Maureen Dowd, "Make Up Turned Break Up": The Only Liberal Columnist Demanding Answers About Benghazi

Maureen Dowd knows next to nothing about the Middle East, but she clearly recognizes a scandal when she sees one.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Make Up Turned Break Up" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/opinion/dowd-make-up-turned-break-up.html?_r=0), Dowd writes:

"It seems as if it would have been simple enough for Rice to quickly admit that the administration talking points she used on the Sept. 16 Sunday shows about the slaughter in Benghazi were misleading. But she went silent. She has no wartime consigliere and, aside from the president’s angry postelection defense of Rice, the White House — perhaps relieved that she was taking the heat rather than the president — wasn’t running a strong damage control operation that clarified matters."

Obama is going to make additional noise by again taking up Rice's defense? No way. Not when he and his White House spokesman were ultimately responsible for perpetuating the myth that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was the result of a ridiculous Internet video. Also, bottom line, Obama is all about looking after the best interests of . . . Obama.

Dowd notes a list of questions drawn up by Senator Susan Collins of Maine regarding Rice's declarations involving the affair:

• Why did Rice "promote a story 'with such certitude' about a spontaneous demonstration over the anti-Muslim video that was so at odds with the classified information to which the ambassador had access"?

• If, prior to Sept. 15, the F.B.I. had already established that there had been no protest but rather a terror attack, why did Rice so stubbornly pursue her nonsensical explanation involving the video?

• Given that Rice heard the president of the Libyan National Congress state that "50 people had been arrested who were either foreign or affiliated with or sympathized with Al Qaeda, why did she push back with the video story?"

• Why did Rice say on ABC News that "two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security" when, as known to Collins, "That wasn’t their job"?

• Why did Rice say that "'we had a substantial security presence with our personnel' — which was clearly not the case"?

In a recent Washington Post editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html), it was suggested that the questioning of Rice and opposition to her candidacy as the next US secretary of state involve racism:

"Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own."

Obviously, Dowd and Senator Collins are neither males nor Southerners, and like it or not, there is an ugly scandal here leading from Rice straight up to the top.