Washington – A visibly annoyed President Barack Obama and tough-talking Senate Republicans clashed sharply Wednesday over Susan Rice’s qualifications to become secretary of state, a strong reminder that all the post-election talk about bipartisanship has its limits.
The fight started with trial balloons in the news media this week signaling that Obama plans to nominate Rice as secretary of state when Hillary Clinton steps down
Two Republican senators responded Wednesday. Sen. John McCain of Arizona called Rice “not qualified,” and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said flatly, “I don’t trust her,” because of her statements about the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.
Obama, in an unusual show of emotion Wednesday, defended Rice, the United Nations ambassador who’s been a mainstay of his foreign policy team since his 2008 campaign.
“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” he said at a White House news conference. “To besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”
Rice has been under fire ever since she was dispatched by the Obama administration to tell Sunday talk shows five days after the Libya incident that it resulted from a spontaneous demonstration, a narrative that turned out to be false.
In defending Rice Wednesday, Obama may have inadvertently suggested she lacked the stature of a secretary of state, arguing that she was only a spokesman on the Libya story, reciting talking points given her by intelligence agencies.
“For them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi?” Obama asked. “And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received?”
Please support Truthout’s work by making a tax-deductible donation: click here to contribute.
Republicans weren’t buying that.
“This is about the role she played around four dead Americans when it seems to be that the story coming out of the administration – and she’s the point person – is so disconnected to reality, I don’t trust her,” said Graham. “The reason I don’t trust her is because I think she knew better, and if she didn’t know better, she shouldn’t be the voice of America.”
Unfair, protested Obama.
“But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me,” Obama said. “If I think that she would be the best person to serve America in that capacity at the State Department, then I will nominate her.”
After the press conference, Graham, often considered a Republican who works well with Democrats, wouldn’t let up.
“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack,” he said.
The fight comes at a post-election time when the two parties have signaled they want to work together. The Rice flap throws a grenade into the works.
Having Rice in the mix “doesn’t help,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican with a history of finding bipartisan consensus.
Presidents and senators try to avoid nomination fights, partly because opponents traditionally believe a president is entitled to his team, and partly because they don’t want to start off a year on an ugly note.
Nominees who prove toxic are often withdrawn before they get a vote. When controversial nominees get that vote, they rarely lose, though the new president often has to spend valuable political capital winning approval. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder weathered a stormy confirmation hearing – and Republican-imposed delays – and was confirmed with 75 votes.
Republicans see Rice through a broad lens: They want more answers on the Libya incident – and view it as a way of scoring points against Obama – and criticizing Rice is an attention-getting way of accomplishing that goal.
“We will do whatever’s necessary to block the nomination that’s within our power as far as Susan Rice is concerned,” McCain told a news conference. He and other Republicans want a special committee to investigate the Libya incident.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a senior Foreign Relations Committee member, went further, saying Rice’s problems go beyond Libya.
“Rice has been the Obama administration’s point person in pursuing liberal causes that threaten U.S. sovereignty,” he said. “She has also not been an effective diplomat or manager at the U.N.”
The nomination first would be considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Kerry has been mentioned for State as well as Defense.
The committee’s top Republican is slated to be Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, known for cooperating with Democrats.
Wednesday, Corker would not go as far as some Republicans, but he was puzzled why Rice did not know more about the incident.
“It’s a very big problem,” he said. “We all rely on people in these positions to be transparent and honest.”
“How could we, knowing that our intelligence officials in Libya in real time . . . were letting our folks know back here that this was a terrorist attack – it’s beyond me that we would be out publicly talking about the event in that way,” he said.
But unlike others, Corker would not say whether Rice could be confirmed. “You have to give someone a full hearing,” Corker said.
Democrats were more sympathetic.
“She’s qualified to be secretary of state,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. “She may have had bad information.”
Levin urged considering the whole of Rice’s resume, and to wait to hear her side of what happened regarding Libya.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.