What is wrong with Susan Rice?
My grandmother had a saying, that “those who dig ditches under people, usually fall into one themselves.” In the case of Susan “YouTube video” Rice, one has to wonder how much longer she’s going to carry water for her former boss, Barack Obama, and former is still in question. It was just a short while ago, March 22 to be exact, on PBS when Ms. Rice denied having any knowledge of the intelligence community’s surveillance of the Trump transition team.
We have now gone from Sgt. Schulz’s “I know nothing” to yesterday’s bombshell from Bloomberg’s Eli Lake that Rice sought the names of Trump associates in intel. The Wall Street Journal also piled on with their column, “Susan Rice Unmasked.” According to Ms. Rice, unmasking is part of the job, to put into context intelligence reports. Yet, one has to ask what was so important about the Trump transition team, other than the concern among Democrats that the Trump team were clueless buffoons, that merited the attention of Ms. Rice, and for so long. Rice’s tabs on the Trump campaign go back over a year, when it was still uncertain as to who was going to win not only the Republican nomination but the Presidency itself.
Unmasking is done by, and is the realm of, the intelligence communities. Susan Rice, as National Security Advisor, is not a producer of intel, but merely a consumer. In today’s interview with Andrea Mitchell, Rice provided an interesting scenario as to when she would ask the intel community for the name of an American to be unmasked.
“Let me give you just a hypothetical example. This is completely made up. But let’s say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment. Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn’t have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information.”
What is the one thing that strikes you with the scenario? The intel community — NSA, CIA, FBI — in full of analysts whose daily work is to screen and analyze intel down to the iota. What is important, who should know it. Using the above scenario from Susan Rice’s own words, she’s requested and given the name of a now unmasked individual. How would she know a “serious person” from a “kook.” I repeat, that is the job of the intelligence community. If they thought it was important that she should know the name of the individual, or any entity, in their reports, they would provide that to her. Instead, these entities were “pressured” into giving names. And for what purpose? We have to ask the female version of Gunga Din.
If you’re astute and watch the entire Rice interview with Andrea Mitchell, watch the body language, the eye movements, the speech rapidity of Ms. Rice ….. draw your own conclusions: