I’m still trying to decipher the puzzling Republican frenzy of trying to tie UN Ambassadorto the burning stake for the tragedy in Benghazi. Then I heard this theory, which makes the most sense so far.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow seems to think the “Holy Crusade” being waged against Rice has nothing to do with finding a problem, who was responsible and fixing it. She thinks it may have more with, the senior senator from Massachusetts and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, getting picked for the position so a special election would have to be held in Massachuestts.
If getting at the truth about Benghazi was the ultimate goal, Maddow believes, the myriad investigations by special committees, hearings, briefings and private meetings with CIA acting chief would have taken care of that. Sen.(R-Ariz.) and his cohorts have all the answers to their questions, yet they persist in asking the same questions. From this behavior, one can only conclude they are not interested in the answers.
Moreover, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), two of those leading the pack on the Rice inquisition, stood up on the Senate floor in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and angrily declared that http://youtu.be/DuuWAmB_GFk, http://youtu.be/qyKOkGjodhY).had weapons of mass destruction and needed to be stopped immediately. , President George W. Bush's national security adviser at the time, also went on the Sunday talk shows and emphatically stated that the Iraqi dictator had piles of WMDs. We now know that was a colossal lie—that Intel was completely false. (Check out these videos:
So let’s put the outrage in perspective: Republicans in Washington are clearly on a witch hunt; that much is obvious, but the reason for that hunt was sort of murky. Several theories abound, from racism, sexism, and personal vendettas to partisan party politics at play.
There may be a little bit of all the above woven into the mix, but is Maddow right? Is the loud, self-righteous blustering on the right side of the aisle primarily to do with keeping Rice from taking over for Hillary Clinton as ecretary of state so that Kerry would be appointed with a special election resulting?
Kerry is the other name being thrown around for the job. Interestingly, Republicans are saying that they prefer him over Rice. We all know “the elephant” doesn’t do anything where there isn’t some political capital involved, so this preference of Kerry is mighty intriguing.
Why Kerry over Rice?
Maddow thinks she knows why: Republicans have their eye on that Senate seat. Don’t forget Elizabeth Warren wrested the position from’s pretty hands this election, sending a formidable Democratic Progressive to Capitol Hill. Not so pretty for those career politicians ensconced there.
Massachusetts has guarded their Democratic majority for a long time, and Republicans may be itching to get Scott Brown back in the saddle. What better way than to free up Kerry’s seat? Warren won 54 to Brown’s 46 percent, a mere 8-points. She did not win by the usual large Democratic margin in the state.
Thus, a special election to replace Kerry could see a more favorable outcome for Brown.
Listen to Rachel Maddow's theory on the Benghazi frenzy by clicking attached video above or link below: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201422#499