During his press conference yesterday, President Obama was asked about the statements by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who said if Susan Rice is nominated to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination, and they simply don’t trust Ambassador Rice after her misleading accounts about the lethal attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11.
In response, the president, after lavishly praising Ms. Rice, said this:
As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous… When they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.
I’ll get to the president’s answer in a moment. For now, it’s important to recall that five days after the Benghazi massacre, Ambassador Rice went on five Sunday talk shows insisting that (a) we had “substantial security presence” at the consulate before the attack; (b) the attacks were spontaneous, not a pre-planned terrorist attack, and the result of “a small handful of heavily armed mobsters;” and (c) “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rice said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
Ambassador Rice was wrong on every particular. The security for the American consulate was nearly non-existent; the attacks were premeditated; they were carried out by Islamic terrorists; there was no mob protest; the video had nothing to do with the attacks; and we did have information that the attacks were pre-planned.
Ambassador Rice’s claims came despite the fact that, according to congressional testimony, the State Department had surveillance feeds and they were able to monitor the attacks in “almost real-time” and that according to media reports, an unarmed Predator drone was performing surveillance missions over Libya when the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began; within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants; and e-mails show that officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group (Ansar al-Sharia) had claimed credit for the attack.
In addition, Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says that within 24 hours of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi he had information from intelligence agencies that what happened were terrorist attacks, not spontaneous attacks inspired by the anti-Islamic video. Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that accounts of the attack and the firepower employed “indicate something more than a spontaneous protest.”
There’s more.
The Washington Post was reporting on the day after the attack that “the early indications were that the assault had been planned” by “heavily-armed militias.” Journalist Eli Lake reported, “Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers.” And in a story in early October, the Associated Press reported, “The State Department now says it never believed the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a film protest gone awry.”
I have recounted this record in detail simply to highlight how ludicrous is President Obama’s claim that Senators McCain and Graham want to “besmirch [Rice’s] reputation” and that they are going after her “because they think she’s an easy target.”
Ambassador Rice’s credibility has been massively damaged because she misled the public (probably unknowingly) long after there was evidence that her claims were at least questionable and probably wrong. To the degree that she’s an “easy target,” it’s because the case against her and the administration is overwhelming. And the gallant Obama need not worry. The concerns about the negligence and misconduct of his administration don’t stop with Ms. Rice. Those concerns go right to the top.
Shorter Obama: "I sent Ambassador Rice out to lie to the American people."
To what end? I guess I don't even get the theory here.
"…and she did a heck of a job."
Great article except that it logically places blame on those who are responsible. By now we should all know that, according to this administration and the MSM, you really aren't responsible for much of anything… unless you are any type of conservative because, well, we are all pretty evil… lol
What Benghazi problem?? 0bama doesnt have a problem.
Payback for then SecState Colin Powell's UN presentation on Iraq WMD. n nJust like Kerry as SecDef is payback for Rumsfeld. n nAmerica is doomed to never recover from the bushclintonbushclinton psychodrama. n n
I have been on the boil, but refrained from comment, ever since I first read this: "But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous…" n nI am no fan of conspiracy theories, and think Occam's Razor usually does supply the best explanation. In this case the relevant question is: if Ms. Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why was she chosen to speak for the Administration in the aftermath of a deadly attack? The razor slices this way: first, she could deliver only Admin talking point, and could answer no questions. As a side note, I observe that taking offense and posing outrage is a favored Obama response, one shared by Nancy Pelosi ("pass the baton to younger leadership? I'm outraged.')
Not only is Obama a liar, he is the worst kind of coward. To hear him, protected by his secret service Praetorian Guard, acting like a tough guy to John McCain, a man who did not break under five years of relentless torture in North Vietnam, is the most disgusting thing I have ever witnessed. r nr nI cannot think of a more depraved individual than the current national shame who occupies the White House. It will take years to cleanse the stench after he is gone.
For me the most disgusting thing I have ever seen is Obama, or whoever he is, hanging a congressional metal of honor around a serviceman's neck. The serviceman stands for everything we have always thought it means to be an American. Obama, or whoever he is, stands for everything evil can be. That such a man is in a position to award the congressional metal of honor is disgusting.
It would be difficult to think of a more cowardly and depraved act than Obama, protected by his secret service praetorian guard, acting tough to John McCain, a man who endured five years of relentless torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese without breaking. n nIt will take years to wash away the stench left behind in the White House after Obama departs.
It would be difficult to think of a more cowardly and depraved act than Obama, protected by his secret service praetorian guard, acting tough to John McCain, a man who endured five years of relentless torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese without breaking.
Don't worry Chairman 0bama, you're next. Rice is your puppet; her words are yours. n nSay, if Susan Rice knew nothing about Benghazi, why was she sent out as an expert to talk about it on five talk shows? Is it because no honorable person would touch your lies with a ten foot pole? n nRice was ambassador to the U.N.; what does that job have to do with national defense, or anything else important?
As has been said the MSM rarely hods Democratic Administrations accountable. Congressional hearings should be held on why she didn't know but was choosen or why she lied.
Isn't that why there is an ivestigation? It sad to see a Party take a trgic event and turn it into a political weapon. It's just amazing how the same people who defended Bush through his neglect that led to 9/11, his lying that created a war on a false premise, and the illegal use of torture, are now "outraged" over something of this nature. Why don't ya'll just sut up and wait for the Congressional investigation to finish.
I think Obama used Rice like he uses Biden, as a trial balloon to see how his meme plays before he steps into it.
Actually, the President doesn't have a Bengazi problem–the American people have a Bengazi problem. The President has a protective media, a voter base that couldn't care less about Bengazi, and the luxury of never having to run for reelection again.
I agree the Benghazi issue will haunt Obama for the rest of his period as Pres. It should have bee n properly dealt with in the election but the spin merchants won the day as they destroy democracy world wide.,
The real problem Obama has with Benghasi is the pink elephant in the room. Why was Ambassador Stevems sent to a "consulate" that was in a dangerous location without sufficient protection? What was so important that he had to be brought in on the fly? Word is out that it has to do with gathering munitions that were taken after Gaddafi was de-throned. So, we have a "Fast and Furious" on an steroids? Who knows? Whatever the bottom-line is, the Obama Administration is tap-dancing all over the truth, changing "the narrative" as each new question comes to fore. I sure hope he doesn't get away with it!
and the most overlooked problem- why was the ambassador there with inadequate protection on 9/11, a known terrorist flag day, when days before there was talk of an attack, and why wasn't help sent. These are being overlooked by what Rice said
Why was Rice permitted to go on a talking tour if the president and state department had evidence that flatly contradicted her story? One can only conclude that her mission was to catch the spear and the details be damned.
My goodness. You actually believe what you read in the New York Times.