Susan Rice, reconsidered. A bit.

Is Susan Rice caught in a political tug-of-war that doesn't actually have anything to do with her?

I've blogged about Susan Rice before. (Rice paper tiger, 11-14-12) That article was, I must admit, a bit skimpy on the reasons for and the basis of Republican opposition to her nomination. This article is to correct some of those inadequacies, and to talk about a new theory as to what the hell is going on. (Not my theory, but worth mentioning. I'll get to that.)

If you need to know, Susan rice is currently the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She is also the "frontrunner" to take over Hillary Clinton's post as Secretary of State (though no appointment has been made, yet). Susan Rice has also been at the center of a controversy over the terrorist attack at Benghazi a few weeks ago, the attack in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were killed (two Americans and seven Libyans were injured).

Shortly after the attacks, Ambassador Rice made the rounds of Sunday-morning talk shows on behalf of the U.S. government to explain just what happened. She based this explanation if what U.S. intelligence sources told her...which later turned out to be incorrect.

Republicans in Congress seized on that report, accusing Rice of lying and perpetrating a cover-up when all she did (according to all available sources) was to make an non-official report to TV audiences based on the data she was given. Incorrect data, as it eventually turned out to be, but still it was the best data she was given.

The Republicans went on the attack, but that attack became weaker as more information became available. That didn't stop the attack. But then David Petraeus, then CIA Director (himself since disgraced due to an inability to keep his pants on), testified that the Benghazi attack was clearly a failure of intelligence, and that sensitive issues and references were removed from the intelligence briefings Rice received. She could hardly be blamed for reporting incorrectly when she had been given incorrect data to report on.

So Petraeus supported Susan Rice and the administration, and blamed intelligence. Now, you can believe that or not; you can agree with it or not. But I think it's important to note what a chagrined John McCain (Rice's mist vocal detractor) had to say about the Petraeus testimony:

"General Petraeus' briefing was comprehensive. I think it was important; it added to our ability to make judgments about what was clearly a failure of intelligence, and described his actions and that of his agency and their interactions with other agencies...I appreciate  his service and his candor."

McCain then made a hasty exit.

The GOP's attack position became weakened. As time wore on, their assault on Rice became progressively weaker, with a note of desperation sounding in their voices. You might expect them to back off from the attack, but no. Instead of backing off, they renewed their attacks.

Which doesn't make much sense, but that isn't the only thing that doesn't make much sense. For some reason, Republicans are falling all over themselves to proclaim John Kerry, a former Democratic candidate for the Presidency and a friend and ally of Barrack Obama, as Obama's best choice for Secretary of State. The Republicans are indicating that Kerry should sail through confirmation. (I smell a rat, but let's not hunt for it just yet. I'll get back to this.)

Back to Susan rice. With the stated basis of Republican attacks on her weakened, the GOP decided to dust of its TARDIS and find something in history to attack her on. What they found were U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, back in 1998. She was then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (head of the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs, created to deal directly with emerging African nations).

(If there was something wrong with the way she did her job then, why is it becoming an issue now? Better question: Why should what happened then, fourteen years ago, be held over her head now? The Republicans are big on getting their questions answered...well, these are mine. But I digress. I do that a lot.)

These Republican assaults on Susan Rice don't really make a lot of sense. At least they didn't, until various MSNBC hosts and commentators, most notably Rachel Maddow, put forth a new theory. This is a bit involved, so stay with me.

John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts and a former Presidential candidate. So was Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts law requires that when a senate seat becomes vacant mid-term, a special election must be held to determine who the new senator will be. When Kennedy died, a special election was held to fill his seat and the winner was Republican Scott Brown. But after finishing Kennedy's term Brown wasn't re-elected. That seat went back to a Democrat, Elizabeth Warren.

Now we come to the why of it all.

If Susan Rice isn't confirmed as Secretary of State, the next most likely nominee would be John Kerry. If Kerry accepts this nomination, and is confirmed, that would leave a senate seat in Massachusetts open. There would have to be a special election to fill it.

This is where Republican Scott Brown, now an ex-senator from Massachusetts, reenters the story.

Brown has already shown that he can win such an election in Massachusetts. The GOP thinks he could do it again. This would give the Republican Party one more seat in a closely divided Senate.

Well, that's Rachel Maddow's theory, anyway. But I have a problem with it, and that problem lies in what such maneuvering won't accomplish. Can't accomplish. It won't give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. It won't change the balance of power between the two parties all that much.

Still, a Senate seat is a Senate seat, and worth something even when it's in the minority. Enough to justify all the effort that the Republicans are making? I don't know, but I am going to be a bit hard to convince.

It's worth noting that Rachel Maddow herself doesn't seem to be entirely convinced. On her show Wednesday night, she indicated that something else must be happening, that there must be some hidden dimension to all of this that we're not seeing. "I don't think we've gotten to the bottom of it yet."

In my opinion, Susan Rice would make a fine Secretary of State, but she and John Kerry can't be the only choices for the job. Wouldn't it stick in the collective Republican craw if Obama replaced Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton? Or Colin Powell? Both are qualified - in Bill Clinton's case over qualified - and there must be other possibilities that haven't occurred to me.

John McCain would be beside himself. And after all his hard work...

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Maddow: GOP attacking Rice so Kerry will leave Senate (The Raw Story)

Maddow theorizes real goal Behind Susan Rice Criticism: Vacating John Kerry's Senate Seat (Mediaite)

GOP Senators 'Significantly Troubled' After Susan Rice Meeting (ABC News)

Key Republicans raise new questions about Susan Rice nomination (NBC Politics)

US Embassy bombing in Kenya haunts Rice (Daily Nation, Kenya)

Susan Rice in Wikipedia

2012 Benghazi Attack in Wikipedia