Skip to comments.McCain to reporter: ĎThatís one of the dumbest questions Iíve ever heard.í (VIDEO)
Posted on 11/14/2012 3:40:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
At a morning press conference that set the standard for today's testy responses, Sen. John McCain was calling for a select committee to investigate failures in the Benghazi attack when he was asked by a reporter whether he thought Gen. David Petraeus' extramarital affair and resignation might have been a bigger national security threat than the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.
His response, with great respect, of course:
Well, I say with great respect, thats one of the dumbest questions Ive ever heard. Okay? Theres four dead Americans. Four dead Americans. Not a socialite. I’m answering your question. Do you want me to answer your question or do you wanna interrupt? Which do you want? There’s four dead Americans. The lives of other Americans were put in jeopardy,” McCain said. Its certainly a national security issues, but it doesnt rise to the level of four dead Americans.
McCain was flanked by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who criticized the White House and Ambassador Susan Rice for their actions in Benghazi’s aftermath. Graham followed up on McCain’s response to the reporter, saying it would be part of the committee’s goal to separate the “weird” from the “national security risk.”
In calling for a special select committee to investigate the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said he is increasingly concerned about the potential fallout from the Petraeus affair and any national security implications, including ones linked to the Libya attack.
“The goal of this investigation is to have professional staff that hears everyone testify, the same set of senators who hears everyone testify so we can segregate out the weird from the national security,” Graham said. “And there is beginning to be a national security component to the human failing that I want to know about.”
I wonder why McCain, Graham, and Ayotte didn’t wait until after President Obama’s press conference to announce they’d ask for a select committee. Perhaps they thought they’d push the subject hard to ensure someone would ask about it at today’s presidential press conference, afraid a sycophantic press corps would let it lie. And, really, who can begrudge them that fear? But I might have let the president get pushed on it first before giving the press corps a chance to frame the issue as asking for a response to a Republican attack on Benghazi rather than just answering questions he should have already answered. ABC’s Jon Karl’s question started with “Republicans want to,” but Fox’s Ed Henry got straight down to the matter, riling the president.
A select committee is a special committee appointed usually to investigate a matter that crosses the jurisdictional lines of two or more standing committees. The three cautioned that traditional hearings would “stovepipe” information but a select committee would streamline the process. Congress held select committees to look into everything from pre-Iraq intelligence failures to oil company profits during the George W. Bush years, but McCain highlighted older and more famous examples like Iran Contra and Watergate select committees.
Oh, and everyone get ready for any criticism of Ambassador Susan Rice to be demagogued within an inch of its life as either sexist or racist. Mother Jones signaled the beginning of this line of attack in October by calling criticism of her a “high-tech lynching,” and the president displayed perhaps more emotion than he’s ever showed in defending her today. You can bet that video is being sent to a micro-targeted list of women voters. Sen. Ayotte was a tad softer in her tone about Rice, while still calling her to account. Others in the party should model their responses on hers:
You dont end up on every single major Sunday show without affirmatively putting yourself out there of wanting to carry forward a message on behalf of the administration. I think that theres a certain responsibility with the current position that she has to ask proper questions about what we did and didnt know at that point before she affirmatively puts herself out there on every major network to communicate to the American people.
McCain is an idiot and will only shoot his mouth off.
True....but he’s pretty dead-on on this one.
Didn’t read the report, by my retort to McCain would have been, “Well Senator, I’ve watched you for decades, and we all try to keep our questions to you as simple as we can. If you are unable to address the issue, it won’t surprise me at all.”
Mccain & Graham BOTH sounding manly on the same day?!! What is going on?
That’s probably true. I wish this ass would go back to Arizona and lose his ride back to Washington.
I’ve never felt more frustrated than to watch this lout supported for returning to the U. S. Senate two years ago.
Four more years indeed. What a travesty!
Goober is up for re-election in 2014,that’s what is going on.
What’s that about the barn door and the horses?
Did you not catch the part about FOUR DEAD AMERICANS of which two were SEALs?
Don’t get between him and a TV camera or hot mic, unless you want to get trampled. He’s not as bad a UpChuckie Schumer, but he’s a MIC-HOG.
I like what McCain said here. I do find it odd that only in DC do they preface such a blunt comment with "Well, I say with great respect ..."
How do you respect someone you are calling stupid?
They are cleverly changing the subject.
From, did Obama blackmail Patraeus into parroting the ludicrous party line that a video is to blame for the murder of 4 Americans (still being flogged by National Peoples Radio BTW).
To, was there a security breach, did Broadbutt get secrets.
I would just love for just once to hear one of those Senators say
“Well I say with great respect that I find you are a freaking idiot. I say with great respect that you couldn’t find your ass with a flashlight ...”
McCain is merely drawing attention back to Benghazi, which the media and the Obama Administration have covered up and shoved back into the dark. Obviously the Petraeus ordeal is a serious matter, but we cannot stand idly by as our own people are killed, just like the President did.
No, I said from the get-go, I did not read his statement.
IMO, having McCain agree with you on anything, is like Madonna telling the public she’s a Conservative, and asking them to please follow her lead.
If you’ve seen my comments here, you know why my take on the Benghazi losses is.
I would not contradict his comments regarding them. I just wish he’d go home to Arizona. There isn’t a worse Republican in Washington, D. C.
“McCain is merely drawing attention back to Benghazi, which the media and the Obama Administration have covered up and shoved back into the dark. Obviously the Petraeus ordeal is a serious matter, but we cannot stand idly by as our own people are killed, just like the President did.”....
BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!
Progov, I believe you meant to respond to Wolff2040, but clicked to respond on the next post which was mine.
IMO, McCain is out for McCain above anything else. He is the same bastard that wanted to close Gitmo. He’s the same bastard that wanted to stop production of the F22. He’s the same guy that came out on the wrong side of so many issues.
On the subject of military and security matters, he’s gray, not black or white.
For that reason, I don’t lend him credence on any issue. He’ll look like he’s helping you one minute, and then lead others astray the next minute when he supports or opposes something wrongly, but has made folks think he’s always a solid on these sorts of matters by getting one thing right.
He’s an attention hog, and very little else.
I appreciate your take on this. On an isolated issue, he may make sense. Just give him a few hours. He’ll turn it around. (exaggerating, but not by much)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.