If she were a PR or media relations type person, this  argument might make some sense. But she is an ambassador, and could be expected to use some independent judgment.

As a business analogy: if the  CFO gives fraudulent data to his secretary, then gets sick and asks her to give his presentation at an investor conference, she probably has a valid excuse for presenting fraudulent financial data. But if he does the same thing with a senior financial analyst, and the data was squirrly enough that a person with financial knowledge and ordinary common sense should have asked some questions, she’s probably going to be in trouble with the SEC (just for starters)

Is Susan Rice not a fully independent woman able to operate as an adult and accept responsibility for her actions?  Obama seems to think she is weak and must be protected?

If Obama told Susan Rice a lie that she unknowingly repeated, then let him state that categorically?  State that she was duped and her failing is in trusting him and his staff and in repeating what they told her.  If she is so easily misled, is she the proper person for Secretary of State?

If Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why did the administration send her to 5 Sunday shows to be the administration’s mouthpiece on Benghazi?  If she knew nothing, she should have simply stated she could not answer the questions.