There is an on-going debate whether Susan Rice lied in public when she announced that the attack on American consulate in Benghazi 9/11/2012 was a result of a spontaneous demonstration that was triggered by a YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims“. We all know that what she said was false but she and her defenders maintain that she did not know that when she made those announcement. And the masters of spin, including the so-called “mainstream” media, add to the confusion, blaming a lack of credible intelligence and an on-going investigation, with the obvious intent to make the subject so murky that no one would know anything anymore for sure.
We may never know if she lied. However, at least one thing is clear. Susan Rice has deceived the American public. By making categoric assertions and inferences with no hesitation whatsoever, she made people believe that her false claim about spontaneousness of the attack was as factual as that two plus two is four.
“We have no evidence that it was a pre-planned attack, therefore, it was NOT a pre-planned attack.”
What she failed to say was that they had no evidence that there was any demonstration or a spontaneous protest in Benghazi on the day of the attack, either. And that was as deceptive as her other representations, for if the American people knew that no evidence that would link the said video to the death of the American ambassador and three other Americans existed then they would be very unlikely to accept her “logical” conclusion. If there is absolutely no evidence suggesting one or another then the only logical conclusion is that we don’t know what caused the killing.
The only excuse that would get Susan Rice of the hook of the charge of intentional deception would be her stupidity.
An apologist for her might claim that her only fault was her invalid inference from her lack of knowledge of facts. Such a defense would assert that she concluded that the attack was not a premeditated action just because she did not know that it was a premeditated action. But then, following the same pattern of stupidity, she should have concluded that it was not a reaction to the said video just because she did not know that it was. Also, she should have concluded that it was not a result of a spontaneous demonstration because she did not know that it was.
So, if it was her stupidity then it was a selective stupidity that made her err on the side of the version that Obama administration was trying to sell to the unsuspecting public. All these speculations, in order to be credible, must presuppose that her doctoral degree was awarded to her based on considerations other than her intellectual fitness for the academic degree.
The tendency to conveniently derive desired but false conclusions from one’s lack of knowledge is characteristic of practicing Liberals. Susan Rice’s claim that the attack was a spontaneous reaction because she had no evidence that it wasn’t is but one instance of this notorious Liberal fallacy. There are many others that the Liberals use ad nauseam in order to force upon us their absurd ideology.
Here is another example, this one much more common among the Liberals than Susan Rice’s invalid inference.
Several Liberal politicians are claiming that criticism of Susan Rice by some U.S. lawmakers is a case of racism. Susan Rice is black and her critics are white, so some Liberals will arrive at the said conclusion. But what is the evidence of racism here?
Well, it is a lack of their knowledge to the contrary. Those who claim that Senators McCain and Graham are racist in their criticism of Susan Rice derive their conclusion form a lack of evidence that the two senators are not racist. The mere fact that they are white and she is black creates (in their mind) a presumption of racism, which is a deadly (figuratively speaking) weapon in political debates. How convenient.
Of course, none of these Liberal defenders of Susan Rice would state the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Senators McCain and Graham have racist motivations while criticizing her, never mind concluding from a lack of such an evidence that the two senators have no racist motivations whatsoever. Interestingly, when President Obama stands by his incompetent protégées, Attorney General Eric Holder, and (his presumed) nominee for the Secretary of State Susan Rice, no Liberal politician seems concerned that all three of them are of the same race, never mind presume any kind of racism here.
If the supposedly “post-racial” president were choosing each of them at random, with no regard to their race, from the population of qualified Americans, in each case the probability of choosing a black would be proportional to the fraction of blacks among the educated Americans, that is, less than one in 10. So, the probability of choosing both of them black with no regard to their race would be less than one in 100. That is very unlikely! To make things even more suspicious, President Obama has recently characterized Susan Rice’s service as a U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “exemplary” despite plentiful evidence and testimonies that all she did was, at best, a mediocre job. If this in itself is not enough to consider racial motivations here (he is black and she is black) then nothing is.
The Liberal orthodoxy presumes that whites are racist and the blacks are not, despite the fact that such a presumption meets all the criteria of racial discrimination. In other words, the Liberal orthodoxy resorts to racism (by claiming that, not withstanding a few exception, whites and only whites are racist) in order to … eradicate racism.
Those who profess this kind of political nonsense must hate these whites every bit as much as they hate these racists. Which gives Susan Rice a good chance to become the next Secretary of State despite her demonstrated lack of moral and professional qualifications for the job. (To appear even more phony, the Liberals are not going to conclude that she is not qualified from a lack of the evidence that she is.)
But this is a subject for another column.
December 1, 2012
~ The Author ~
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s commentaries (updated frequently) can be found here. Send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.