This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/politics/after-benghazi-meeting-3-republicans-say-concerns-grow-over-rice.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
G.O.P. Senators Not Satisfied as Rice Concedes Error on Libya G.O.P. Senators Not Satisfied as Rice Concedes Error on Libya
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, conceded on Tuesday that she incorrectly described the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, in September as following a spontaneous protest, rather than being a terrorist attack. But she said she based her statement on the intelligence available at the time and did not intend to mislead the American public. WASHINGTON — Susan E. Rice may have hoped that paying a conciliatory call on three hostile Senate Republicans on Tuesday would smooth over a festering dispute about the deadly attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and clear a roadblock to her nomination as secretary of state.
Ms. Rice’s acknowledgment, in a meeting on Capitol Hill with three Republican senators who had sharply criticized her earlier statements in a series of televsion interviews after the attack, seemed to do little to quell their anger. The senators emerged from the meeting voicing even deeper reservations about Ms. Rice’s role in the messy aftermath of the Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans. But the senators seemed anything but mollified, signaling instead that they would still oppose Ms. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, if she is nominated by President Obama, even after she conceded errors in the account of the assault she gave on Sunday morning television programs shortly after it occurred in September.
“We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got, and some that we didn’t get,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said to reporters. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, “Bottom line: I’m more concerned than I was before” — a sentiment echoed by Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Two of the Republicans, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, said they would seek to block Ms. Rice, who according to administration officials remains Mr. Obama’s preferred choice to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The third Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said on Fox that he would be “very hard-pressed” to support Ms. Rice.
Their statements – coming after Ms. Rice’s conciliatory remarks during a meeting designed to mend fences with her three critics and smooth the way for her nomination as secretary of state if President Obama decides on her as the successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton – attested to the bitterness of the feud between the White House and Republicans over Benghazi. “Bottom line, I’m more disturbed than I was before,” Mr. Graham said after the tense, closed-door meeting.
Mr. Graham and Ms. Ayotte said that knowing what they know now, they would place a hold on Ms. Rice’s nomination if Mr. Obama selected her. The continued criticism of Ms. Rice, 48, a diplomat with close ties to Mr. Obama, deepens an already-bitter and unusually personal feud between the White House and Republicans over Libya. Responding to a question about criticism of Ms. Rice at a news conference two weeks ago, Mr. Obama said: “If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me.”
“I wouldn’t vote for anybody being nominated out of the Benghazi debacle until I had answers about what happened that I don’t have today,” Mr. Graham said. It also raises the prospect of a confirmation battle if the president goes ahead with nominating Ms. Rice. To some extent, that battle is already under way, even before he has submitted her name. Ms. Rice’s visits to senators, which will continue Wednesday, bear all the hallmarks of a presidential nominee seeking to win over reluctant legislators.
Republicans have seized on Ms. Rice’s initial account – that the Benghazi attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest gone awry, rather than being a premeditated terrorist attack – as a politically motivated cover-up by the administration. The White House has defended Ms. Rice by saying she was simply articulating talking points produced by intelligence agencies. A senior administration official said the harsh reaction to her appearance on Tuesday would have no effect on Ms. Rice’s chances for secretary of state. “They’ve been saying the same thing for months,” he said.
Ms. Rice is viewed as Mr. Obama’s favored candidate to replace Mrs. Clinton. The president delivered a passionate defense of Ms. Rice at his news conference two weeks ago and scolded the senators for making her a target in their broader attack on the White House. Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is the other leading candidate for the post. Several senators, including Mr. McCain, said they would prefer Mr. Kerry and predicted he would sail through a confirmation hearing.
Ms. Rice had asked for the meeting and was accompanied by the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael J. Morrell, amid signs that Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were softening their opposition to her potential nomination. “She deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself,” Mr. McCain said on Sunday. In a statement after the meeting, Ms. Rice said she incorrectly described the attack in Benghazi — which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — as a spontaneous protest gone awry rather than a premeditated terrorist attack. But she said she based her remarks on the intelligence then available — intelligence that changed over time.
In a statement issued after the meeting, Ms. Rice said she and Mr. Morrell discussed the talking points that she used when she appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack. “Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in the process,” said Ms. Rice, who was accompanied in the meeting by the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael J. Morrell.
“We explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,” Ms. Rice said. Ms. Rice had requested the meeting amid signs that Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were softening their criticism. “She deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself,” Mr. McCain said Sunday.
“While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved,” she added. “We stressed 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.” It is difficult to gauge whether the opposition of the three Republicans — however vociferous — would be enough to derail Ms. Rice’s chances. Assuming the White House had the support of every Senate Democrat, it would only have to win over five Republicans to gain a filibuster-proof majority.
That did not mollify the senators. Mr. Graham said that as the ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Rice had access to classified intelligence about the attack, and had an obligation to question intelligence agencies before presenting an account that later proved inaccurate. At a minimum, though, she would face harsh scrutiny. Other Republicans on Tuesday continued voicing suspicions that the White House shaded its initial accounts of the attack in Benghazi, during a hard-fought election, to preserve Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism credentials.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said after the meeting: “There are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice’s appearance on Sunday shows and the talking points she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. Those questions have been answered.” Some Republicans condemned Ms. Rice not so much for her handling of the Benghazi affair but for what they said was her blind loyalty to the president. That quality, said Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, is not one a secretary of state should possess.

Peter Baker contributed reporting.

“While I think she’d be outstanding as head of the Democratic National Committee, I’ve just never seen that sense of independence from her, and I think that’s one of the reasons she got herself into so much trouble,” said Mr. Corker, who will meet her on Wednesday.
The White House continued to defend Ms. Rice, publicly and privately. The press secretary, Jay Carney, said, “There are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice’s appearance on Sunday shows and the talking points she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community.”
Ms. Rice has other defenders, including Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has often lined up with Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham. Mr. Lieberman, who is retiring in January, said Ms. Rice had “told the truth and nothing but the truth.”
After meeting with Ms. Rice, Mr. Lieberman said she told him that in her televised remarks, she wished she had said that the “core of Al Qaeda” had been decimated, not simply “Al Qaeda.”
That distinction has been a major bone of contention with Mr. McCain, who contends that the administration has improperly claimed credit for wiping out the Qaeda terrorist network, when Qaeda affiliates are on the march in Yemen, Libya and Iraq.
As they spoke after the meeting, it was clear that Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham and Ms. Ayotte had different grievances. Mr. McCain seemed most intent on extracting an admission from Ms. Rice that her initial account of the attack was incorrect.
Mr. Graham delivered a sweeping critique of the intelligence agencies, which he said had moved slowly in trying to get answers to what happened in Benghazi — for example, in analyzing F.B.I. interviews with survivors of the attack. Ms. Ayotte focused on classified information, referring to links to a Qaeda affiliate, which had been deleted from the unclassified talking points Ms. Rice delivered. Ms. Ayotte suggested that Ms. Rice should have refused to give a less-than-complete account.
On-the-ground accounts indicate that Ms. Rice’s description of the attack, though wrong in some respects, was accurate in others. Witnesses to the assault said it was carried out by members of the Ansar al-Shariah militant group, without any warning or protest, in retaliation for an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad.
The legacy of President George W. Bush also hangs over this dispute. In his comments about Ms. Rice, Mr. Graham cited John R. Bolton, a conservative who was installed by Mr. Bush as ambassador to the United Nations in a controversial recess appointment. “Democrats dug in their heels and said, ‘We’re not going to vote, we’re not going to consider this nomination until we get basic answers to our concerns,’ ” Mr. Graham said. “The concerns I have today are greater than they were before, and we’re not even close to getting basic answers.”

Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.