The half-baked lies of Su­san Rice

The Obama ad­viser’s record of de­ceit is catch­ing up with her

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - By David A. Keene David A. Keene is ed­i­tor at large at The Washington Times.

Most rea­son­able ob­servers be­lieved or at least hoped that the na­tion would fi­nally be spared hav­ing to lis­ten to the Clin­ton and Obama ad­min­is­tra­tions’ go-to liar af­ter last Novem­ber’s elec­tion. In the nor­mal course of events, Na­tional Se­cu­rity Ad­vi­sor Su­san Rice would have sim­ply packed her bags and van­ished into well-paid ob­scu­rity at a “pro­gres­sive” univer­sity or think tank. But it was not to be.

The woman who has been blamed with some ac­cu­racy for more fi­as­cos than most can count is still with us. 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. Bin Laden had helped en­gi­neer the first World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing and, but for Ms. Rice, would have been taken down be­fore he and his bud­dies fi­nally brought the tow­ers down eight years later.

No doubt gain­ing pres­tige for this sage ad­vice, Ms. Rice steadily rose to be­come what passes for a for­eign pol­icy su­per­star in the Clin­ton and Obama world, fi­nally end­ing up as Pres­i­dent Obama’s na­tional se­cu­rity ad­viser, where she worked in­ter­nally to weaken this coun­try’s sup­port of Is­rael and was con­stantly avail­able to heap praise on her boss and his ac­com­plish­ments. She was se­lected by the White House com­mu­ni­ca­tions team af­ter the ter­ror­ist at­tack in Beng­hazi to falsely blame a hap­less film­maker for the de­ba­cle lest Mr. Obama’s re-elec­tion nar­ra­tive that he had the ter­ror­ists on the run be jeop­ar­dized. It was then that Ms. Rice came into her own as a liar.

Uti­liz­ing talk­ing points put to­gether and given her by Obama aide Ben Rhodes, she took to the Sun­day talk show cir­cuit, ap­pear­ing be­fore ev­ery cam­era she could find to de­clare the film­maker the vil­lain while in­sist­ing that the White House and Mrs. Clin­ton were blame­less. It wasn’t un­til Ju­di­cial Watch went to court to get copies of the Rhodes emails or­der­ing her to lie to pro­tect her bosses that the pub­lic be­gan to ap­pre­ci­ate her tal­ent for telling whop­pers.

Ul­ti­mately, her tour de force on Beng­hazi and later pub­lic claim that Army de­serter Bowe Bergdahl was a hero cap­tured by the en­emy on the bat­tle­field rather than the de­serter ev­ery­one in the ad­min­is­tra­tion knew him to be cost her the job at the top of the for­eign pol­icy lad­der. Cho­sen as Mrs. Clin­ton’s suc­ces­sor as sec­re­tary of State, Ms. Rice was forced to with­draw rather than face con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings in the Se­nate.

Now with the rev­e­la­tions ear­lier this week that it was she who “un­masked” the names of Trump as­so­ci­ates over­heard in con­ver­sa­tions with for­eign na­tion­als picked up by U0.S. in­tel­li­gence dur­ing the Trump cam­paign and tran­si­tion, the lady is at it again. At first she claimed she had done noth­ing un­usual, not re­al­iz­ing her ac­tions were com­ing un­der scru­tiny. Then she ad­mit­ted that, yes, she had in­creased her re­quests to the in­tel­li­gence agen­cies as the cam­paign heated up and through the tran­si­tion, and that she was aided in her ef­forts by none other than her old friend and co-con­spir­a­tor, Ben Rhodes. Once it was re­vealed that she was col­lect­ing data on the fu­ture pres­i­dent, she ad­mit­ted the “un­mask­ing,” but as­sured ev­ery­one that, as she told re­porters, she had “leaked noth­ing to no­body.”

The only peo­ple who took her at her word were Clin­ton and Obama apol­o­gists who would, if called upon, praise the bright sun­light at mid­night. Don Le­mon and oth­ers at CNN im­me­di­ately dis­missed the facts re­vealed as “fake news” de­signed to ma­lign Ms. Rice and the Democrats in an ef­fort to di­vert at­ten­tion from the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s many sins and fail­ings. The pub­lic isn’t buy­ing it, know­ing that be­ing fooled once by a se­rial liar might be blamed on the liar, but any­one who could be fooled twice, three times or more by the likes of Ms. Rice can blame only them­selves.

Those fa­mil­iar with the way she went about col­lect­ing in­for­ma­tion on her boss’ po­lit­i­cal en­e­mies know that she and Mr. Rhodes were run­ning an un­prece­dented ef­fort to po­lit­i­cally weaponize the pow­er­ful tools put into the hands of the gov­ern­ment to fight ter­ror­ism and turn them on those with whom they dis­agree. Michael Do­ran, a former Na­tional Se­cu­rity Coun­cil (NSC) se­nior di­rec­tor, was shocked at the enor­mity of what they had pur­port­edly done, telling a re­porter they had ac­cessed “a stream of in­for­ma­tion that was sup­posed to be her­met­i­cally sealed from pol­i­tics and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion found a way to blow a hole in the wall.”

Mr. Do­ran’s shock was echoed in the words of re­tired Col. James Wau-rishuk, former NSC aide and deputy di­rec­tor of U.S. Cen­tral Com­mand, who told the Daily Caller, “This is re­ally, re­ally se­ri­ous stuff.”

In­deed it is, and though Ms. Rice has dodged ques­tions about whether she’ll will­ingly tes­tify be­fore con­gres­sional in­ves­ti­ga­tors on what she did, she should be re­quired to do so if she has to be dragged up there kick­ing and scream­ing while be­ing re­minded that ly­ing un­der oath is dif­fer­ent from ly­ing in front of a tele­vi­sion cam­era.

ILLUSTRATION BY LINAS GARSYS

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.