 WASHINGTON -- Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, conceded on Tuesday that she incorrectly described the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, in September as following a spontaneous protest, rather than being a terrorist attack. But she said she based her statement on the intelligence available at the time and did not intend to mislead the American public.
| Even though it was known before she opened her mouth that it wasn't a "spontaneous protest", it was known later, and her boss made the same mistake, for which neither have been punished. |
Ms. Rice's acknowledgment, in a meeting on Capitol Hill with three Republican senators who had sharply criticized her earlier statements in a series of televsion interviews after the attack, seemed to do little to quell their anger. The senators emerged from the meeting voicing even deeper reservations about Ms. Rice's role in the messy aftermath of the Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
| Which is the lede for the NYT, doncha know... |
"We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got, and some that we didn't get," Senator John McCain of Arizona said to reporters. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, "Bottom line: I'm more concerned than I was before" -- a sentiment echoed by Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
| Pubs: lead with Ayotte. She's the one who can bring Rice down. |
Their statements -- coming after Ms. Rice's conciliatory remarks during a meeting designed to mend fences with her three critics and smooth the way for her nomination as secretary of state if President Obama decides on her as the successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton -- attested to the bitterness of the feud between the White House and Republicans over Benghazi.
| And to the dismay the Pub senators have with Champ for pushing forward a potential Secretary of State who has such a cavalier regard for the truth... |
Mr. Graham and Ms. Ayotte said that knowing what they know now, they would place a hold on Ms. Rice's nomination if Mr. Obama selected her.
"I wouldn't vote for anybody being nominated out of the Benghazi debacle until I had answers about what happened that I don't have today," Mr. Graham said.
Republicans have seized on Ms. Rice's initial account -- that the Benghazi attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest gone awry, rather than being a premeditated terrorist attack -- as a politically motivated cover-up by the administration. The White House has defended Ms. Rice by saying she was simply articulating talking points produced by intelligence agencies.
Ms. Rice is viewed as Mr. Obama's favored candidate to replace Mrs. Clinton.
| And Champ is going to dig in on this one because he can't have mere Republicans proving him wrong... |
The president delivered a passionate defense of Ms. Rice at his news conference two weeks ago and scolded the senators for making her a target in their broader attack on the White House.
Ms. Rice had asked for the meeting and was accompanied by the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael J. Morrell, amid signs that Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were softening their opposition to her potential nomination. "She deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself," Mr. McCain said on Sunday.
| I'd describe that as "let's give her enough rope..." |
In a statement issued after the meeting, Ms. Rice said she and Mr. Morrell discussed the talking points that she used when she appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack.
"We explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Ms. Rice said.
"While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved," she added.
| Except of course she had sufficient information: it was a deliberate terrorist attack carried out by an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group on the anniversary date of the WTC attack. There was nothing 'spontaneous' about it, nor was it inspired by a chuckle-headed video. It might not have been 'perfect', but it was strong. She and her boss chose instead to mislead the public. |
"We stressed that neither I, nor anyone else in the administration, intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved."
| Except you did intend to do so, and you did, and now you've been caught, and not even your boss is going to fix this one, so you're not going to be the next Secretary of State. Unless Champ does a recess appointment, which he might just do... |
That did not mollify the senators. Mr. Graham said that as the ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Rice had access to classified intelligence about the attack, and had an obligation to question intelligence agencies before presenting an account that later proved inaccurate.
| She had the access indeed, which is why she knew, or should have known, that it was a deliberate attack. She lied, and now she's been caught lying. |
Jay Carney, the odious White House mouthpiece and pet liar press secretary, said after the meeting: "There are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearance on Sunday shows and the talking points she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. Those questions have been answered." |