Collins continues attacks on Rice, says Kerry would be "excellent" secretary of state
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee walks to a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012, for a meeting with UN Ambassador Susan Rice. / AP Photo/ Evan Vucci
Updated: 3:57 p.m. ET
As U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice persists with outreach efforts to congressional Republicans concerning the sequence of events surrounding September 11 attacks in Benghazi, Senate Republicans are continuing their attacks on her credibility, not only questioning her capability to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state but in some cases also suggesting an alternate candidate for the job.
In remarks following a meeting with Rice on Wednesday morning, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins continued where her colleagues John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte left off yesterday, hammering Rice's characterization of how the events unfolded in Benghazi and threatening to block her potential nomination as secretary of state.
"I continue to be troubled by the fact that the U.N. ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of the contentious presidential election campaign, by agreeing to go on the Sunday shows to present the administration's position," Collins told reporters on Wednesday. "
- Sources: Office of DNI cut "al Qaeda" reference from Benghazi talking points; CIA, FBI signed off
- Congress to investigate CIA talking points on Benghazi
- Graham "more disturbed" than before about Benghazi explanation after meeting with Rice
On September 16, five days after the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, Rice appeared on a handful of Sunday morning political talk shows to discuss the incident. Her comments on those shows were guided by CIA talking points that, according to a U.S. intelligence official, "were written, upon request, so members of Congress and senior officials could say something preliminary and unclassified about the attacks, if needed," and reflected the possibility that the attacks were a result of spontaneous protests spurred by an anti-Muslim video.
In a statement yesterday, Rice clarified that there was "no protest or demonstration in Benghazi" and that "the intelligence assessment has evolved" since her Sept. 16 comments. She argued 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." CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from Rice's talking points with the agreement of the CIA and FBI, and that the White House or State Department did not make those changes.
Still, Rice, who is considered a top pick to replace Clinton as secretary of state, has been on the receiving end of scathing criticism from Republicans, who have suggested she used the talk show appearances to mislead the American people for the president's political benefit. Now, a handful of Republicans, including Collins, are threatening to block her nomination if she is tapped for the job. Collins also suggested on Wednesday that Rice bore some responsibility for 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tunisia, when she was assistant secretary of state for African affairs under Bill Clinton.
"What troubles me so much is the Benghazi attack in many ways echoes the attacks on those embassies in 1998, when Susan Rice was head of the African region for our State Department," she said. "In both cases, the ambassadors begged for additional security."
Collins said Rice told her she was "not involved directly in turning down the requests" for extra security, but argued that "given her position as assistant secretary for African affairs, she had to be aware of the general threat assessment and of the ambassador's repeated requests for more security."
In his daily press briefing today, White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the president's defense of Rice. He said the Obama administration is focusing its efforts on finding out what actually happened in Benghazi rather than what he characterized as politically driven criticisms of Rice's talk show appearances more than a month ago. Mr. Obama, too, called Rice "extraordinary" during a cabinet meeting later in the day.
"Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community," he told reporters. "They represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time... Even at that time the intelligence community was making clear, and Ambassador Rice and I and others were making clear, that these were preliminary assessments."
Similar to Graham and Ayotte yesterday, Collins said today she would not be able to support a potential Rice nomination for secretary of state unless she received "additional information."
"She's not been posted yet. Our Homeland Security Committee investigation is ongoing. There are many different players in this, and there's much yet to be learned," she said. "So I think it would be premature for me to reach that judgment now."
Collins was less hesitant about how Sen. John Kerry, another potential secretary of state pick, might fare in the nomination process, however.
"I think John Kerry would be an excellent appointment and would be easily confirmed by his colleagues," she said.
Collins has not been the first Republican Senator to pump Kerry up for the appointment: Republican Senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, said Kerry would "sail through" the Senate and that Mr. Obama should nominate him if he wants an easy nominating process.
One possible motive for the GOP's apparent pro-Kerry push is the fact that, if tapped, he'd be forced to give up his Senate seat in Massachusetts, thereby opening it up for a bid from Republican Scott Brown. Brown, who was recently defeated by Elizabeth Warren for the state's other Senate seat, is considered by far the GOP's best shot for picking up a seat in the solidly blue state of Massachusetts in the case of a special election.
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 154 Comments
- Next up for Obama: Major effort on climate change
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities 77 Comments
- Michelle Obama and daughters tour Berlin Play Video
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 598 Comments
- IRS readying to pay $70M in employee bonuses, senator says
- IRS scandal: Is partisanship overshadowing facts?
"There is a way to approach that [stating watered down talking points] and talk about how this is all happening in a bit og a fog in the region and that more investigation is taking place and that the Administration will be keeping the public informed as it all comes more clear...."
Actually, that's exactly what she did - she explicitly and specifically said just that. Go back and review the videos or transcripts. It was the only responsible thing to do, since there were several conflicting accounts of what happened and info was still coming in and getting verified, and saying the wrong thing night endanger intelligence sources.
This was a messy, fast-breaking situation. People in all capacities were scrambling to do the right thing. I find it unconscionable that anyone would 'stress in an over the top fashion' that any of the players were acting in some sort of evil manner. What hard evidence do you have that back that up? What do you know that we don't?
The Benghazi affair was certainly a tragedy, but not one single person has come up with any verifiable facts to support any accusations. NOT ONE. Instead we have a lot of people ominously pointing fingers, an exemplary diplomat's career in damage control mode and the prospect of a special election for no good reason.
Don't we all have better things to do? Like senators serving their constituents instead of their own interests? Like figuring out how to prevent another Benghazi so four brave Americans will not have died in vain?
1. Susan Rice will never "bow down" to the GOP powers that be. She speaks her mind and will not be blackmailed, coerced or bought.
2. The GOP wants to try to get their grubby little hands on Mr. Kerry's Senate seat.
All the rest of it is just smoke and mirrors.
You probably have a number of investments that would be considered a conflict of interest IF you were to take certain positions, and which ones would conflict would change, depending on what the position is.
Ms Rice has not even been nominated yet. IF she is nominated and appointed, she will change her investment portfolio to eliminate conflicts, just like any other public official.
Understand the concept?
At least Collins made clear the GOP wishlist for Christmas.
LOL.
When you've been selected to discuss an event of great public interest and the entire US intelligence community agrees on the talking points you've been given to present, you don't second-guess them. This has never been about Ms Rice, and the Republican senators leading the fight against her have been transparently dishonest about it. This whole clown show has made zero sense.
At this point the only explanation that does make sense is that they are hoping to make Ms Rice so radioactive that the president must select his second choice, John Kerry. Senator Collins is now specifically recommending him.
So can we get an article looking at that scenario? What are Scott Brown's chances to take Kerry's seat if he becomes Secretary of State? How would the balance of power in the senate be affected? Who are his likely opponents? How likely is it that his opponent could successfully capitalize on the fact that the whole special election would be a result of a massive Republican fabrication, a shameless dirty trick, and they must be prevented from getting away with it?
Simple.... Enough said already.