ShareThis Page

Rice out of pool for State position

| Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012, 9:46 p.m.
AFP/Getty Images
Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012, withdrew her name from consideration to be the next Secretary of State, after becoming a lightning rod for the White House's handling of the raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi Stan Honda | Getty Images

WASHINGTON — President Obama dropped embattled U.N. envoy Susan Rice from consideration as his next secretary of State, signaling the start of a broad reshuffling of his Cabinet and senior staff.

Bowing to a barrage of criticism by Republican members of Congress of Rice's response after armed militants overran a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, Obama said Thursday he had agreed to her request to withdraw her name from consideration.

Obama said he “deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks” on Rice, and he praised his ambassador to the United Nations as “an extraordinarily capable, patriotic and passionate public servant.”

The decision marked a personal defeat for Obama, who defended Rice repeatedly in recent weeks and is locked in tense negotiations with Republican leaders in the House over the fiscal crisis.

Rice has been a pillar of Obama's inner circle since she joined his 2008 presidential campaign.

At his first post-election news conference, Obama directly challenged her Republican critics. “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,” he said.

But Rice faced waning political support on Capitol Hill, and Obama's aides weighed whether contentious confirmation hearings would undercut other priorities at the start of his second term. While it appeared the White House had the votes to cut off a filibuster in the Senate and win confirmation, the fight could have dragged on for weeks and could have damaged her effectiveness as secretary of State.

The decision leaves Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as leading contender to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton when she steps down early next year. That, in turn, would require a special election in Massachusetts and likely give Scott Brown, a moderate Republican who lost his Senate seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in November, another chance to run.

White House aides said the president is considering three possibilities to replace Leon Panetta as secretary of Defense.

They include Chuck Hagel, a Republican who is former senator from Nebraska; Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter; and Michelle Flournoy, who was the highest-ranking woman at the Pentagon for most of the first Obama administration.

If nominated, Flournoy would be the first woman to run the Defense Department. She grew up in the Los Angeles area in the 1970s, when her father worked as a TV cinematographer at Paramount Studios, and graduated from Beverly Hills High School in 1979.

In a letter to Obama, Rice explained her decision by noting that confirmation hearings “would be lengthy, disruptive and costly — to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities. That tradeoff is simply not worth it to our country.”

One former administration official said Rice was in direct communication with Obama staffers, but was not forced to pull out by the White House.

“She made this decision on her own over the past couple of days,” said a second source, who requested anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations. “It became clear this was not going away.”

Rice drew flak from Republican lawmakers after she appeared on several Sunday TV talk shows five days after armed militants stormed a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi in eastern Libya on Sept. 11, and killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Although Rice relied on so-called talking points given to her by the CIA, a growing number of Republicans said she falsely described the attacks as spontaneous protests and not a calculated act of terror by Libyan extremists. Critics said she had tried to downplay the nature of the attacks to protect Obama during his re-election campaign.

Rice later agreed that her statements were incorrect, but blamed misinformation given to her by the intelligence community.

The Republican reaction was unrelenting when the White House circulated Rice's name as a possible candidate last month. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others said they would work actively against her candidacy because of the Benghazi episode. Other questions were raised about her investments overseas.

Aides said the White House at first hoped they could wait out the furor. But as weeks passed, it did not subside, and they began to worry that they needed to start filling other national security posts without much more delay.

Graham said that he respected Rice's decision. He then pivoted to Benghazi, pledging to keep close scrutiny of the security breakdown even with Rice out of the spotlight.

“The story of Benghazi is a story of national security failure, and we must work to prevent it from every happening again,” he said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.