Greta Van Susteren Roasts Rice and the Obama Administration Over Describing Netanyahu's Upcoming Speech as 'Destructive'

February 26th, 2015 11:20 AM

Wednesday night, Fox News's Greta Van Susteren sharply criticized Susan Rice for her Tuesday comment about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's impending March 3 speech to Congress, namely that "On both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, but I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship." To be clear, Rice is not freelancing. Wednesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that "what she said was entirely consistent with what the President said publicly before."

This was too much for Van Susteren, who needed only 45 seconds of the 90-second clip which follows to rattle off a half-dozen examples of how the Obama administration's conduct has been "destructive" to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The administration is absurdly attempting to blame Netanyahu and the House GOP leadership for ruining what it wants America to believe would otherwise be an ideal situation.

Van Susteren called BS on that nonsense (HT to an emailer):

Transcript (bolds and numbered tags identifying instances of Obama adminstration destructiveness are mine):

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: You will not believe -- well, maybe you will -- what President Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice, just said about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress.


SUSAN RICE, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: On both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, but I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship.


VAN SUSTEREN: Really? She thinks his speech is the problem, that his speech is the destructive to the relationship? Apparently, Susan Rice has a spotty memory, or a politically convenient one. Or maybe she is drinking something weird.

How could she possibly forget that her boss, President Obama, got caught on a hot mic trash-talking Prime Minister Netanyahu? Trash-talking? That's destructive. [1] Or that President Obama skipped going to Paris after a terror attack on a Jewish deli? Destructive. [2] Or how about that Obama administration official who called Netanyahu a chicken you-know-what and a coward. Name calling? That's destructive. [3]

And, of course, President Obama never disavowed those insults, nor apologized for his staffer. His silence? That's destructive. [4] Or how about the former Obama campaign staffers in Israel right now working to defeat Netanyahu in his upcoming election. Destructive. [5] Or President Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu next week? Destructive. [6]

Well, Susan Rice let us know who she thinks is destructive in this relationship. I will keep it a secret who I think might be delusional. And that's my "Off the Record" comment tonight.

So there you have it — A half-dozen proven instances of behavior, actions or non-actions by the Obama administration clearly "destructive" to U.S.-Israel relations. Only Item [2], which was nonsensically excused as a scheduling and security problem, and Item [6], which the administration's legions of media defenders have tried to justify as a natural response to alleged but actually nonexistent secretive Netanyahu-GOP behavior, have been widely recognized by the establishment press. There isn't a chance in Hades that the press would have failed to report the other four items during a Republican or conservative administration.

The only thing that Van Susteren omitted was that a Democratic Party president attempting to marginalize Netanyahu and defeat him in Israeli elections is not a new thing. The Clinton administration's electoral hit squad helped engineer Netanyahu's electoral loss in 1999.

Currently, even as its apparatchiks attempt to take out Netanyahu, the Obama administration proclaims its allegiance to "noninterference" in foreign elections as a justification for not meeting Netanyahu. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, even for this bunch. The press's failure to identify it as such is what makes them so confident they can continue to peddle it without consequence.

Cross-posted at