Ms. Rice was the Obama and Clinton administration “right hand woman.” She appears to have a different notion of truth-telling than most of the rest of us. But lying isn’t her only failing. Incredibly bad judgement is right up there – and then there’s the “grammar issue.”
[Sources: In January, Susan Rice Assured NPR the Obama Admin Removed Chemical Weapons From Syria, by Mark Hemingway; The half-baked lies of Susan Rice, by David Keene]
She first publicly demonstrated her bad judgment as far back as 1996 when as the Clinton National Security Council’s senior director for African affairs, she successfully urged the Clinton White House to refuse a Sudanese offer to turn al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Now that must be right up there in the top 10 of BAD ADVICE GIVEN TO A PRESIDENT.
As virtually every one of my readers already knows, she was selected by the White House communications team after the terrorist attack in Benghazi to falsely blame a hapless filmmaker for the debacle. (You will recall that our former president had been telling Americans that he “had the terrorists on the run.”) She literally lied through her teeth on five Sunday news programs that this attack was somehow a “spontaneous reaction” (it appears she believed that the terrorists just happened to be carrying rocket launchers and mortars in their pockets) to a “hateful and offensive video” on YouTube. When she was caught in her lie she had the audacity to declare on “Meet the Press” that “What I said to you that morning… was to share the best information that we had at the time.” So her incompetence not her prevarication was the problem? Well… like the old Chinese restaurant menu: choose one from Column A and one from Column B.
As we continue our stroll down memory lane, who could forget Rice’s claim that Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl was a hero. She spun the yarn that he was captured by the enemy on the “battlefield” rather than a deserter. Her boss had just released five Taliban commanders in exchange for Bergdahl. In his own hapless attempt to fulfill his campaign promise to “close Guantanamo,” he really needed to get rid of these homicidal maniacs without Congressional over sight. Let’s just say they were “not nice guys.” This particular lie caused Rice to withdraw her nomination as Hillary’s replacement for Secretary of State (unfortunately, John Kerry stepped in and was confirmed – Reid’s “nuclear option”).
In another “Ouch-something-just-bit-me-on-the-ass!” lie we have last week’s horrific sarin gas attack in Syria. As Reuters put its tongue in its cheek and reported, “U.S. intelligence agencies suspect Assad did not turn over all chemical weapons stockpile.”
Here is what our paragon of truth had to say before the attack. Just 2 months ago Rice was interviewed on National Public Radio and said, “We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. (Of course, she was covering for one of the monumental “wimp outs” of all time by a US President – the Great Red Line Fiasco.) Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.
Hmm! “Verifiably” – good word, but UNTRUE!
One would have hoped that her mischief was over now that she is jobless. Ah, but no. It turns out she has a few more lies left in her. It now appears she is the “operative” behind the “unmasking” of US citizens’ names from the Trump campaign. She first denied it.
On the PBS NewsHour on March 22, anchor Judy Woodruff introduced the interview by telling viewers she asked Rice about whether Trump and his transition officials “may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration” – that’s PBS-speak for “someone was spying on the Trump campaign.” Rice protested “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.”
We then learned that White House lawyers discovered that she requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
When she was caught in the lie she… well, let’s just say that she “back-tracked a bit.” She admitted that “There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to, name not provided, just a U.S. person, and sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of that report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that U.S. official was… It was not uncommon, it was necessary at times to make those requests. I don’t have a particular recollection of doing that more frequently after the election.” Wow! If you are looking for a great example of “circumlocution” you have found it!
Then she also stated that she “was not aware of any orders given to disseminate that information.” However, once unmasked, the names were widely disseminated through the intelligence community – and to some in the Obama White House.
Then she said, “I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would.” Someone should teach her about “double negatives” – personally I believe she is quite familiar with “double negatives” and their use in prevarication. But if I wanted information to leak out without doing it myself – it’s highly illegal – I would “widely disseminate it through the intelligence community.” That virtually guarantees a “leak.”
Plan on having the same issue of veracity pop up when the first Iranian nuclear weapon test occurs!