We have real issues; let's address those

Can we just get past the cable news spectacle of the "Benghazi attack scandal," which was a tragedy in that four Americans were killed in an attack on our Libyan consulate but never a scandal, despite strident efforts by administration opponents to create one.

As for Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador who might be nominated by President Obama to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the idea she "disqualified" herself because of early, incomplete or inaccurate comments about what turned out to be a terrorist group raid on the consulate is laughable. There was no smoking gun when this began and there still isn't one today, not even a whiff.

We hope Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, the two loudest critics of Ms. Rice, actually do keep up their insulting blather should she appear before the Senate as the nominee for State. They might regret the public's reaction to their unwarranted and politically motivated attacks on what had been seen as an outstanding diplomatic career. Remember, she previously was confirmed by the Senate as the U.N. ambassador.

The attention paid to this "issue" must be attributed to Republican anger at the party's rejection in the presidential election and in numerous key Senate and House races on Nov. 6. They should get over it and join with the president and Democrats in Congress to resolve the budget and debt crisis hanging over this country - and to do what we can to defuse tensions in the Mideast.

If they would look closely at Ms. Rice's statements without prejudice, it would be clear that, at worst, she toned down the idea of a terrorist group attack in her initial statement. The most recent information is that it was so as not to give away details of our intelligence network in Libya.

And if she decided to hold back details for any reason, wouldn't that be the normal tack of diplomats or top officials in any U.S. administration or in any government? It would.

Have Republicans forgotten the "case" former Secretary of State Colin Powell made at the U.N. for the urgency of attacking Iraq because the Bush administration was so sure there were "weapons of mass destruction" there? Or that President Bush said as much in his 2003 State of the Union message?

Republicans have more to worry about than gaining a few weak political points on President Obama. In the election, they found themselves not only losing the battle of future demographics but likely only kept control in the House because of obvious gerrymandering of districts in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia, where they held legislative majorities when the 2010 census forced redistricting.

Without those tortured new districts, as Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson pointed out in a recent column, they might have been swept from control of the House as well.

Moving toward compromise with the Obama administration on issues the public wants resolved would be a better move for the GOP, and better for the nation.


If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions