Incurable publicity hound John McCain (he’s on the network talk shows virtually every Sunday morning) has been disparaging Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador the the United Nations, over her public statements regarding the attack in September on an American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
But Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler finds fault with McCain’s criticisms of Rice — especially when compared to his defense of then-Secretary of State nominee Condolleeza Rice during the Iraq War.
Kessler’s detailed report on the matter is HERE:
McCain mischaracterizes Rice’s words and then assumes she should have all the information that is known now about the Benghazi attack. Her claim that there was a protest is clearly wrong, but within the context of that week, it was not off base, since it appeared in news reports quoting witnesses and even in the president’s daily briefing.
As we have written, the administration — and especially the president — appeared suspiciously reluctant to label the attack an act of terrorism. But within the context of all those statements, Susan Rice’s remarks five days after the attack appear to be a sideshow, especially because she had virtually no role in the key issues surrounding the Libyan mission.
Readers know we frown on hypocrisy. Given that McCain was so quick to excuse Condi Rice for making remarks of much greater import, it seems rather unsporting to quickly rush to judgment and mischaracterization in the case of Susan Rice.