GETTING IN THE GAME: SUSAN RICE

U.S. United Nations ambassador Susan Rice had another bad day today on Capitol Hill when one more top Republican left a meeting with the presumptive Secretary of State-nominee unconvinced of her innocence in the Benghazi affair. Sen. Susan Collins's comments, that she "still [has] many questions that remain unanswered," echo those of Sen. John McCain yesterday following a closed-door meeting with Rice and (strangely) the Acting CIA Director, Michael Morell.

To be clear, no one claims that Susan Rice had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four Americans, including an ambassador. Accusations of negligence leading up to the attack rest squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. State Department. State, bear in mind, is conducting an internal investigation led by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Secretary Clinton has promised not to fulfill her desire to leave her position until the investigation is concluded and she personally reports to Congress.

Susan Rice's role in this affair is tangential and very limited. Two months ago, days after the attack, Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to field questions on Benghazi. She was given CIA-written talking points. Evidence suggests that the answers she gave reflected her best knowledge at the time; no evidence has emerged to suggest otherwise. After that... there is no after that. I just described the entirety of Susan Rice's involvement.

You may be wondering, at this juncture, why Rice is holding a series of meetings with Senate Republicans to explain in hours what I just explained in a single paragraph. That's a good question. Theories abound.

• It could be because the Benghazi incident is biggest stain on Obama's foreign record to-date and even though the election is over, Republicans think they can control the news cycle as long as the scandal isn't allowed to end.
• It could be as simple as a moral victory for opposing Obama's first high-profile, 2nd-term appointment opportunity.
• It could be that Sen. McCain, the most outspoken critic of the administration's handling of the incident, also happens to be fading from political relevancy. He is not a young man, he has lost a presidential election and, term-limited out of his ranking spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, he will have no clear authority left over foreign policy. In fact, he seeks to create a new committee dedicated entirely to investigating the Benghazi incident--one he would be likely to chair.
• It could be that Republicans want a different choice for Secretary of State: Sen. John Kerry. Of course, if Sen. Kerry were to accept any position, his MA seat would be open to a special election. Scott Brown, a Republican, won such a special election in 2010 before losing a real election to (D)Elizabeth Warren a few weeks ago.

There you have it: the game as it is played. Republicans have a lot to win and nothing to lose by shutting that whole Susan Rice thing down.

The real reason behind all of this could certainly be all or none of the above. The only thing that's certain is what this is not about: this is not about Susan Rice. Republican's don't need "more answers" from her. The sum of all questions you could ask her about Benghazi wouldn't outlast a trip to the water fountain. It's time that we pretend to talk about something else.