Susan Rice defends Benghazi interviews

[alp227]

Source: Politico

National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she has no regrets about taking the Sunday show interviews that brought her career under fire in September 2012.

Pressed Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes” as to why Hillary Clinton didn’t appear for interviews following thelethal attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Rice said she had filled in willingly because of the then-secretary of state’s particularly “painful” and “stressful” week.

“I don’t have time to think about the false controversy,” Rice said. “In the midst of all of swirl about things like talking points, the administration has been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities. That’s what we ought to be focused on.”

Speaking in 2012 on multiple TV shows four days after the Benghazi attacks killed four, Rice hewed to the initial White House line that the attacks were a spontaneous response to protest an anti-Muslim video. “This is not an expression of hostility in the broadest sense toward the United States or to U.S. policy,” Rice said at the time.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/susan-rice-benghazi-interviews-60-minutes-101462.html

---

Video:

[applegrove]

1. You could tell that the interviewer had been talking to people who still thought

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2013, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

there was funny business going regarding Clinton and Bengazhi. Leslie Stahl was still trying to hone in on those series of interviews Rice did. It was pathetic.

[Major Nikon]

3. Lesley Stahl is a hack as far as I'm concerned

She tries to come across as asking hard ball provocative questions, but often seems to dumb down journalism by asking stupid questions that deserve no response.

[karynnj]

12. That never was my impression

Her background is impressive and goes back to covering Watergate. She has been on 60 minutes for a couple of decades = so - rightly or wrongly - I always saw her more in the "Rather" mode than the "Logan" mode.

I am not surprised that the question on those appearances was asked. It was CW in the media - that even with them, Susan Rice was the clear choice for Secretary of State. (In fact, Kerry was always a very real choice as well. He had already proved his ability as a diplomat - even without the job. I seriously doubt that Rice would have gotten the CW deal - or even would have worked that angle. ) But to the media it was ONLY those appearances that stopped her. As a result asking if she wishes she would not have done them and saying EXPLICITLY that otherwise she would being calling her "Secretary of State" is obviously one of the more newsworthy questions to ask Rice.

Another reason for asking is that at the moment, I assume that more people know Susan Rice's name just from that controversy than for her years as a Democratic foreign policy spokesperson, UN ambassador, or as the NSA head. Not to mention, the gist of what people - on any political side - know of that is that what she said was possibly a lie at the time. (For the RW, it was a lie - for everyone else, it was at least inaccurate.) This may mean that positions - like NSA- are where she will spend her career. Note that is not all that bad - it is a very powerful positions that mean she has a voice in the inner circle on foreign policy.

One thing to think of is that her appearances - after an awful event - did manage to tamp down Republican efforts to use Benghazi to change perception on Obama's strength in national security and foreign policy. Their goal was that if they did this successfully, Obama would lose in November. (I suspect that people were not voting on FP in 2012. Romney defined himself clearly (and unappealingly) when he was heard speaking of the 47%.) However, for some Republicans, they may always see her "lies" as why Romney did not win. For them, they may NEVER vote to confirm her for anything - as they feel cheated.

It may also be that both Obama and Clinton owe her big time for those appearances.

One other criticism I read of Stahl on this was her questions on Rice's spending time with her young kids. I didn't think this question was antagonistic and it humanized Rice to speak of her kids. On twitter there were some comments that neither Clinton or Kerry would have been asked such questions -- which simply ignores that their "children" are in their 30s!

[karynnj]

14. This is pretty much a puff piece interview on Susan Rice with a few VERY general questions

Do you consider Susan Rice to be the "quarter back" of the administration's foreign policy? Poor as I am in understanding sports, I assume that would be OBAMA. This is one in a long line of articles etc that have inflated her extremely important role.

Both in the lead in to the Benghazi question, the reporter states as FACT that she would have been the one nominated to be Secretary of State. In fact, Obama went out of his way to say that he had not decided even as he defended her.

That can be considered a covert knock at John Kerry, but that does not hurt him - he will be judged on the job he does and so far he is impressive.

However, there is a bigger accusation in her question that Hillary Clinton was not up to doing the 5 talk shows after a hard week or that she saw it could be harmful politically. Taking the latter point first - going on the talk shows or not, the Republicans were going to hit her on this and she could not avoid them. Her choice was to do what she did - testify for a total of more than 4 hours answering variations of the same questions over and over. The former questions her endurance -- when she is applying for the hardest job in the country. Here, note that it was Susan Rice who offered that reason.

[SoapBox]

2. But, but, but...

Bachman and "Gomer" will get to the bottom of all this, with their " junket"!

[Iliyah]

4. During a certain period of a Pres B

no total questioning of deaths and conduct to the level of what is happening now. Can't reply on RW/Gop sites unless you agree with them. Thanks DU!

[Blue_In_AK]

5. The only reason I'm watching 60 Minutes

is because I'm too lazy to get up and find the remote. That interview was pathetic.

[7962]

6. HA!! Been there.....

[davidpdx]

7. Those scumbuckets are the last people she should be talking to

They are the new Fox News.

[Paolo123]

8. Theres is a real issue here

Fuck the Republicans and their bullshit. Decisions were made and at the time they were probably the right ones and if not they were made in good faith.

My problem is when it was blamed on some bullshit documentary. That was an assault on free speech.

[Berlum]

10. The documentary was a factor

That's a fact, Jack. It was a gross, inaccurate, and toxic provocation by right-wing RepubliWankers. And the fact that Republicons SLASHED the security budget left our diplomatic outposts vulnerable was another huge factor. I know Republicons generally like to go AWOL on responsibility, but the fact of the matter is the Benghazi tragedy is far more their doing than anything else. Republicons have crapped on America in so many vile ways. Behghazi -- and their phony whining about it - is just another example of their stanking diaperloads of dangerous and unpatriotic dipshittery.

[Paolo123]

15. the documentary was not a factor

It was a planned attacked. The state department made decisions that I actually agree with (you can't just go invading a country because of a small attack) but decided to cover it up and blame a documentary that had nothing to do with it at all.

[Berlum]

16. Yeah, but -- why did they plan it?

Start beating a hornet's nest with a stick -- or a toxic right-wing propaganda video -- and you are going to encourage some angry entities to get even angrier and nastier.

Try showing a video demeaning, insulting and degrading Jesus Christ in ChristoFundie Gunland, and see how well that goes over...Not only a stupid move, a patently evil move.

The hateful right-wing video (the Innocence of Muslims) was a factor, whether you understand that reality or not. The Republicon defense of the video is just sick.

Protests Erupt at Embassies Worldwide in Response to Right Wing "Christian" (R) video ridiculing Prophet Mohammed.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/09/mohammed_movie_embassy_attacks_don_t_let_internet_videos_drive_you_to_violence_.html

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. I listened to her give those interviews. It was clear at the time she was wrong.

Too bad the Republicans turned Benghazi into a red herring, because there are real questions about what went on there and what the CIA's role was that will probably never be answered.

[pampango]

11. So it was good that repubs focused on Rice's lies? "Too bad the Republicans turned Benghazi into a

red herring, because there are real questions about what went on there and what the CIA's role was that will probably never be answered."

Damn republicans can't investigate a Democratic screwup/coverup without turning it into a 'red herring'? Just when you need the GOP to do a real investigation and uncover the 'truth', they go hyper-partisan on you. That is 'disappointing'.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Did I say that? I don't think so.

What was the CIA up to in Benghazi?

What was the story with their safe house there (which was also attacked)?

Was there an arms-to-Syrian-rebels-deal going on?

Why did those guys attack the consulate and the CIA safe house?

Rice was, to be charitable, misinformed at best, and it was obvious to anyone watching. I recall watching her myself and thinking "How can she even say that?" at the time.

The Republicans, in their partisan frenzy, tried to make the ambassador's death all about some failing of Hillary Clinton as SOS, and spent months pursuing that angle. So now, any real questions about Benghazi get construed as Republican scandal-mongering.

On edit: Oh, sorry, I didn't see that through your partisan lenses. I'm less interested in whether it was a Republican or Democratic administration than what the spooks were up to and what that had to do with what happened there.