CNN Host Exposes GOPs Hypocrisy On Benghazi Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to press his case against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the target of Republican criticism for initially claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi were inspired by spontaneous protests to an anti-Islamic video. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rices potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community. Host Soledad OBrien challenged Burgess opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rices nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administrations role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bushs intelligence failures than Obama, but when OBrien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan: OBRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue, to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security adviser, right? Fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be secretary of state, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Sen John mccain who were furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different? BURGESS: The difference is the scrutiny provided by our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I dont see that happening now. Maybe Ive missed something in the talking points, but I dont see that happening. . OBRIEN: So youre confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press are you saying five days after comments of weapons of mass destruction, you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I dont think thats true, Sir. Most people say thats not the case. It took a long time. . Hey, Im all about scrutiny. I guess I like consistency, too. You were not calling for more scrutiny and you werent saying that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her credibility as secretary of state. Again, McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems contradictory to me. BURGESS: Youll have to take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham.