Tag Archives: Mccain

March 7, 2013 · 6:04 PM

John McCain And Lindsey Graham Just Ripped Into Rand Paul On The Senate Floor

Looks like there’s a battle brewing in Congress between the old guard and the new guard.

Business Insider

U.S. Sen. John McCain blasted fellow Republican Rand Paul on the Senate floor this morning for his 13-hour filibuster to block John Brennan‘s confirmation as CIA Director.

“Calm down, Senator,” McCain said, in an apostrophe to Paul. “The U.S. government cannot randomly target U.S. citizens.”

In his filibuster Wednesday, Paul criticized the White House over its drone policies, and for refusing to rule out military strikes against U.S. citizens on American soil.

McCain, a staunch foreign policy hawk, said Thursday that Paul’s warnings that the U.S. could target “Jane Fonda” or “people in cafes” bring the debate into the “realm of the ridiculous.”

“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids,” McCain said, adding: “I don’t think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) echoed these criticisms, adding that he was “disappointed” in the 13 Republican Senators who supported Paul’s filibuster last night.

Graham later told reporters that he will vote to confirm Brennan as a result of the filibuster.

IT’S WAR: John McCain And Lindsey Graham Are Tearing Into Rand Paul Right Now On The Senate Floor (businessinsider.com)
McCain And Graham’s @SenRandPaul Temper Tantrum (thecampofthesaints.org)
RINO Senators McCain, Graham Charge At Paul (personalliberty.com)
McCain, Graham Attack Rand Paul for Anti-Drone Filibuster (news.antiwar.com)
Moronic: Sen. McCain blasts Sen. Paul’s filibuster as ‘political stunt,’ ‘ridiculous’ (twitchy.com)
McCain, Graham Slam Paul’s ‘Ridiculous’ Filibuster (newser.com)

2 Comments

Filed under GOP

Tagged as Jane Fonda, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mccain, Paul, Rand Paul, Republican, Senate

February 15, 2013 · 5:26 PM

McCain Admits Republicans Put Grudges Ahead of National Security in Hagel Filibuster

PoliticusUSA

Republicans have offered up a litany of excuses for filibustering former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel’s appointment as Defense Secretary, and none of them make a lot of sense. But the award of biggest fail belongs to John McCain. John McCain filibustered Hagel yesterday over Hagel’s criticism of Bush, but in 2008 McCain’s harsh unleashing on Bush left no stone unturned.

Republicans are supposed to be rebranding their party, but instead, they’re busy making history by filibustering a defense secretary nominee. This is the first time the filibuster has been used against a defense secretary nominee (note: Republicans are pretending it wasn’t a filibuster). Perhaps Republicans aren’t concerned about national security after all.

Of the many reasons given for obstructing the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered the most insane. After McCain threatened to block Hagel unless the Obama administration answered his questions about Benghazi (McCain was too busy giving interviews on camera complaining about the lack of information on Benghazi to actually attend one of the briefings on Benghazi), and the Obama administration complied, McCain moved the goal post again. Now he’s holding a grudge over Hagel’s criticism of Bush. Apparently McCain thinks that aligning the party with George W Bush will be helpful.

Yesterday McCain cried to Fox News that Hagel has said mean things about George W Bush and people don’t forget that:

To be honest with you Neil, it goes back to there is a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly. At one point said he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover. Said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War which is nonsense. And was very anti his own party and people. People don’t forget that.

If “people” (aka: Republicans) are as petty as McCain said they are, then that would mean that the Republican Party put their grudges about Bush ahead of national security.

This probably isn’t the best argument McCain could have made for the GOP poutrage vote.

Furthermore, this is the same McCain who told the Washington Times in October of 2008 that he rejected many of Bush’s failed policies, and that he would not be four more years of W. McCain listed Bush’s many failures:

“Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously,” Mr. McCain said in an interview with The Washington Times aboard his campaign plane en route from New Hampshire to Ohio.

“Those are just some of them,” he said with a laugh, chomping into a peanut butter sandwich as a few campaign aides in his midair office joined in the laughter.

Those are harsh words. McCain spared Bush nothing, raking him over the coals on his out of control spending, his financial regulatory agency failures, his $10 trillion debt, and of course, “(T)he conduct of the war in Iraq for years”, accused the man who now claims that criticizing the surge is a reason Hagel should not be nominated. Americans await McCain voting against himself, should he be nominated for anything, because people don’t forget.

41 Republicans voted against Hagel’s nomination to head the Pentagon, but he did get 4 votes from Republicans, giving him close the number he needs to overcome a Republican filibuster (essentially 59, he needs 60).

McCain admitted that Hagel is likely to be confirmed after recess, which sounded exactly like it reads: After Republicans get over their preschool recess pout, they will concede that — SIGH — having someone running the Pentagon is probably a decent idea. However, they will have achieved their goal of undermining Hagel and Obama in the eyes of the world, since Hagel will miss a defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels next week. Republicans must be pleased to force America’s defense secretary out of the NATO conference. This is coming from the party that made security at Benghazi an issue. They’d better hope nothing happens unitl they come back from recess. USA! USA! USA!

We can only hope that the rest of the world understands that Republicans are a minority insurgent party that doesn’t represent most Americans, and thus their lack of support is indicative of nothing other than their hurt feelings that they lost yet another national election. Hagel, after all, represents a stark rebuke of the modern day Republican Party. Hagel called out the Iraq debacle at the time, and although he supported McCain’s 2000 run, by 2008 he had drifted to the center (also known as away from crazy).

McCain’s latest excuse is just another reactionary hit, aimed at the messenger instead of the problem. Hagel’s criticisms were valid, and the neo cons will never forgive him for being right. The Republican Senators’ temper tantrum over Hagel should be recalled the next time a Republican tries to suggest that the problem in DC is that Obama won’t work with them.

The costs of the GOP’s Chuck Hagel filibuster (kstreet607.com)
John McCain’s very, very reasonable explanation for why Republicans filibustered Chuck Hagel (dailykos.com)
McCain Admits Republicans Put Grudges Ahead of National Security in Hagel Filibuster (politicususa.com)
McCain Says He’s Opposing Hagel Because Hagel Was Mean To Bush (thinkprogress.org)
McCain Admits That Republicans Are Filibustering GOP Nominee for Defense Because He Spoke the Truth about Bush (pensitoreview.com)
When partisan politics turns petty (maddowblog.msnbc.com)

5 Comments

Filed under John McCain, United States Senate

Tagged as Benghazi, Bush, Chuck Hagel, George W. Bush, Hagel, John McCain, Mccain, Republican

January 8, 2013 · 3:39 PM

John McCain and Chuck Hagel were once BFFs. What happened?

John McCain and Chuck Hagel, best friends no longer.

We’re talking about John McCain here, so anything could have happened to set him off…

The Washington Post – Chris Cillizza

When Chuck Hagel sits before the Senate Armed Services Committee, one face staring back at him will be decidedly familiar — that of Arizona Sen. John McCain.

McCain, the ranking Minority member on Armed Services, and Hagel were once inseparable — two decorated Vietnam veterans who found common-cause in rebelling against their own party orthodoxy. McCain campaigned for Hagel in the latter’s first race back in 1996 – here’s visual evidence — and Hagel was one of four Senators to endorse McCain’s 2000 presidential bid. The duo even had Senate offices close to one another to stay in constant touch.

Now, the two mens’ friendship has, by most accounts, dissolved entirely. McCain, in a statement shortly after Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense was made official Monday, said that he has “serious concerns about positions Senator Hagel has taken on a range of critical national security issues in recent years.”

So, what happened? And why?

The answer, as you might suspect, isn’t a simple one. One Republican familiar with the two men insisted there was “no blow up or argument really” and that Hagel simply “stopped coming by the office or socializing outside the Senate.” In conversations with a number of people familiar with the relationship, however, it’s clear that a combination of policy disagreements, political slights and personality conflicts led to the collapse of a once-close friendship.

The most obvious break in the McCain-Hagel relationship came in the early 2000s over the war in Iraq. While Hagel, like McCain, voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq, he was always wary of America going it alone in the conflict and, as time wore on, became a more and more outspoken critic of the war.

McCain, on the other hand, remained a stalwart defender of the necessity of the war and went on later in the decade to become the face of the surge strategy to put more troops in the country. Hagel opposed that strategy and panned it repeatedly.

“Quite simply, the split began over the length and cost of the Iraq war and Hagel’s decision to not support the surge, which John took as a personal insult,” said one McCain ally granted anonymity to speak candidly about the relationship. “It’s very sad.”

While a disagreement over the right course of action in Iraq might have been the biggest factor in the dissolution of the friendship, politics also played a role in the split.

While Hagel was intimately involved in McCain’s 2000 presidential bid — he served as national co-chairman and was in New Hampshire the night the Arizona Senator won the Granite State presidential primary — by the time McCain ran for president again in 2008 Hagel was much less on board.

Not only did he not endorse McCain, but Hagel also didn’t entirely dismiss the idea of serving as then Sen. Barack Obama’s vice presidential nominee. (Hagel’s wife endorsed Obama in the 2008 race.)

Then, in 2012, Hagel endorsed the candidacy of former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) in the Cornhusker State’s open seat Senate race, a move that badly rankled McCain, who had endorsed Kerrey’s opponent — Republican Deb Fischer — and campaigned with her the day after Hagel made his endorsement of Kerrey public.

Adding to their policy and political disagreements, there was (and is) the fact that McCain and Hagel are similar enough in terms of their personalities — hard charging, irascible, certain that their deeply-held beliefs are correct — that they were always destined to be either best friends or the exact opposite. Put simply: The very personality traits that made McCain and Hagel fast friends in the mid 1990s is what has driven them apart in the last few years.

While no one disputes that the once-close relationship is in tatters, one source familiar with the two men voiced hope that the break is temporary, not permanent. ”It’s like brothers who get in a big fight and don’t talk for a while.” said the source. “They’re still brothers.”

Maybe. How McCain treats Hagel during the confirmation process will be a telling indicator of whether a reconciliation is in the offing or whether the relationship has been irreparably damaged.

FLASHBACK: GOP Senators Praised Chuck Hagel’s Statesmanship, Foreign Policy Expertise (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
Team Hagel Versus Team Anti-Hagel (thepage.time.com)
McCain statement on Hagel nomination ()
Amid tension, Obama taps Hagel as defense secretary (cbsnews.com)
FLASHBACK: GOP Senators Praised Chuck Hagel’s Statesmanship, Foreign Policy Expertise (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com)
In Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, a wariness of war – Boston Globe (bostonglobe.com)

3 Comments

Filed under John McCain

Tagged as Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Hagel, John McCain, Mccain, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Senate

December 4, 2012 · 12:16 AM

Oops! McCain Once Offered Identical Assessment As Susan Rice On Benghazi Attack

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

It will be extremely interesting to see Senator McCain wiggle out of this conundrum…

Think Progress

Just three days after the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said there were “demonstrations” at the U.S. diplomatic mission there and that the attackers “seized this opportunity to attack our consulate.” McCain also said during this Sept. 14 press conference on Capitol Hill that he wasn’t certain whether al-Qaeda perpetrated the assault.

Yet McCain has been leading a smear campaign against U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for essentially making the same assessment two days later on the Sept. 16 Sunday talks shows. Making clear that a more thorough forthcoming investigation would provide better information for “definitive conclusions,” here’s what Rice said about the Benghazi attack on that day, from CBS’s Face the Nation:

SUSAN RICE: Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that — in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

McCain has since blasted Rice for making this assessment. Here’s what McCain said on CNN last month during the height of his smear campaign against the U.N. Ambassador:

MCCAIN: It was obvious within 24 hours that the station chief from the CIA had said this was a terrorist attack. It was obvious to one and all that this was not a “spontaneous demonstration” because in real time, they saw there was no demonstration. … Everybody knew that it was an al Qaeda attack, and she continued to tell the world through all of the talk shows that it was a “spontaneous demonstration” sparked by a video. That is not competence in my view

But McCain’s analysis of what occurred in Benghazi in the days after the attack on Sept. 14 mirrors Rice’s assessment during her Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances, saying that the attackers took advantage of a demonstration at the U.S. diplomatic mission:

MCCAIN: It’s hard to know exactly what took place and how long it was planned, and — I don’t have that information. I know very well that there were demonstrations, that there was a group of either al-Qaida or some radical Islamists who — about 15 of them, armed with RPGs and other lethal weapons, that seized this opportunity to attack our consulate. And it was an act of terror. It wasn’t an act of a mob getting out of control. We should understand that. This was a calculated act of terror on the part of a small group of jihadists, not a mob that somehow attacked and sacked our embassy.

So both McCain and Susan Rice believed at roughly the same point after the the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that the terrorists took advantage of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islam video at the U.S. diplomatic mission there. And like Rice, McCain couldn’t say definitively if it was al Qaeda. When asked if it was al-Qaeda during his Sept. 14 press conference, McCain said, “It certainly was extremist elements. If it’s not al-Qaida, it’s certainly one of the affiliated organizations.”

As is now known, on Sept. 16, Rice was presenting the assessment of what happened in Benghazi that was given to her by the U.S. intelligence community and that assessment turned out to be inaccurate. CIA officials initially thought that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack, but intelligence officials agreed that a more general term of “extremists” would suffice in Rice’s talking points.

The Arizona Republican has also claimed that Rice should have changed her assessment because shortly before her appearance on Face the Nation, a top Libyan official “said that this was an al Qaeda attack.” But in fact, the official, Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf, didn’t give a definitive assessment and said only “a few of them” were connected to the terror group, and that others were “affiliates and maybe sympathizers.” But even if el-Magariaf had been more sure, it would have been irresponsible for Rice to endorse and share a view she knew to be inconsistent with what U.S. intelligence officials had provided.

Palin: Racist, Sexist Claims Distract From Susan Rice Competency (washington.cbslocal.com)
The Ultimate Guide To McCain’s Smear Campaign Against Susan Rice (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
McCain Attacks Rice On Assessment He Once Held (huffingtonpost.com)
Susan Rice to meet with McCain on Benghazi (cbsnews.com)
McCain Backs Away From Benghazi Conspiracies (thinkprogress.org)
Would You Like Some Crow With That Rice, Senator McCain? (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
McCain Gets Petty On Susan Rice Attacks: It’s ‘Meaningless To Take Out Core Al-Qaeda’ (thinkprogress.org)

2 Comments

Filed under John McCain, Terrorism, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Tagged as al Qaeda, Benghazi, Face The Nation, John McCain, Mccain, Rice, Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations

November 25, 2012 · 6:03 PM

Would You Like Some Crow With That Rice, Senator McCain?

The Daily Dish – Andrew Sullivan

The irascible douche now acknowledges there is no evidence that Susan Rice was responsible for editing CIA talking points after the Benghazi attack, and that the DNI gave her what she subsequently went on TV with. End of scandal. No formal retractionor apology of course:

Today’s news comes just a week after McCain went on national television and claimed that Rice’s “talking points came from the White House, not from the DNI. He added on Fox that “I think it’s patently obvious that the talking points that Ambassador Rice had didn’t come from the CIA. It came from the White House.” For weeks, McCain has lambasted the administration forengaging in “either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence” on the Benghazi attack.

Of course, McCain believed it was perfectly obvious that Saddam had WMDs in Iraq. And so did I. I’ve learned to wait for the facts a little bit longer before jumping to conclusions of conspiracy or mendacity.

Soledad O’Brien destroys GOP over Benghazi, Susan Rice (video) (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
McCain backs down attack on Susan Rice’s Benghazi comments (tv.msnbc.com)
McCain Officially Admits He Was Wrong on Benghazi Without Admitting It (themoderatevoice.com)
McCain Backs Away From Benghazi Conspiracies (thinkprogress.org)
John McCain Softens Opposition To Susan Rice Nomination (huffingtonpost.com)
McCain, Graham keep heat on Rice, but appear to soften attacks (foxnews.com)

2 Comments

Filed under John McCain, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Tagged as Benghazi, Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, John McCain, Mccain, Rice, Susan Rice, White House

November 17, 2012 · 2:59 PM

John McCain’s temper tantrums: A video history

Perhaps it’s time for the good Senator to hang up his hat and call it a day…

The Week

The Arizona Senator got snippy with reporters twice in one week, reminding us all that it doesn’t take much to make the Maverick lose his cool

A disgruntled-looking John McCain talks with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on November 15, 2011.

This was a rough week for John McCain. On Thursday, the Arizona senator and former GOP presidential nominee missed a classified briefing on the Benghazi consulate attack because he was busy holding a press conference about the lack of information about that very consulate attack. Pressed to comment on the mix-up by a CNN reporter, McCain snapped. ”I have no comment about my schedule and I’m not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media,” he told CNN‘s Ted Barrett. “I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?“

Watch…

On Wednesday, a reporter asked McCain if the David Petraeus sex scandal posed a greater threat to national security than the Benghazi attack. A perturbed McCain responded: ”With great respect, that’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard.“

Watch…

Of course, McCain has a long history of losing his cool in public. Let’s take a walk down memory lane and reflect on four of the Maverick’s sassiest moments:

1. McCain vs. the “little jerk” (2007): During a question-and-answer session at campaign stop in New Hampshire, one young audience member asked McCain if his age might impact his ability to lead the country, and wondered allowed whether the Republican worried about dying in office. McCain: “Thanks for the question, you little jerk.”

2. McCain vs. The New York Times (2008): On a plane ride in 2008, McCain got grumpy with New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller after she questioned him about a 2004 meeting he had with John Kerry, during which Kerry hinted at a VP slot for McCain. “You know it,” McCain insisted. “You know it. So I don’t even know why you asked.”

3. McCain vs. Sen. Max Baucus (2009): During a Senate debate on health care costs, McCain became ”visibly peeved at Sen. Max Baucus,” and even stepped out from behind his podium to angrily point his finger around the room. When Baucus relentlessly interjected, McCain snapped,“If the senator keeps interrupting he is violating the rules of the Senate. I thought he would have learned them by now.”

4. McCain vs. hecklers (2012): While stumping for Republican Senate candidate Jeff Flake in Arizona, McCain took on a group of hecklers in the crowd, calling them jerks and telling them to shut up. He also stuck his tongue out at them. “I’m getting too old to put up with jerks like you,” he said.

McCain jumps the shark (samefacts.com)
Republican Desperation Grows as Benghazi Backfires and Scandal Talk Fizzles (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
The Ultimate Guide To McCain’s Smear Campaign Against Susan Rice (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
John McCain Demands Investigation of His Own Sanity (planetpov.com)
You: McCain Lashes Out at CNN (thedailybeast.com)
John McCain has meltdown when asked why he didn’t attend Benghazi briefing (dailykos.com)

1 Comment

Filed under John McCain, U.S. Politics

Tagged as Benghazi, CNN, John McCain, Max Baucus, Mccain, Republican, Senate, Ted Barrett

November 16, 2012 · 8:07 AM

Soledad O’Brien destroys GOP over Benghazi, Susan Rice (video)

Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) is apparently not on the same page as Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham on this issue…although his original statement was meant to be the standard talking point the two senators want to send out to the press, Rep. Heck unitentionally muddies the waters a bit…

America Blog – John Aravosis

I am seriously loving CNN’s Soledad O’Brien of late. Have always enjoyed her work, but lately the woman has been on fire when it comes to dealing with political types who are clearly playing games with the truth. (As part of my homage to Soledad, see this post detailing her feat of “Sol-splaining” the truth to political hacks.)

Today it was GOP Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada, who was on Soledad’s show to talk about John McCain and Lindsay Graham trying to kill UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s expected nomination to be Secretary of State. McCain and Graham are upset with Rice because they thinks he lied, or didn’t know enough, about the situation in Libya immediately following the attack on our consulate and CIA outpost there.

Soledad is not impressed.

During their talk, Soledad pointed out – as I do in my post this morning – that McCain and Graham seem to be taking a hypocritical stance on Susan Rice’s nomination since they didn’t seem to have any problem with Condi Rice’s nomination to the same job, even though she did something far worse than Susan Rice. Condi aided the Bush administration in lying its way in to a war, Iraq, that has cost us trillions of dollars and countless American, and Iraqi, lives. That’s a lot bigger than 4 casualties at a US consulate in Libya.

In response, GOP Rep. Heck , who’s on the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating the administration over the Libya attack, appears to exonerate Susan Rice, and instead prove that Condi Rice should have been the one blocked from becoming Secretary of State. The video is below, but here’s NYT columnist Charles Blow’s take on what Heck just said:

CHARLES BLOW: What I’m trying to figure out, are you saying that Condoleeza Rice actually should have known, because she had more intimacy with the information [WMD in Iraq] and then still said something that she knew was wrong, and that in fact Susan Rice is a sacrificial lamb because she was put out as the face of the administration for something that she didn’t know anything [about], so in fact that’s more of a defense of Susan Rice than it is a condemnation of Susan Rice. That’s how it sounds to me.

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: That’s what it sounds like to me, so, forgive me sir, will you walk us through this one more time. You think it’s different because Condoleeza Rice actually had first-hand knowledge?

And Heck just continues reiterating that Susan Rice’s situation is far worse than Condis’ because Condi was heavily involved in Iraq war planning and Susan Rice was not heavily involved in what happened in Benghazi. Which only goes to prove that Susan Rice shouldn’t be the Republican party’s scapegoat.

Then again, far be it for the Republicans to turn down the chance to beat up on a woman, and a black woman at that. Rice should consider herself fortunate that she wasn’t a Latina too.

Here’s the video – great television, and a great job by Soledad and Charles Blow.

Obama Defends Susan Rice Against ‘Outrageous’ McCain, Graham Attack (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
Rep. Heck: Condoleeza and Susan Rice both had wrong information (cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com)
McBitter McCain too busy hammering Susan Rice for the cameras to attend briefing on Benghazi (dailykos.com)
Rep. Heck: Fmr. Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice and Amb. Susan Rice both had wrong information (startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com)
John McCain Supported Condi Rice After Massive Intelligence Failure (goodolewoody.wordpress.com)
Republican Congressman Joe Heck Baffles Soledad O’Brien With Bizarre Quasi-Defense Of Susan Rice (mediaite.com)
John McCain Supported Condi Rice After Massive Intelligence Failure (thinkprogress.org)
McCain And Graham Defended Condoleeza Rice Over Iraq WMD Testimony (buzzfeed.com)

2 Comments

Filed under GOP Hypocrisy, Soledad O’Brien, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Tagged as Benghazi, Condoleezza Rice, Iraq, Joe Heck, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mccain, Republican, Republicans, Rice, Soledad O'Brien, Susan Rice

· 7:22 AM

The Ultimate Guide To McCain’s Smear Campaign Against Susan Rice

This is the same John McCain who referred to then Senator Barack Obama as “that one” in a 2008 presidential debate. It seems Senator McCain is still bitter over the loss of that race.