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/2013/05/30/us/politics/2-diplomats-treated-differently-in-benghazi-uproar.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
2 Diplomats Met Different Fates in Benghazi Uproar 2 Diplomats Met Uneven Fates in Benghazi Uproar
(about 21 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The political tempest over last September’s deadly attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, has left a path of dented careers in its wake. But as with many storms, the residual damage is proving to be distinctly uneven.WASHINGTON — The political tempest over last September’s deadly attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, has left a path of dented careers in its wake. But as with many storms, the residual damage is proving to be distinctly uneven.
Consider the cases of Susan E. Rice and Victoria Nuland, two high-ranking diplomats whose internal roles were put on display when the White House released e-mails this month documenting how the administration drafted its official talking points about the attacks, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.Consider the cases of Susan E. Rice and Victoria Nuland, two high-ranking diplomats whose internal roles were put on display when the White House released e-mails this month documenting how the administration drafted its official talking points about the attacks, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Ms. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations and the favorite to be President Obama’s next national security adviser, continues to be criticized by Senate Republicans for going on Sunday news programs a few days after the attacks to deliver the talking points, which later proved to be inaccurate. But the e-mails reinforced her lack of involvement in the drafting process.Ms. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations and the favorite to be President Obama’s next national security adviser, continues to be criticized by Senate Republicans for going on Sunday news programs a few days after the attacks to deliver the talking points, which later proved to be inaccurate. But the e-mails reinforced her lack of involvement in the drafting process.
Ms. Nuland, a former State Department spokeswoman nominated by Mr. Obama to be an assistant secretary of state, was backed by some of the same Republicans, even though the e-mails show she pushed to edit the talking points — a process critics say was calculated to airbrush the White House’s account of the attacks for political reasons.Ms. Nuland, a former State Department spokeswoman nominated by Mr. Obama to be an assistant secretary of state, was backed by some of the same Republicans, even though the e-mails show she pushed to edit the talking points — a process critics say was calculated to airbrush the White House’s account of the attacks for political reasons.
What accounts for the different treatment?What accounts for the different treatment?
There are several factors, according to administration and Congressional officials, from personal relationships to the difference between a behind-the-scenes bureaucrat and a political ally who becomes the public face of the White House. But politics looms above all.There are several factors, according to administration and Congressional officials, from personal relationships to the difference between a behind-the-scenes bureaucrat and a political ally who becomes the public face of the White House. But politics looms above all.
“Susan Rice was exposed because at a critical moment, she was out there with a narrative about President Obama’s foreign policy that the Republicans couldn’t abide,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.“Susan Rice was exposed because at a critical moment, she was out there with a narrative about President Obama’s foreign policy that the Republicans couldn’t abide,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
“Toria was buried in the internal bureaucratic ticktock,” Mr. Miller said, using Ms. Nuland’s nickname. “She is also someone who has very good contacts across the aisle, and around Washington. Susan fits the Republican anti-Obama narrative; Toria does not.”“Toria was buried in the internal bureaucratic ticktock,” Mr. Miller said, using Ms. Nuland’s nickname. “She is also someone who has very good contacts across the aisle, and around Washington. Susan fits the Republican anti-Obama narrative; Toria does not.”
Ms. Nuland, a well regarded 29-year veteran of the Foreign Service, once served as deputy national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and as ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush. She is married to Robert Kagan, a neoconservative historian and commentator who advised Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign.Ms. Nuland, a well regarded 29-year veteran of the Foreign Service, once served as deputy national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and as ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush. She is married to Robert Kagan, a neoconservative historian and commentator who advised Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign.
Ms. Rice, by contrast, was a former Clinton administration official and a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama in his 2008 campaign, during which she tangled with the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. When Ms. Rice emerged as a leading candidate for secretary of state after Mr. Obama’s re-election, Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, became one of her most formidable opponents on Capitol Hill. Under pressure, she eventually pulled her name from consideration.Ms. Rice, by contrast, was a former Clinton administration official and a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama in his 2008 campaign, during which she tangled with the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. When Ms. Rice emerged as a leading candidate for secretary of state after Mr. Obama’s re-election, Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, became one of her most formidable opponents on Capitol Hill. Under pressure, she eventually pulled her name from consideration.
Last week, Mr. McCain rejected a senior White House official’s argument that Republicans owed Ms. Rice an apology. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that rather than an apology, Ms. Rice deserved a subpoena to explain why she misled the public by delivering talking points that were later retracted as erroneous.Last week, Mr. McCain rejected a senior White House official’s argument that Republicans owed Ms. Rice an apology. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that rather than an apology, Ms. Rice deserved a subpoena to explain why she misled the public by delivering talking points that were later retracted as erroneous.
A day later, when Mr. Obama nominated Ms. Nuland as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, Mr. Graham and Mr. McCain issued a joint statement declaring, “Ambassador Victoria Nuland has a long and distinguished record of service to our nation in both Republican and Democrat administrations.”A day later, when Mr. Obama nominated Ms. Nuland as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, Mr. Graham and Mr. McCain issued a joint statement declaring, “Ambassador Victoria Nuland has a long and distinguished record of service to our nation in both Republican and Democrat administrations.”
In some ways, Ms. Rice and Ms. Nuland, who both declined to comment for this article, had parallel experiences with Benghazi. Neither was involved in security decisions surrounding the American mission or an adjacent Central Intelligence Agency annex.In some ways, Ms. Rice and Ms. Nuland, who both declined to comment for this article, had parallel experiences with Benghazi. Neither was involved in security decisions surrounding the American mission or an adjacent Central Intelligence Agency annex.
Both became involved later: Ms. Nuland when she was brought into a Friday night deliberation involving the State Department, the C.I.A., the White House and other agencies about talking points prepared by the C.I.A.; and Ms. Rice when she was handed the finished talking points the night before she went on television.Both became involved later: Ms. Nuland when she was brought into a Friday night deliberation involving the State Department, the C.I.A., the White House and other agencies about talking points prepared by the C.I.A.; and Ms. Rice when she was handed the finished talking points the night before she went on television.
Defenders of Ms. Nuland said she had pushed back on the C.I.A.’s initial account because it went beyond what she had told reporters and because it protected the agency at the expense of the State Department — noting, for example, that the C.I.A. had issued multiple warnings about terrorist threats in Libya.Defenders of Ms. Nuland said she had pushed back on the C.I.A.’s initial account because it went beyond what she had told reporters and because it protected the agency at the expense of the State Department — noting, for example, that the C.I.A. had issued multiple warnings about terrorist threats in Libya.
Defenders of Ms. Rice said the talking points she delivered represented the best assessment of the intelligence community on the Sunday after the attack. She emphasized that this assessment could change with new information, and expressed regret later for saying Al Qaeda, rather than just the “core of Al Qaeda,” had been decimated.Defenders of Ms. Rice said the talking points she delivered represented the best assessment of the intelligence community on the Sunday after the attack. She emphasized that this assessment could change with new information, and expressed regret later for saying Al Qaeda, rather than just the “core of Al Qaeda,” had been decimated.
Ms. Rice and Ms. Nuland both went to Capitol Hill to explain their role. Ms. Rice’s visit, in which she was accompanied by the C.I.A.’s acting director at the time, Michael J. Morell, did not mollify the senators. Ms. Nuland’s more recent visit seems to have been more successful.Ms. Rice and Ms. Nuland both went to Capitol Hill to explain their role. Ms. Rice’s visit, in which she was accompanied by the C.I.A.’s acting director at the time, Michael J. Morell, did not mollify the senators. Ms. Nuland’s more recent visit seems to have been more successful.
“She told me her pushback was to try to protect the State Department from, in her view, unfair blame,” Mr. Graham said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. Asked how that differed from criticism that the administration had scrubbed the talking points, he said: “That’s a good question. She’s going to have to explain the role she played.”“She told me her pushback was to try to protect the State Department from, in her view, unfair blame,” Mr. Graham said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. Asked how that differed from criticism that the administration had scrubbed the talking points, he said: “That’s a good question. She’s going to have to explain the role she played.”
But Mr. Graham drew a distinction between being involved in drafting talking points — “protecting your bureaucratic turf,” as he put it — and delivering an account to the American people.But Mr. Graham drew a distinction between being involved in drafting talking points — “protecting your bureaucratic turf,” as he put it — and delivering an account to the American people.
The good news for Ms. Rice is that the post of national security adviser does not require confirmation by the Senate. Administration officials said she remained a prohibitive favorite. The current national security adviser, Tom Donilon, is expected to step down this year.The good news for Ms. Rice is that the post of national security adviser does not require confirmation by the Senate. Administration officials said she remained a prohibitive favorite. The current national security adviser, Tom Donilon, is expected to step down this year.
Mr. Graham sounded conciliatory about Ms. Rice’s potential future in the White House. He said that the choice of national security adviser was exclusively the president’s, and that Ms. Rice had the credentials for the job.Mr. Graham sounded conciliatory about Ms. Rice’s potential future in the White House. He said that the choice of national security adviser was exclusively the president’s, and that Ms. Rice had the credentials for the job.
“She’s going to have her plate full, if she’s chosen,” he said. “I will not be petty. I will put my differences on Benghazi aside and work with her.”“She’s going to have her plate full, if she’s chosen,” he said. “I will not be petty. I will put my differences on Benghazi aside and work with her.”