Both Rice's comments and the talking poins on which they were based apparently erred in portraying the attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous reaction to the protests in Cairo. But the charge that she knowingly misled her interviewers or the country is, as President Obama rightly said at his news conference last week, outrageous and utterly unsupported by any evidence.The Times then sets its sights on John McCain, one of the leading voices critical of both Rice (possible nominee for Secretary of State) and the Obama administration itself in its weeks-long denial and obfuscation regarding the events that took place in Benghazi on September 11:
On Sunday's Face the Nation, McCain suggested that Rice might return to his good graces "by publicly coming back on this show and saying, 'I was wrong, I gave the wrong information on your show some weeks ago.' That might be a beginning." No (sniffs The Times), the beginning would be for the senator to apologize to the ambassador.Oh, for heaven's sake, LA Times. Get off your pompous asses and admit that if a Republican president had sent his ambassador out to the major news outlets for a week of interviews that propagated a false narrative that concealed the truth to the American people about a terrorist attack, you'd be at the vanguard calling for impeachment. Your faux outrage isn't fooling anyone.
Stop insulting the intelligence of your readers. At least half of us are on to you.
"Fog of Politics on Benghazi" (Los Angeles Times editorial, November 20, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment