I have often heard friends, frenemies and enemies here on newsvine berating others for using a false equivalency argument about one issue or another.
And the title of the article was too good to pass up.
And now they have their day with the "Rice" Wars!
OUR Rice is better than your Rice.
That's the argument Democrats are aggressively making against Republicans.
And it's true. Condi Rice sold her soul. Susan Rice merely rented hers on the talk shows one Sunday in September.
In my mind the transgressions of Condi lend no honor to the screw up by Susan.
Testifying on Capitol Hill on Friday, the beheaded Head Spook David Petraeus said the C.I.A. knew quickly that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack.
"It was such a no-brainer," one intelligence official told me.
Rice was given the toned-down talking points, but she has access to classified information.
So did they not trust her, or did they think they could get away with her lies and misleading statements because of edited talking points?
And who made that decision?
And now Pres Obama is puffing out his chest and showing his muscles to defend her, when brings more questions to mind.
The president's fierce defense of Rice had virile flare. But he might have been better off leaving it to aides, so he did not end up going mano a mano with his nemesis John McCain on an appointment he hasn't even made (though now Obama might feel compelled to, just to prove that he can't be pushed around), and so he could focus on fiscal cliff bipartisanship.
His argument that Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi," raises the question: Then why was she the point person?
Thanks for graphic to www.nillemareresorthotel.webs.com and google images