Rachel Maddow's Theory on the Repuke Political Gamesmanship with Susan Rice is Correct!

There is no gainsaying the fact that Rachel Maddow is one of the most brilliant articulators in all of television. Her intellect stands like a shining beacon as brilliant as a thousand suns compared to all the blow-dried wannabes on the Right, and other pretenders (like Nora O'Donnell) in the mainstream Corporate Wurlitzer. You see, Rachel not only articulates but provides marvelous insight as she does so. Truly, I cannot understand how anyone who adopts the monicker "liberal" isn't watching her night after night.

Two nights ago, Rachel put forward what I believe is the only credible theory concerning the Republicans' continued Benghazi-based witch hunt of Susan Rice. Rice, a Rhodes Scholar, is possibly a nominee for Hillary Clinton's position at State, which is exactly why the Repubs are grand standing and carrying on as if she's really CONDI Rice - one of the inveterate liars that got us into the Iraq mess.

As Rachel asked: What can explain this fixation, which borders on obsessive compulsive disorder, or at least unchecked paranoia? What can explain people like John McCain and Lindsay Graham harassing Ms. Susan Rice when they easily gave Condi a pass for her own appointment at State - for the Bush Jr. first term? What can explain their continued attitude of condescension ("She can't be very bright!" - John McCain) and hostility? Especially when Rice was not even in the State Dept. when the Benghazi attack unfolded but the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. All Rice did was appear briefly on a Sunday morning talk show - not even before any formal court, or after swearing in, and you'd think she was the next thing to Bin Ladin's wife the way Graham, McCain, Bob Corker (TN) and now even Susan Collins (supposedly the most level headed) are carrying on!

Rachel's theory is simple and brilliant: The Reeps are carrying on as if all their sacred cows were gored at once because they are using political theater - under the ruse of the Benghazi incident (which has already been explained to them repeatedly) - as a means to force Obama to appoint John Kerry instead, thereby forcing a special election for his Massachusetts Senate seat. They are betting that their one time Tea Pot hero, Scott Brown, will be the benefactor and thereby return to the Senate! (Some deluded Dems actually don't believe this will be a 'biggie', but they are fooling themselves!)

At first glance, the linear plodding brain has problems, as it does with conspiracies, because it's unable to think at two different levels at once. In addition, the plodding brain can't see that the Repukes are all about exploiting political crises to further their political ends, agendas. "Aw, they'd never make such a fuss just to get an extra Senate seat!" Oh yes they would!  They are just as petty, craven and cynical as they've always been, and they'd stoop to that and even lower! Make no mistake!

Otherwise, why the fuck keep harassing Susan Rice, even after she gave these asswipes an hour of her time, accompanied by the Assistant CIA Director? As I already observed, the intelligence community (including CIA, NRA and NSA) would never have divulged what they REALLY believed  to have transpired at Benghazi in talking points to a UN Ambassador. Thus, the intelligence community would have massaged the actual facts so that too much was not given away...especially to bloodthirsty witch hunters - who as it was, on account of their obsession, had already exposed details of U.S. Embassy security operations!

But will the Reeps acknowledge this? NO! Because to do so means they can't keep their anti-Susan Rice appointment bandwagon (circus?) going!

This is all the more reason why Obama and the Dems must dig in on this and not relent! Obama needs to forthwith formally appoint the well-qualified Ms. Rice and let the chips fall where they may! Most especially, the chips will show a retinue of white Reepos harassing and impugning the character of an intelligent black woman. It will show other minorities that in no way are these Reepos changelings, even after an election in which the minority vote was the deciding factor.

Obama lose "political capital"? Fuck no! The Reepos will for the next election, and the next, and the next....

Footnote (11/30):

Major kudos to Rachel again, for last night's segment in which she showed clips of ALL the Susan Rice opponents campaigning openly and vigorously for Scottie Brown! The clips included: Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), loudly proclaiming Brown as her "ally", Susan Collins (R-ME) yucking it up with Brown at her side at a rally and John McCain loudly proclaiming  "THIS is the man I want in the Senate more than anyone else!"

BUSTED!

Uh, in respect to Rachel's theory, can we now say CASE CLOSED!

Kelly Ayotte, questioned  yesterday about Rachel's theory by Andrea Franklin, dismissed it as "absurd". Maybe, lady, YOU are the one absurd as you take the rest of us for simpletons!

Impeachment: The Worst Mistake the GOP Could Ever Make

Condi Rice: Wasn’t held to account, nor was Bush Jr. impeached, when it was discovered there were no WMD in Iraq and she had “misrepresented” Saddam’s link to al Qaeda. Susan Rice, therefore, is even less to blame given she wasn’t even at State during the Benghazi incident but the UN Ambassador, merely relaying the info she had at the time. Reeps need to lay off Susan and Obama, and drop their feverish impeachment bullshit.

As "the Benghazi brain fever" seems to have infected the Beltway and particularly found a life of its own in the Reeper -led House (aided and abetted by an always distracted corporate media hungry for conflicts), the I-word has indeed come up, as Ed Schulz pointed out last night. A group calling itself  'The Conservative Majority' is actually robo-calling reep imps...errrr...voters across the land (those not taken up by secession) and asking them to harass their GOOpr reps into initiating impeachment proceedings for "high crimes and misdemeanors"  against newly re-elected Barack Obama, starting after his inauguration.

Well, as Ed said, if you can't beat Obama fairly in the election, use dirty tricks and impeachment to try to retroactively repeal the will of the voters, like they tried to do with Bill Clinton.

But this time, the Reepos are making a capital, grade A mistake. Bear in mind this is the same President-elect that tens of millions of Latinos chose, as well as Asian -Americans (as Chris Hayes pointed out on his 'UP' program two weeks ago) as well as young women and African-Americans. These are the same demographics the GOP would LIKE to grab, but which even their most solid supporters have admitted they won't unless they alter their approach. (Former MS governor Hayley Barber yesterday actually suggested the Gooprs submit to a "proctology exam". Hey, Hayley! I don't think any such exam could go 'deep enough' to remove all the backed up shit in Goopr-land!)

Now just days ago we beheld all these constituencies thoroughly dissed by 'Sore Loser in Chief' Mitt Romney when he blamed his defeat to Barack on the federal government "gifts" doled out to young women (contraceptives), young people overall (forgiven interest on college debt), Latinos (allowing young people 18 and under to remain in the U.S., and go on track for citizenship) and African-Americans (provisions of 'Obamacare' so they are not denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions).

Romney was evidently too dumb to grasp (as many complaining Reepos, e.g. Bobby Jindal,  are in response to his brain fart) that when you dismiss all your potential voters as "takers" you are essentially showing them you have zero respect for them, period. So why the hell would they vote for your sorry lot in the next election cycle?  They'd have to be stupid to even think of wasting a vote on the GOP brand!

Now, with insane Reepos fomenting impeachment, these Teepee Reepo idiots are going one howler further, by alienating the Obama constituencies not only as "takers" but de-legitimizing their choice overall!  How much more will these frothing freaks pile it on? Don't they know when to quit? Don't they know that merely disabling the Obama administration by impeachment proceedings will forever put the GOP in the sights of the Obama constituencies forever?  As consummate sore losers who can't get along, if nothing else? Even if they don't succeed in impeaching Barack, the GOP pursuers will make themselves totally foul to all the Obama constituencies. They will treat the GOP forever as lepers, or harboring some kind of transmittable brain parasites!  Those constituencies will also grasp that any such impeachment is merely a cover for removal of a President they couldn't beat outright in a fair election.

And what exactly is the putative basis for these  "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Evidently it's all about Benghazi and who knew what when. Even former Bushie Condoleeza Rice is getting into the act, commenting on the situation and Susan Rice. This is nothing short of incredible given that Condi was at the very center of the 'Saddam has WMD" and "Saddam is linked to al Qaeda" lies. Which were subsequently found to be all hogwash. Yet was Condi pulled up by her thumbs, as the GOOPS are doing with Susan Rice (who didn't even hold Condi's equivalent post, but rather was UN Ambassador.) Was Condi's boss Bush Dumbya pulled up and over for impeachment proceedings, for lying to Condi, or telling her to sow misinformation on Saddam? No, how could he be, when the REEPs controllled the House which would have been charged with bringing such proceedings!

Rice has apparently chimed in on several fronts, undoubtedly seeking to provide fodder for the investigative morons in the House. A segment of transcript of her remarks reads as follows:

“When you have the ambassador walking off to talk to the Turkish [consul general] in the courtyard on 9/11– something doesn’t seem quite right to me about the level of security preparations at the consulate.

“When you hear Secretary Clinton talk about an Accountability Review Board, that’s what they will look at. It is headed by five retired officers…I think they’ll do a good job, but we need to know, and those decisions– it’s not clear where they were made in the State Department…The regional security officer is the head diplomatic security officer in the consulate. This one had come back in July, he had reportedly asked that some additional security be kept on the ground, so something didn’t get right in terms of the decisions about security on the ground prior to the attack.”

  Of course, all of this is pure speculation, since Condi - not being in any formal loop anymore, has nothing whatever to go by.  It's also incredible she'd read anything sinister into a UN Ambassador talking to the Turkish General Consul. So what? Do you have a worthwhile conspiracy theory? If so, let's hear it.   As far as her babble about the "decisions concerning security" - obviously questioning them, maybe she needs to ask the Reep House why they cut $300 m  for Embassy funding and security across the globe, including in Barbados.

The GOP House budget cuts, however, forced all embassies to cut back, and security is one of the recurring expenses. Don't ask for whom the cuts toll, they toll for thee!  

Condi rambles on:  

"The second big issue is what happened during that eight or nine hours.  And there I think the proper place to understand that has to be the congressional intelligence committees, in Senate and Congress.  There is a lot that has to be understood about what is the role of the CIA was in all of this.  "  

At least here she displays some ballast and sense, although I personally would have preferred a congressional intel committee not headed by a Reepo witch hunter. I am sure Petraeus will be a 'good soldier' and do his duty, even if no longer in any official capacity. Its the Reepo wolves with whom we must concern ourselves and how they will use anything as ammo against our Prez!  

Finally, Condi says: 

 "And the third thing is, okay, so the administration kept shifting its story.  One day it was apparently terror…Susan Rice says it was the video.."  

But this "shifting the story" is the media-REEP byline, and bear in mind they all exhibit the attention span of gnats. 'Shfiting of story' is more likely due to shifting, rapidly paced events happening almost in concert. In logic we refer to a 'disjunctive plurality of causes". In other words, multiple causes at almost the same time as opposed to a linear one-cause to one effect, more agreeable to the simpleton brain.   For example, most genuine conspiracies hitherto exposed (e.g. BCCI, JFK assassination, Iran-Contra) have invariably been molded from a 'disjunctive plurality of causes'. Constructed more as a kind of parallel architecture - or unfolding of parallel and simultaneous operations. This is why most are so difficult to unravel, because they're approached by people -media seeking linear, one cause- to- one effect  connections.  

This Benghazi thing will continue to play out, but the Reeps are well advised not to jump to conclusions, or try to use the impeachment gambit to grab the validity they whiffed on in the recent election.  

Romney Shows Himself Unfit to Lead

“Hmmmmm…now folksies, if the right thumb comes up today I lead Neocon -style and we start a war in the Persian Gulf. But if the left thumb comes up then I do just what Obama’s been doin’!”

Well, it's come down to this: the final debate last night on foreign policy issues as the nation waited with bated breath to see if Mitt Romney could present himself as an alternative leader of this nation for the next four years. The verdict - from at least the sane people who watched- Romney failed the test miserably! As one commentator so aptly put it: "Just because you sit next to the Commander--in -Chief doesn't mean you pass the Commander-in-Chief test."

Indeed, but the issues are even more fundamental than that as Beau Biden pointed out this a.m. on 'Morning Joe'. They entail a man's character and adherence to principles and vision, which Romney showed last night that he lacked.

On every issue, from Libya, to Syria, to use of drones, to leaving Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Egypt and deposing Mubarak, Romney sided with Obama. It was more like being in an 'echo chamber' than watching a debate! We had to wonder, my guests and I last night, which Mitt Pod person (recall 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers')  had suddenly managed to take over the old Mitt. You know, the one at the Repuke convention and on the campaign trail. The one who vowed to an APAC confab that oh yes, he'd send battle ships into the Persian Gulf and fire missiles on Tehran if need be. And no, you can't just leave Afghanistan so, there has to be a slower pullout. And by the way, as for Syria, prompted by his Neocon policy makers (like Condi Rice and John Bolton) we have to leave open the possibility of ground troops.

Then the biggest howler of the night: When this guy, who fancies himself a future president (and even said more than once 'When I am President') actually declared that Syria is "Iran's path to the sea". HUH??!! And WTF!?

If Romney had even checked a World Atlas prior to his appearance, he'd have seen that Iran doesn't need Syria to gain access to any sea. Nope. The Persian Gulf stretches across its southern border and opens into the Arabian Sea.

My point? If this pretender doesn't even know the geographical layout of one of the most critical regions, how can he plan any credible geopolitical strategy?  He can't! To me, he failed the most basic test you can give a would-be candidate in not knowing the basic geography of the nations he will seek to force his form of "peace" on - obviously by Pax Americana. ("Pax Americana" was described by JFK in a June 4, 1963 speech at American University in Washington, D.C., as a peace "enforced by American weapons of war". We also note Mitt used the word 'peace' no fewer than 39 times last night, and I believe he means Pax Americana!)

Now, two groups of viewers can come away from last night with two distinct perceptions and I will deal with each briefly. There are those like me who often heard Romney's bellicose bombast both at the Repub convention and on the campaign trail the past 14 months, and know the Romney that showed up at the debate is not the Romney that forcefully articulated a decided militarist-interventionist slant earlier. In other words, he's a fake, an empty suit. What the Chinese and Zen students refer to as "a hollow man". Some,  like our guest last night,  put it even more bluntly: "He's a FRAUD!"

We also are quite aware that Romney's actual advisors - including John Bolton, Condi Rice, are former Bushie Neocons who got us into the budget busting Iraq war. So when viewing last night, we pay no attention to this salesman trying to pass himself off as another JFK, NO - we look at what he declared previously and also those he hired into his advisor ranks - including Gen. Tommy Franks - the bombastic warmonger who vowed once to reduce Iraq to burnt out cinders if need be even as as he warned Muslims "My GOD can BEAT your GOD!".  THESE are the people Mitt has actually put on his payroll, so WHO you gonna believe? Mitt or your lyin' eyes? Come now! The new Mitt, who sounds more like JFK in his June, 1963 Pax Americana speech, or the Mitt who hired actual Neocons to guide his foreign policy?

The stupid people or maybe ignorant if we wish to be generous - though with all the sources available this is hard to accept - will think Romney presented himself as a legitimate and credible alternative to Barack Obama. These people are dreaming, and I only hope to god that if they bring that supreme dumbness into the voting booths that their votes are cancelled out by a surfeit of smarter voters. Otherwise, friends, we are in what the Bajans call "duck's guts".

At issue then is character. A man who flees from his own sternly taken previous positions regarding war and peace, is a man that can't be trusted. A man who has hired warmongers for his future cabinet then casually rejects them in a debate to 'sway' voters, is a chameleon-  not a worthy candidate and certainly not a leader who can be trusted to implement foreign policy. .He lacks convictions, character and abiding principles. We absolutely cannot have such a man sitting in the White House within arm's reach of the nuclear 'football' with its nuclear attack codes.

People now have to make their minds up on which person they want running the country for the next 4 years: A proven Commander-in -Chief who has re-established respect for the U.S. in the world (never mind the other Romney bollocks about Obama's 'Apology tour' - a bastard meme dreamed up in the psycho ward blogs of Rightists) and has taken out dozens of al-Qaeda enemies - including Osama bin Laden - while guiding U.S. interests in a democracy movement across the Middle East.

Or, a hack, glorified  used car salesman, lacking character, principles, conviction and vision who will say anything to try to get in proximity to the Oval Office where he can wreak havoc on us all - whether via starting two new wars (using the $2 trillion he wants to award the Pentagon) or driving the deficit up another $7 trillion - then blaming it on Obama and the Dems.

The choice is now before us. We've seen both men in three key confrontations.

The decision is clear as day for me, and I hope most other people in this country. Of course, here in Colo. as in many other states, most of us have already voted early - as wifey and I did last week! You can guess our votes if you wish!