Why is Susan Rice on the hot seat over Benghazi attack?

Republicans vow to get to the bottom of UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s role in reporting the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Democrats say she's being unfairly pilloried.

|
Yuri Gripas/REUTERS
Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman Saxby Chambliss talks to the media after former CIA Director David Petraeus testified at a closed hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.

The temperature under Susan Rice’s hot seat didn’t cool any over the weekend.

Republicans vow to get to the bottom of UN Ambassador Rice’s role in reporting what happened when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked on the anniversary of 9/11.

As the Obama administration’s first major spokesman following an attack that killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other embassy personnel, Ms. Rice left the impression that “extremist elements” had joined a “spontaneous protest” against an anti-Islam YouTube video that was roiling the region.

Although President Obama strongly defended Rice at his first post-election press conference last week – suggesting his opponents should come after him if they have a problem – Republicans aren’t letting up on Rice, reportedly at the top of Obama’s list to become Secretary of State when Hillary Clinton resigns as expected.

IN PICTURES: Libya's critical transition

"She's going to have to come in and testify at some point, whether it's in a closed hearing or an open hearing," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggests a strong political motive in Rice’s characterization of the attack, particularly when she added that the United States under Obama’s leadership had “decimated al Qaeda.” Intelligence officials and the President later acknowledged that terrorists likely affiliated with al Qaeda had been part of the attack.

“The story she told helped reinforce the political narrative helpful to the president," Sen. Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" show. "I don't know what she knew, but I know the story she told was misleading.”

"Had the truth come out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi had been overrun by an al Qaeda-sponsored, affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we have been hearing for months that al Qaeda's been dismantled," Graham said.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggests – without providing any evidence – that the administration changed the “talking points” provided Rice before she appeared on five Sunday news shows five days after the attack at Benghazi.

“The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early,” Rep. Rogers said on “Meet the Press.” 

In closed House and Senate hearings last week, former CIA Director David Petraeus indicated that US intelligence officials knew from the start that terrorists had carried out the attack, according to lawmakers who spoke with reporters after the hearings. But the retired Army four-star general could not – or chose not to – say how the initial talking points had been changed.

Democrats are pushing back against Republican charges in the matter.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein acknowledges that one day after the Benghazi episode, “Petraeus very clearly said that it was a terrorist attack.” But she says Rice was only able to speak “publicly on unclassified speaking points.” 

Officials have said that initial public statements (including Rice’s) used the word “extremists” – both to conceal intelligence-gathering sources and methods (so as not to reveal the terrorist groups it was tracking) and also because that was seen as the more inclusive word.

“There was only one thing changed, I’ve looked into it and I believe it to be fact, that was the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” Sen. Feinstein said on “Meet the Press.” “That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out.”

“What has concerned me about this is really the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which Susan Rice, on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did,” Feinstein added. “She was within the context of that statement, and for this, she has been pilloried for two months.”

IN PICTURES: Libya's critical transition

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why is Susan Rice on the hot seat over Benghazi attack?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/1118/Why-is-Susan-Rice-on-the-hot-seat-over-Benghazi-attack
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe