Some unnamed boss of hers is consulting with the NSS, which is the National Security Staff, meaning the White House. So the question is, who above Victoria Nuland was talking to who over at the White House about these talking points?
There's also a reference in here to a CVITS on Friday. There's a secure video conference with the CIA, State and White House and FBI, where they're talking about these talking points and the opposition of the State Department to these talking points. But also, it says that Mike Morell, the deputy director of the CIA, will sit down with Ben Rhodes of the National Security Council and his deputy, Tommy Vietor, to work out the talking points, which makes it sound like the White House is the ultimate shot caller on the talking points.
But the final one, most interesting -- I'm sorry...
VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.
ROVE: Go ahead.
VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.
ROVE: Well, the -- the final and most interesting point to me is, the question we've never gotten answered is, who is responsible for cooking up the story that the anti-Muslim video is what caused this? And we may have -- I mean, we may have a clue in these.
On Sunday -- Saturday afternoon and evening, there's a series of exchanges between an unnamed person at the U.S. U.N. mission -- maybe Aaron Pelton, I don't know, the spokes person for the U.S. U.N. mission, and Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes, going back and forth about the preparation for Susan Rice for the Sunday morning talk programs.
Now, we do know that Victoria Nuland has already told the press, I had nothing to do with prepping Susan Rice, and Jacob Sullivan, who was then at the State Department, is now Joe Biden's foreign policy director, he, too, says, I had nothing to do with preparing Rice. But we have Pelton in communications with the White House, Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, saying, you know, We need to get finalized on what we're going to say tomorrow morning.
So my question is, who was responsible for cooking up this story? And maybe Aaron Pelton, Ben Rhodes, Tommy Vietor or somebody else at the U.S. U.N. mission who was involved in sending those e-mails ought to step forward and answer the question of whether or not it was them who cooked up this story.
VAN SUSTEREN: I have two things. One is that I think Victoria Nuland is sort of an interesting study in this. First of all, she's the one who wanted to, at one point -- I think it was on the night of the 14th, which was Friday, she sent an e-mail and said the line about knowing there were extremists among the demonstrators will come back to us at the podium, you know, answering, how do we know who they are. So she was worried about that.
But she's also been very -- you know, she's worked very -- she's been a Republican administration employee, a Democratic administration employee, and she's now a very strong advocate in this and her name appears all over it. So she's interesting.
But the other -- the overriding conversation -- the overriding question I have is, why didn't everyone just tell the truth from the get- go? What's wrong with admitting it was terrorism? I mean, for -- you know -- you know, we need to -- we need to know if we're, like -- you know, if there's a risk out there.
I don't like all this scurrying around, all this hiding of the emails, classifying this dog and pony -- we've got Jay Carney, who I don't know how he faces the White House press corps now, having said that ridiculous stylistic thing. How is he supposed to develop credibility on behalf of the president from here?
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, like, you've got all this because -- you know, for one simple reason, they just didn't want to tell us the truth from the get-go!
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, and for no reason! I mean, no one made a -- no one got rich off this!
ROVE: Well, no real reason. They had political reasons. The head of the office of congressional liaison at State participates in this, and sort of says, Oh, we can't tell them -- we can't tell members of Congress about the warnings about all these previous incidents. That'll come back to haunt us. Well, they're clearly engaging in CYA.
And now, what's interesting, though -- and again, I repeat, Victoria Nuland is operating on behalf of, quote, her "building," and she says they aren't happy, and they are in touch with the National Security Council staff. Who was it that was at State Department who was unhappy? Was it Cheryl Mills, the chief of staff to Secretary Clinton? Was it Secretary Clinton herself?
Who was she talking to at the White House? Who were they talking to at the White House? Were they talking to Donilon? Were they talking to the -- to the chief of staff? Who were they talking to at the White House?
And -- and -- and frankly, I -- I'm a little bit -- you know, it gives me a little bit comfort that adults were trying to resolve this, not just simply all of these press types running around.
And then, of course, finally, the question is, was it Pelton at U.S. U.N. who briefed Susan Rice? And did Pelton come up with the lie about the video? Did they come up with -- they were in conversation, whoever that person was, with Rhodes and Vietor? Was it one of the two of them that concocted it, or one of their bosses? Did they tell the U.S. U.N. staffer, Hey, here's what Susan Rice needs to say tomorrow morning?
This is the biggest lie we've been -- and we had it told over and over again by a wide variety of people. The question is, who's responsible for propagating it? And the American people deserve to know.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think -- and let me just add one thing. When it's a matter of life and death, you know, I think we ought to be honest. You know, I mean, like, you know, all the political games that are played in this city, when it comes down to life and death, and that's what this is, and terrorism that could strike any one of us any time, that they should have told the truth. And you know -- and I hope we finally do get to the bottom. And I -- you know, we'll find out who did what and who didn't do what.
Karl, thank you.
ROVE: You bet. Thank you.