I may use sarcasm from time to time, but I’m serious here. Why shouldn’t Susan Rice be Secretary of State? Unlike Hillary Clinton, who’s always served her own agenda as faithfully as she’s served her boss’s agenda, Ms. Rice’s loyalty would be unquestioned and unquestioning:
The president has said that Ms. Rice should not be criticized because she “had nothing to do with Benghazi” and so couldn’t have known better when she gave her false account. According to Mr. Obama (and to her), she simply repeated talking points provided by an amorphous and anonymous “intelligence community.”
But Ms. Rice did know at least a couple of things. She knew that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. She knew that after the attack the president insisted that U.S. leaders not “shoot first and aim later” but rather “make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts.” She knew that the video story line was questionable, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and administration officials had already suggested publicly that the attack was al Qaeda-related. And she knew that the president had a political interest in asserting that al Qaeda wasn’t successfully attacking senior American officials but was instead “on the run,” as he maintained on the campaign trail.
Senators might therefore ask Ms. Rice why she was put forward to speak about Benghazi, and what part her personal ambition might have played in her willingness to assume the role known during the Cold War as “useful idiot.”
Ms. Rice might also be asked what she knew about al Qaeda’s operations in Libya. As a member of the U.N. Security Council and its “Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee,” she is privy, for example, to information about the al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is under sanctions and, according to the council, “maintain[s] a presence in eastern Libya.”
She might have known this and she should have known that, but what is known above all is that she did her president’s bidding. Where was Hillary on that infamous Sunday morning when Ms. Rice spun the same false story on five (count ‘em!) talk shows? Was that goodwill trip to Vanuatu (or wherever) so vital that the explanation of the deaths of four Americans (and the post-mortem defilement of at least one of them) at the hands of Al Qaeda’s forces could be fobbed off to a mere UN Ambassador?
We know where Obama was the day after their deaths, the grisly nature of which he was completely apprised at the time: Las Vegas.
President Obama tells us our quarrel is with him, not Susan Rice, and he’s absolutely right. We had our chance to reprimand him for his reckless and disgraceful behavior, yet 50.8% of us (them) chose to return him to office for another four years. As Egyptians got the Muslim Brotherhood they chose (and they got it good and hard), we get the non-Muslim (he’s not!) brother we chose. How could we in good conscience we deny him his choice for Secretary of State?
The authors of this piece further demonstrate Ms. Rice’s perfidy at the United Nations—toward Israel and in cahoots with the loathsome Human Rights Council—but the point still stands: she serves at the pleasure of the President. Who are we to cavil at her exemplary performance in that role?
Trust me, nothing would make me happier than John Kerry as Secretary of State. It would be pure blogging comedy gold, and his Senate vacancy might offer Scott Brown an opportunity to resume his role as junior senator from the Commonwealth.
But we have a tradition of attractive black female Secretaries of State (thanks to President Bush), so I will set aside my personal feelings and endorse her candidacy. If nothing else, she will put an attractive face on a hideously ugly American foreign policy.
(Not that her pleasing visage did anything to clean up that stable of old goats, pigs, and mindless sheep at the United Nations.)