Senators might therefore ask Ms. Rice why she was put forward to speak about Benghazi

Oh, that part’s easy. The YouTube narrative was a risky lie, readily proven false if any in media were so inclined. Unlike Shillary, Petraeus or Clapper, Rice had no organizational responsibility for Benghazi, hence plausible deniability for whatever she might say. She could always blame it on her intelligence briefings, so as to fend off charges of being inept or dishonest.

That’s why the WH trotted her out there. And that’s what she agreed to the assignment.

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.

Ruh roh.

I happen to think Rice is one very smart cookie. A misguided far leftist for sure, but not an America-hater like so many of her ilk. I’d take her over John Kerry in a heartbeat. But granted, that’s not saying much.

Heck, judging from her and hubby’s investments, she may even be pro-energy… and whatta relief that would be.

But she’s known to be politically ambitious, more so perhaps than most in her league.

I have a hunch, based on Obama’s hyper-defensiveness of her, that he’d like to groom her to take his place, as the 2016 Dem candidate. Think of it, not just the first woman prez, but the first black woman prez. Enough to make lib heads spin worldwide.

I have a hunch that the WH asked her to push the YouTube Video narrative on the five TV networks that Sunday, after Hillary declined it as too risky, and Susan agreed to carry the water, with the understanding that she would get WH backing for SoS.

In otherwords just another crony willing to adjust her morals to favor herself and other elites… normally the Left would hate these people, but if they are on your side, well…

http://freebeacon.com/susan-rices-enrichment-program/