Debt ceiling-what it's not.

It's not a credit card with no limit, as Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin suggest toward the end of this video.  Van Susteren's outrage (shared by Palin) over the idea that POTUS might take over the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling (subject to approval by congress) is incredibly mis-informed.  Raising the debt ceiling is largely a matter of optics--congress regularly reviews (and raises) the ceiling simply to remind themselves of how much they owe (of our money) before they think of borrowing more.  Whether or not the US can borrow more money has absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling--though if the international community of lenders sees that we are so irresponsible as to not review and raise our debt ceiling, they may be disinclined to lend to us.  In addition, the idea of taking the debt ceiling review out of the hands of congress was suggested my Mitch McConnell in 2011.

As far as the first half of the video, Leno is being held up as the only example of a journalist over at CBS with enough balls to call for answers regarding who changed the talking points on Benghazi before Ambassador Rice went on air.  Unfortunately, Leno's balls are not as impressive as his tardiness--the intelligence community has already indicated that they were responsible.  Maybe Leno missed the same meeting McCain missed.

Rice conspiracy explained.

Ok, it's not exactly explained.  However, Rachel Maddow has proffered as reasonable an explanation as any--indeed, it may look like a conspiracy theory, but it's far less crazy than the Susan Rice conspiracy theory.  What happens if Susan Rice is not nominated?  The GOP is suggesting that they'd confirm John Kerry for Secretary of State with no fuss.  If Kerry is nominated, his senate seat opens up and Scott Brown can run for the Massachusetts seat.  Worth a gander here.

McCain's World.

John McCain seems to have lost touch with reality.  Last week he called for hearings on the Benghazi fiasco, which hearings he then missed because he has several more television appearances scheduled so that he could call for hearings on Benghazi.  His questions about Rice have been answered (including the question as to who changed the talking points).  His suggestion that Rice should have used some of the knowledge she gained from the intelligence community to bolster her report to the American people stretches the bounds of good logic--what she knew apart from what she said was classified; this has been the issue all along.  Now he is comparing Benghazi to the death of Bin Laden.  Indeed, he actually called for the release of a photo of POTUS in the situation room watching the Benghazi affair go down just as we saw a photo of POTUS watching the Bin Laden raid go down.  Of course, the former does not exist because the Benghazi attack was not orchestrated by the US.  Were it the case that that photo existed, then we'd have a real conspiracy on our hands.

[READ MORE]

Backwards logic.

While the accusations against Susan Rice are beginning to simmer down, one would expect the opposition to her nomination (which has not been made yet) would take a calmer tone.  Rep. Jeff Duncan has decided to double down, instead, claiming that Rice has been "tainted" by this whole Benghazi affair.  Of course she has, because your party tainted her.  It's a little like throwing a pile of shit at someone and then complaining that he stinks of shit.

This is a brilliant tactic--1. Question the credibility of your opponent; 2. Once her credibility has been restored, argue that it doesn't matter because her reputation has been smeared (with no recognition that you are the one who smeared her). 

(This is not an endorsement of Susan Rice for Secretary of State).

Wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

The non-scandal of Susan Rice's involvement with the Benghazi attack has been unraveling in the last days.  John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been leading the charge against Rice, claiming that she must have lied to protect the Obama administration just before the election.  As it turns out, not only was there no evidence when McCain and Graham began making these accusations; there is now evidence to the contrary--the CIA gave her certain talking points she was allowed to cover, and redacted certain others (including any mention of al Qaeda).  The Washington Post editorial board just published a column calling the GOP attacks bizarre, and pointing out why they are so bizarre.  Nevertheless, the article, which reveals the stupidity of wild, unsubstantiated accusation, ends with one of its own.

The WP editorial board may be correct, but simply indicating the skin color of a certain percentage of the signatories does not make this speculation any less wild than the bizarre GOP attacks they've just described.

McCain's pathetic apology.

I was a fan of John McCain during most of the 2008 election.  I admit, I liked him as the lesser of several evils, but he represented a more moderate Republican (for most of his campaign).  Lately, however, he's been more and more extreme, some say in order to avoid becoming obsolete.  Last Sunday he was pounding the media pavement to get his point across--indeed, we was so busy calling for hearings on Benghazi that he missed the first hearing on Benghazi.  His most relevant statements had to do with Susan Rice and the speculation as to whether she may be nominated to replace Hillary Clinton.  McCain drew a line in the sand, claiming not only that he would filibuster her nomination for Secretary of State, but that he would oppose any and all of President Obama's nominees.  His problem with Rice had to do with her report after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi.  He claimed that she was either incompetent or a liar for not having included references to al Qaeda in the report.  As it turns out, the al Qaeda references were redacted by the CIA, as everyone had been telling McCain.  McCain has finally conceded the point, but while he is big enough to call Rice a liar on national television, his apology has appeared on his web site only. 

Geraldo is the voice of moderation at Fox News

I remember when Geraldo Rivera was not considered a reliable journalist, and perhaps he is still not.  Nevertheless, by comparison to his Fox colleagues on the issue of the connection between the Petraeus scandal and Benghazi, he provides a voice of moderation--suggesting one may be skeptical without drawing conclusions not supported by available evidence--if not of reason.  VIDEO

McCain wants answers...

But not as much as he wants to be on television.

Notice, by the way, that skipping the meeting hasn't prevented McCain from drawing conclusions (full article):

NB: Although I hate having to do this, I must point out what is not implied by this post.  I am not implying that Benghazi was not a total disaster.  I am not implying that the White House is not to blame.  I am simply suggesting that, if McCain wants information, perhaps he should show up to the meeting.  And if he is going to skip the meeting, he might consider living by the rule: "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove the point".