I am amazed that President Obama appears to be considering appointing UN Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary State. It was Susan Rice, of course, who, five days after the attack in Benghazi, said on all of the Sunday news shows that the attack was the result of protests over that silly anti-Islamic internet video. It seemed absurd at the time (and it has since been shown to be wrong). But Ms. Rice has been defended, by the President himself, on the ground that she was responding to questions based on the best information the Administration had at the time.
That seems absurd on its face. By Saturday, when it is my understanding the shows were taped, there certainly were lots of indications it was a terrorist attack. If the Administration did not know for sure what it was, why didn’t they say that, instead of saying something that looked wrong even then?
Of course, the real problem here is that during the presidential debates, President Obama (with the help of moderator Candy Crowley) tried to claim that he had called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" the day after the attack. But if the President was saying it was an act of terror on Wednesday, September 12*, why did Ms. Rice call it an anti-Internet film protest gone array on Saturday, September 15?
Of course, during the late stages of the campaign, it was important to show President Obama calling it a terrorist attack as early as possible. Now it’s important to not make Susan Rice look foolish. It’s tricky to square that circle.
As I said above, at his press conference yesterday, President Obama came to Ms. Rice’s defense:
“As I’ve said before, she [Ambassador Rice] 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. 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.”
That’s fine. When is the President going to the Senate to testify? But of course, he’s not going. The fact is that the only way an administration can be called to account in a situation like this is when an administration needs something from Congress, such as confirming a person’s nomination to a high level office. Then the senators or representatives can ask their questions.
Given the almost certain firestorm that would occur if Ms. Rice is nominated, it is amazing to me the President would even consider it. But as this report at CBS News says: “[T]the president feels he should be able to choose the cabinet members he wants”.
If that is President Obama’s attitude, it may be a sign of a second term arrogance that will not be helpful to the President – or the country.
-------
* With respect to whether President Obama really did call the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” on September 12, take a look at the President’s remarks in the Rose Garden that day. They are here. When he refers to “act of terror” at the end of his comments, is he referring to Benghazi or is he talking about terrorism in general? I know how I would interpret it. You can interpret it yourself.
Comments