Julian Pecquet’s recent essay Rice leaves GOP senators 'significantly troubled' on Benghazi published in The Hill on November 27, 2012 informs readers about the latest development in the Benghazi hearings. Perhaps the most disturbing part of the essay is the statement: “The trio of hawkish senators didn't definitively rule out voting for her if she's nominated, however.” After meeting with United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice for more than an hour in a behind closed doors session, the senators remained unconvinced of Rice’s innocence in connection with the Benghazi affair. If anything, Senator McCain was “significantly disturbed” by Rice’s responses and both Senators Ayotte and Graham remained “more troubled.”
Considering Rice “failed” to “convince” the senators of her complete innocence in connection with the Benghazi affair, it is confusing as to why they would still consider “voting for her if she’s nominated” to fill the position as secretary of State. Exactly, how much proof is enough to make a determination that Rice was at least negligible and therefore unworthy of becoming secretary of State? As the senators toss over the evidence in hopes of finding answers, the families of four dead Americans continue to wait for the truth.