Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) launched an all-out assault on the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice yesterday in an attempt to block her from becoming the next Secretary of State. McCain claims that Rice’s role in disseminating information about the attacks on U.S. assets in Benghazi, Libya in September means she’s “not qualified” to be the nation’s top diplomat. Because of these alleged missteps on Benghazi, McCain said, “I will do everything in my power to block her from becoming Secretary of State.”

But the evidence to back up McCain’s attacks on Rice is thin, if non-existant. Below is a list of McCain’s main attacks on Rice, and why they’re either false or misleading:

1. McCain attacks Rice for saying anti-Islam video may have sparked Benghazi attack. Referring to Rice’s suggestion on Sept. 16 that the Benghazi attacks may have been sparked by animosity over an anti-Islam video, the Arizona Republican claimed yesterday on Fox News that Rice “went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.” He added on CNN: “It was obvious to one and all that this was not a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ because in real time, they saw there was no demonstration.”

REALITY: Rice was merely repeating U.S. intelligence assessments. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported that CIA talking points on the Benghazi attack dated Sept. 15, or the day before Rice’s Sunday show appearances, stated that “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

And this is exactly what Rice said, for example, on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sept. 16. “Soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in.”

And on Sept. 16, Rice did not, as McCain suggests, offer a definitive assessment of what took place. In fact, she cautioned that it could change after an investigation. “[T]here’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing,” she said. “And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.”

Read more

Yesterday, Republican Senators John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC) said they would block the potential nomination of current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for Secretary of State. But not all of McCain and Graham’s Republican colleagues agree. Today Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that he will not “pre-judge” Rice if President Obama nominates her for Secretary of State. Rubio added that “you can’t go in with your mind made up” on the nomination. Rubio’s moderate approach resembles that of other GOP members like Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), who echoed Rubio, saying that he’d like to wait “before I jump” and that he’d like to “do more examination.” And Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) said on CNN today that he does “not blame” Rice for her comments on Sept. 16 that an anti-Islam film may have played a role in the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

Yesterday, McCain cited interviews in which Rice relayed information given to her by intelligence officials after the Benghazi attack and said that the ambassador “should have known better” and is “not qualified.” McCain also said that he will “do everything in my power to block her.” Yesterday, McCain and Graham held a press conference, along with Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), to make similar points.

In reality, McCain and Graham’s comments are inaccurate. David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote that the CIA report from the day Susan Rice appeared on morning talk shows on Sept. 16 said, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo…There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” The day after her first round of interviews, Rice said that she would wait until an investigation was complete and that “we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.”

Here is Heck’s conversation with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is demanding a special select committee to investigate the events leading up to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya and has held around-the-clock television appearances pressing for a complete review of the incident.

But all of the senator’s media interviews and press availabilities may be interfering with his ability to gather information about the event. On Thursday morning, CNN’s Dana Bash reported that McCain chose to hold a joint press conference with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) rather than attend a closed-door briefing about the attacks:

I have to tell you something that just happened on Capitol Hill, and that is our senate producer Ted Barrett just ran into John McCain and asked about something that we’re hearing from Democrats, which is John McCain is calling for more information to Congress, but he had a press conference yesterday instead of going to a closed briefing where administration officials were giving more information. Well, Ted Barrett asked John McCain about that, and it was apparently an intense very angry exchange and McCain simply would not comment on it at all.

Watch it:

At least one Republican senator is criticizing McCain for skipping the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee briefing, The Cable’s Josh Rogin reports. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), “who was there at briefing, and Senator McCain, who was not, are members of our committee, and I know they would play very important roles,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republicans have dismissed the need for a select committee.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) thinks that the FBI may have been gathering information on former CIA Director David Petraeus to blackmail him so that he would testify favorably to the Obama administration’s position on the attack on Benghazi in September. “Hypothetically, of course,” as Gohmert put it.

Appearing on WMAL radio this morning, the outspoken Texas Congressman, known for his Tea Party-leanings, made clear that he wasn’t actually accusing the Obama White House of directing the FBI to investigate Petraeus for political reasons relating to his upcoming Benghazi testimony. Nor was he actually saying that the FBI was engaging in activities reminiscent of original FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to “blackmail” other government officials.

Instead, as Gohmert repeatedly made clear, he was only hypothetically spinning a story oddly similar to other conspiracy theories surrounding Petraeus’ resignation:

GOHMERT: Say, hypothetically, they had information on the CIA Director and the CIA Director may have, hypothetically, said he didn’t give an order for people to stand down and not help those who were in need and crying for help. And that made the President look bad. And perhaps somebody knew information about him who said, “You’re going to up to the Hill to testify or to brief them. You’re not going to say what you had released originally, you’re going to say this is all about a video.” Hypothetically of course, if you knew he had an affair that had not been public, you might, hypothetically, say “Hey Mr. CIA Director, you’re gonna go up there and you’re going to follow the line from the White House, otherwise we’re going to disclose your affair.”

Listen to Gohmert here:

Petraeus himself has given an interview to CNN definitively saying that his resignation as Director of Central Intelligence was unrelated to the response to the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. Independent reporting on the ground has also sapped credence from the GOP accusations that the assault had nothing to do with an anti-Islamic video. The New York Times reported in October that the attackers “did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.”

The truth will soon be known, as Petraeus will now in fact be testifying under oath before the House Intelligence Committee’s closed-door hearings on Friday. Indeed, as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said on Sept. 16, just days after the attack, “We will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.”

CNN Headline News Anchor Kyra Phillips phoned in to the network’s morning news program on Thursday to relay a series of conversations she had with former CIA director and military commander David Petraeus since he resigned after admitting to an extramarital affair.

What began as simply a scandal of infidelity has since ballooned into a full-scale inquiry into whether or not classified documents were illegally divulged to Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ biographer and alleged mistress.

“He has insisted to me that he has never passed classified information to Paula Broadwell, and as long as I have known him he has never waivered on classified information ever,” Phillips told anchor Robin Meade. Phillips says she has known Petraus for years.

Phillips said Petraus also spoke about the timing of his resignation, dismissing the right-wing conspiracy theory that his departure is somehow related to a cover up over September’s deadly attack in Libya:

“He has said this has nothing to do with Benghazi, and he wants to testify, he will testify. He has maintained to me all along that this was a personal failing…He has made it very clear that [his resignation] was about an extramarital affair and not over classified information or Benghazi.”

Petraeus is scheduled to appear before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on Friday to answer questions about the timeline of events in Benghazi and what the CIA did and did not request from the State Department.