Ambitious to be secretary of state, Susan Rice wanted to prove she had the gravitas for the job and help out the White House. So the ambassador to the U.N. agreed to a National Security Council request to go on all five Sunday shows to talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

"She saw this as a great opportunity to go out and close the stature gap," said one administration official. "She was focused on the performance, not the content. People said, 'It's sad because it was one of her best performances.' But it's not a movie, it's the news. Everyone in politics thinks, you just get your good talking points and learn them and reiterate them on camera. But what if they're not good talking points? What if what you're saying isn't true, even if you're saying it well?"

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Friday, the beheaded Head Spook David Petraeus said the CIA knew quickly that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack.

"It was such a no-brainer," one intelligence official told me.

Intelligence officials suspected affiliates of al-Qaida and named them in their original talking points for Rice, but that information was deemed classified and was softened to "extremists" as the talking points were cycled past Justice, State, the National Security Council and other intelligence analysts.


Advertisement

Some have wondered if Rice, who has a bull-in-a-china-shop reputation, is diplomatic enough for the top diplomatic job. But she would have been wise to be more bull-in-a-china-shop and vet her talking points, given that members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities and sources in news accounts considered it a terrorist attack days before Rice went on the shows. (The president and his spokesman also clung to the video story for too long.)

Rice should have been wary of a White House staff with a tendency to gild the lily, with her pal Valerie Jarrett and other staffers zealous about casting the president in a more flattering light, like national security officials filigreeing the story of the raid on Osama to say bin Laden fought back. Did administration officials foolishly assume that if affiliates of al-Qaida were to blame, it would dilute the credit the president got for decimating al-Qaida? Were aides overeager to keep Mitt Romney, who had stumbled after the Benghazi attack by accusing the president of appeasing Islamic extremists, on the defensive?

An Africa expert, Rice should have realized that when a gang showed up with RPGs and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of al-Qaida sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was not anger over a movie.

She should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily Hillary was avoiding the talk shows.

The president's fierce defense of Rice had virile flare. But he might have been better off leaving it to aides, so he did not end up going mano a mano with his nemesis John McCain on an appointment he hasn't even made (though now Obama might feel compelled to, just to prove that he can't be pushed around), and so he could focus on fiscal cliff bipartisanship.

His argument that Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi," raises the question: Then why was she the point person?

The president's protecting a diplomatic damsel in distress made Rice look more vulnerable, when her reason for doing those shows in the first place was to look more venerable.

Maureen Dowd is a columnist for The New York Times.