Graham: Rice’s Libya Comments ‘Designed To Help’ Obama Before Election

View Comments
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (credit: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (credit: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Latest News

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.
Sign Up

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans continue to argue that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is unfit to be secretary of state. Democrats say the criticism is unfair.

Republican senators say they remain deeply concerned over Rice’s statements about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and suggested her motive was to help President Barack Obama’s re-election chances. Democrats, meanwhile, said they saw no reason the statements should disqualify her if she’s nominated.

At issue is the explanation Rice offered in a series of talk show appearances five days after the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Rice has conceded in private meetings with lawmakers that her initial account — that a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. triggered the attack — was wrong, but she has insisted she was not trying to mislead the American people. That account was provided by intelligence officials who have since said their understanding of the attack evolved as more information came to light.

Appearing on Sunday talk shows, two of Rice’s fiercest critics, Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Rice’s account went beyond talking points that the intelligence agencies gave her. For one, they noted she had said that security at the Benghazi mission was “strong, substantial and significant.”

That statement “was not supported by the talking points,” Ayotte said, noting that Rice was privy to more than just the unclassified material she discussed on television, including secret intelligence briefings that pointed to al-Qaida involvement in the attack.

“I think her story on 16th of September was a political story designed to help the president three weeks before the election, and she should be held accountable for that,” Graham said. He added that Rice’s comments were “a treasure trove of misleading statements that have the effect of helping the president.”

Rice met with both Graham and Ayotte last week to explain the situation, but Graham said Rice “didn’t do herself much good” in the encounter.

Democrats, though, said Rice is being unfairly victimized for repeating erroneous talking points circulated by the intelligence community.

“Nothing that I have heard, in my mind, would disqualify her” from being secretary of state, said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill said what’s happening to Rice is “terribly unfair” and a brighter light should be shone on the role of former CIA chief David Petraeus and his agency.

“The talking points came from the intelligence community, yet you don’t hear one criticism of David Petraeus. It was his shop that produced the talking points that Susan Rice talked about. … Is there a double standard here? It appears to most of us that there is. A very unfair one,” she said.

Petraeus quit the CIA after acknowledging an adulterous affair with his biographer.

Ayotte and Warner were on CNN’s “State of the Union.” McCaskill spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Graham appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

View Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,626 other followers