equally, but this targeting of conservative organizations was likely borne out of IRS employees looking for better ways to manage their workload.  Let’s face it, these conservative organizations are pretty suspect.  Besides the fact that this wasn’t ordered by the Obama administration, how exactly is this a scandal?

Should there be a hearing or two?  Of course.  But will Republicans pretend this is the end of the world?  Of course.  Why?  Because they are trying to grind the government to a halt.

In light of all of these “scandals”, wherein evidence of direct involvement from the Obama White House doesn’t exist, it’s worth mentioning two actual scandals from the Bush administration that Republicans (and their savant-like stenographers in the mainstream media) cared nothing about — two non-scandals that had evidence of the Bush White House being directly involved.

The most important non-scandal of the Bush administration was the Downing Street Memo.  Published in the British press on May 1, 2005, the memo proved that the Bush administration was lying to the world about the evidence we had regarding Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction during the run up to the Second Iraq War.  That unneeded war killed over 4,800 soldiers, injured over 32,500 soldiers, and likely killed over 120,000 Iraqi civilians.  I could get into the monetary costs that we’re still paying off, but the human toll is sick enough.  Why didn’t the Republicans or the mainstream media regard the Downing Street Memo as a scandal?

The second non-scandal is one I mentioned previously, the National Security Agency executing warrantless wiretaps.  This was initiated by the Bush administration after 9/11, and Republicans weren’t appalled by it.  In fact, one of the groups who was spied upon took their case to court but it was recently thrown out in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The case has yet to make it to the Supreme Court, and lawyers the group spied on fear that an appeal to the Supreme Court would only uphold the ruling from the 9th Court because of the conservative-leanings of the current Supreme Court justices.

Why didn’t the Republicans use these two scandals, with direct connections to the Bush White House, as a reason to host a number of hearings and grind government to a halt?  Why do they only care when lesser crimes are committed that don’t have any apparent connections to the Obama White House?

The answer is simple: Republicans want power, period.  That’s why they’ll turn a blind eye when one of their own commits impeachable atrocities against the Constitution and humanity.  But when a Democrat is in office, then they’re constantly searching for the next blowjob.

Shocking: Marco Rubio Blames President Obama For Boston Bombing

Brace yourselves: Sen. Marco Rubio blames President Barack Obama for the Boston Marathon bombing. Rubio (or a speechwriter) penned this piece for the National Review.

Until the Boston bombings, many of our citizens knew the effects of 9/11 only through the intrusive security requirements of air travel. If nothing else, recent events should remind us that we are a country at war, that radical Islamic jihadists are evil, and that America has a moral and security to lead the fight to defeat them. Unfortunately, we have a president who wants to declare the war over, the enemy defeated.

But if we're not even willing to characterize the war as a war, or the threat as a threat, how can we ensure that we will win this battle? If, instead, we want to see every act of terror in the United States as some isolated case, disconnected from a broader effort -- as administration officials are now spinning Boston -- we're doing a disservice to the American people.

Rubio's op-ed doesn't offer any points on what he would do differently. Would Rubio stay in Afghanistan? Would Rubio send U.S. troops to Syria or Iran. Rubio doesn't say. Rubio's only strategy is Obama isn't talking tough.

The Obama administration rejected using the Bush administration's talking point of "war on terror." Team Obama wanted no part of taking the slogan from the previous admistration that didn't catch Obama bin Laden or found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Unlike Rubio's false reality, President Obama made it clear that there was a war.

"We are indeed at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates," he said at the National Archives a few months after taking office.

Remember when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not describing the Benghazi attack as "an act of terror." Romney's whole point was not how he would handle security better but that Obama didn't sound macho enough. Romney was badly busted during the debate for falsely stating that it took Obama 14 days to describe the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

There is no national security strategy from the current Republican establishment. It's just taking cheap shots at Obama and playing up xenophobic fears to the Christian Right voting base. If you doubt that Republicans are only interested in terrorism for scoring political points than why did Rubio say that President George W. Bush did a "fantastic job" as president.

George W. Bush, in my opinion, did a fantastic job as president over eight year, facing a set of circumstances during those eight years that are different from the circumstances that a President Romney will face.

Rubio will go on Fox News and conservative talk radio and say that Bush's record on fighting terrorism is better than Obama's. No sane person believes that.

John McCain's Meet the Press Benghazi Hissy Fit

I am no fan of David Gregory. Sen. John McCain has accused the Obama administration of covering-up what happened during the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Gregory asks McCain a fair question about what the Senator thinks the administration is concealing from the public. McCain goes on a tirade and questions whether Gregory cares about the Americans killed at Benghazi. McCain never gets around to answering the question.

McCain: Do you care....do you care, David....do you care, David....do you care....I'm asking you, do you care....I'm asking you, do you care whether four Americans died?

Gregory: You said there's a cover-up. A cover-up of what? A cover-up of what?

There are actually legitimate questions about why Christopher Stevens requests for extra security were ignored. Unfortunately, we have a Republican Congress that is incapable of governing and congressional Democrats that do not want to make President Obama look bad. It appears we will never get those answers. John McCain doesn't even know what the questions are.

Rubio During Senate Benghazi Hearing

I am no fan of Sen. Marco Rubio. That said, Rubio managed to be rather respectful to State Department officials. The questions Rubio asked were fairly sound. What remains unclear if why security requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens were never addressed.

Senator Rubio: "So beyond that level, were any senior officials beyond the assistant secretary level made aware of the repeated request from the post for extended or additional security? In particular, there were request made in March and July 2011. Do you know if beyond the assistant secretary level those requests were ever forwarded in a memo or in some other written document?"

Deputy Secretary Burns: "I am not aware of any specific memo that went beyond the sixth floor to those specific requests at that time, no, Senator."

That isn't good. That means either someone on the sixth floor of Foggy Bottom blew off Steven's request or Secretary of State Clinton nixed the request.

Update: the Accountability Review Board report is placing a good portion of the blame on the late Stevens.

The two top officials on the review board, retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Michael Mullen, chose their words carefully at the news conference Wednesday as they weighed Stevens' responsibility in the security lapses, saying that he did support having more additional security personnel. But they also said that he was the ultimate authority on the deteriorating local security conditions.

As chief of the mission, he certainly had a responsibility in that regard, and actually he was very security conscious and increasingly concerned about security," Mullen said. "But part of his responsibility is certainly to make that case back here, and he had not gotten to the point where you would, you might get to a point where you would be considering, 'It's so dangerous, we might close the mission.'"

So Stevens is being blamed for not abandoning his post. He asked for security. Yet, Stevens is blamed for not asking for extra security in the right way. This sounds like bullshit.

Harry Reid Calls For End on Susan Rice Attacks

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham are going off into conspiracy land with their attacks on Susan Rice. Sen. Harry Reid has had enough. Reid sent out this press release.

The personal attacks against Ambassador Rice by certain Republican senators have been outrageous and utterly unmoored from facts and reality. I am shocked that senators would continue these attacks even when the evidence—including disclosures from the intelligence community about the information she presented —have made it clear that the allegations against Ambassador Rice are baseless, and that she has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Ambassador Rice’s service as United States Ambassador to the United Nations has been impeccable. She has answered all questions raised in relation to the Benghazi attacks completely and repeatedly. The Senate committees of jurisdiction are in the midst of examining the events leading up to the Benghazi attacks, and I agree with those— including the ranking Republican members of both the Intelligence and Homeland Security committees—who have said we should let the committees do their work. There should be no place for such blatant partisanship in oversight of our nation’s intelligence community.

The election is over. It is time to drop these partisan political games, and focus our attention on the real challenges facing us as a nation.

I'm a progressive that would have no problem if President Obama showed Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner or Attorney General Eric Holder the door. Rice was not in charge of security of the Benghazi consulate. The CIA approved the talking points Rice used that McCain and Graham ha e taken issue with. The consulate of under Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's duties. NcCain a.d Graham do not want to pick a fight with Obama's most popular cabinet member. The fact that they targeted a black woman says much about their true motives.

Tom Ricks Call Out Fox News

Former Washington Post national security reporter Tom Ricks goes on Fox News and publicly calls out the network for politicizing the Benghazi tragedy. The results are hysterical.

Side note: Fox News is really starting to crumble after Karl Rove's public meltdown.

Update: FNC executive VP of news Michael Clemente, ofFox News, claims Ricks apologized to them. Rick states that is not so.

“Please ask Mr. Clemente what the words of my supposed apology were. I’d be interested to know,” he said. “Frankly, I don’t remember any such apology.”

Fox News is doing damage control by falsely stating that Ricks begged for forgiveness. Judging by his appearance on Fox News, I don't think Ricks is concerned about pissing off the network.

John McCain Blows Off Benghazi Briefing

President Barack Obama called out Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John McCain for their politically motivated attacks on Benghazi. CNN asked McCain why he missed a briefing on Benghazi, McCain had a public meltdown.

“I have no comment about my schedule and I’m not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media,” McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn’t comment, McCain grew agitated: “Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, “I’m upset that you keep badgering me.”

We saw this in the 2008 campaign. When McCain goes toe to toe politically with Obama he chokes in a very big way. If the Republicans want a national security attack dog then it needs to be someone else but McCain. Personally, I see McCain blowing off the briefing as proof Ochoa lack of seriousness of national security issues. This is old news to me.

Bill Young on David Petraeus Scandal

Rep. Bill Young was briefed by acting CIA Director Michael Morell. What Young said was not encouraging.

"I still don't know where this goes. I have a concern that it might go far deeper than we think. Not the personal issue but the issue as it relates to intelligence and national defense," Young said in an interview Tuesday night.

Young cannot talk about his briefing with Morell. What could be getting the attention of the CIA is Paula Broadwell's comments on Benghazi. Broadwell claimed the attack was a reprisal for the CIA taken two Libyan militia members as prisoners.

"Now I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted," she said.

That was not reported at the time. The CIA is unlikely to ever confirm such an operation. Another sign that Broadwell received classified information is from the FBI search of her computer.

The contents of the classified material and how Broadwell acquired it remain under investigation, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to comment publicly. But the quantity of classified material found on the computer was significant enough to warrant a continuing investigation, the">ad officials told Reuters.

Petraeus was interviewed today and denied he gave Broadwell access to classified information. Broadwell admitted to the FBI that she stole documents. What I would like to know is how Broadwell got a security clearance and only had it revoked after the affair became public.

The Second Term Obama

We may finally be seeing the tougher President Obama that progressives have demanded. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John McCain made it clear that they intend to go after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over the Benghazi attacks. Obama had these words directed at Graham and McCain.

But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose — if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity — the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.

Damn. Where has this Obama been the past four years.

Why anyone takes McCain and Graham seriously on national security is beyond me. The truth is they are clueless on national security issues. Think Progress is very friendly with the Obama administration and is going after McCain and Graham for defending Condoleezza Rice's intelligence failures on the 9-11 attacks and Iraq WMD intelligence.

Rice was pressed after stonewalling to releal the title of the August 6, 2001 CIA PDB. The title of the PDB is "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." The PDB warned of future al-Qaida was planning future attacks and hijackings. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission was untruthful and embarrassing.

Rice went on CNN with the unfounded claim that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in development. Rice made this famous comment to Wolf Blitzer.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

As we now know, there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. Rice commits two of the biggest intelligence failures in U.S. history and is rewarded with a featured speaking role at the RNC.

Just for fun: watch the Youtube video of Sen. McCain telling Wolf Blitzer that Americans can walk freely in Baghdad during the height of the surge. CNN's Michael Ware's informs Blitzer that an American "would barely last twenty minutes out there." No one should take the man that advocated staying in Iraq 100 years seriously.