Jen Psaki was born on December 1, 1978. In 2000 she graduated from the College of William and Mary with a BA degree in English and Literature. After completing her education, Psaki worked on the 2002 re-election campaigns of two Iowa Democrats — Governor Tom Vilsak and U.S. Senator Tom Harkin. She subsequently served as …
Jen Psaki was born on December 1, 1978. In 2000 she graduated from the College of William and Mary with a BA degree in English and Literature. After completing her education, Psaki worked on the 2002 re-election campaigns of two Iowa Democrats — Governor Tom Vilsak and U.S. Senator Tom Harkin. She subsequently served as communications director for Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), and then as deputy press secretary for John Kerry‘s 2004 presidential run. In the 2006 election cycle, Psaki worked as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s press secretary for the Midwest and Northeast regions. In 2007 she was appointed as deputy press secretary for Barack Obama‘s 2008 presidential bid, and she was subsequently promoted to the position of traveling press secretary. Psaki then served in the Obama White House from 2009-11 — initially as the President’s deputy assistant, and then as his deputy communications director.
Psaki was the senior vice president and managing director of the Global Strategy Group, a Washington-based public-relations firm, from October 2011 to June 2012. She worked as a traveling press secretary and senior adviser with Obama For America, the predecessor to Organizing For America and Organizing For Action, from July through November of 2012. She was a spokesperson for President Obama’s U.S. State Department from February 2013 through March 2015. And she served as White House communications director from April 2015 until the end of the Obama administration. In February 2017, Psaki joined CNN as a contributor and political commentator.
Regarding U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq in 2011
In an October 2014 interviewon Fox News, host Megyn Kelly confronted Psaki with evidence that former President Barack Obama had not been truthful in asserting, recently, that he had been left with no choice but to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, and to do so without first securing a Status-Of-Forces Agreement stipulating that at least some troops would be left behind in order to maintain stability in the country and to preserve America’s military victory. Specifically, Kelly played a video of Obama stating that “the reason that we did not have a follow on force in Iraq was because … a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there,” which, by Obama’s telling, meant that Iraqi leaders “politically … could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to [give our troops immunity from legal prosecutions] in Iraq.” To make the case that Obama was lying:
- Kelly noted that Obama’s recent statement contradicted his 2012 assertion that “what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down” and “certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”
- Kelly pointed out that Obama’s former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, Leon Panetta, had written in his new book, Worthy Fights, that while he and others in the Obama administration were objecting in 2011 to a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops — lest Iraq “become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the United States” – Obama’s “team at the White House pushed back, and … those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”
- Kelly noted that Panetta’s assessment regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq was echoed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a number of military generals, with the Pentagon recommending a residual force of some 24,000 troops ideally — and certainly no fewer than 10,000. But Obama, Kelly explained, was unwilling to leave any more than 5,000 troops in Iraq. And the prospect of such a small residual force left Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with no choice but to refuse, because, as Kelly put it, he “couldn’t take the political risk of going back to his country and saying, ‘Hey, give them immunity, they’re going to give us 5,000 troops’” — a force too small to offer any significant guarantee of future security.
In response to the facts with which Kelly had confronted her, Psaki said, without evidence: “Megyn, the facts just don’t align with that. The fact is none of those individuals you named would have left our troops there without the protections they needed…. We could not force Iraq, a sovereign government, to accept a presence there…. [E]ven if we had had a presence there, had a residual force there, that would not have prevented and changed the facts that we’ve seen [i.e., the rapid rise and expansion of the terrorist organization [ISIS] over the last eight months….”
Regarding Syria and President Obama’s “Red Line”
In August 2012, President Barack Obama announced that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, he would be crossing a “red line” that would likely trigger a military response by the United States. But exactly a year later — on August 21, 2013 — Assad did in fact breach that “red line” when he launched a massive chemical-weapons attack that killed more than 1,300 people and injured several thousand others. In the aftermath of that attack, Psaki and other members of the Obama administration were asked to comment on how the the President would respond. Psaki, for her part, emphasized the importance of an upcoming diplomatic conference in Geneva between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Said Psaki: “We know we have differences of opinion on some issues around Syria, but both the United States and Russia can play a vital role in convening both sides. We’re continuing to work on that. That has not changed.”
On August 30, 2013, Secretary Kerry, on behalf of President Obama, delivered a passionate speech in support of a significant U.S. military response to the “moral obscenity” Syria had committed. In that address, Kerry characterized Assad as “a thug and a murderer,” and stated that “history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency.” Less than a day later, however, Obama announced that he had decided to refrain from authorizing any military action without first obtaining approval from Congress. Psaki defended Obama’s decision as “courageous,” noting that while “the president has the authority to act without the cooperation of Congress,” both “the president and the secretary strongly agreed that when the administration and the people’s representatives stand together, that that strengthens our case and makes our case even stronger internationally.”
Regarding the Overthrow of Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi
During her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009-13, Hillary Clinton pushed hard for the United States to use military force to drive President Muammar Qaddafi from power in Libya. According to President Obama’s onetime Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Mrs. Clinton played a major role in convincing Obama to lead a protracted NATO bombing campaign against Qaddafi in 2011 — a campaign that lent support to opposition rebels consisting of ISIS, Ansar al-Sharia, and other local militant groups. Notably, Qaddafi at that time no longer posed any threat to American national security. Indeed, just prior to the anti-Qaddafi uprising that Clinton and Obama supported, Libya was providing the U.S. with important intelligence data. Moreover, it was a prospering, secular Islamic nation that had a national budget surplus of 8.7% and was producing 1.8 million barrels of oil per day.
By the time the Obama-Clinton bombing campaign was finished and Qaddafi had been driven from power, Libya’s economy had shrunk by 42% and was operating at an annual deficit of 17.1%. Oil production, meanwhile, was down by at least 80%. According to Foreign Policy In Focus, the Obama-Clinton strategy “plunged” Libya “into chaotic unrest” and “turned [it] into a cauldron of anarchy” where jihadism was running amuck and ISIS was gaining an increasingly secure foothold. Yet in December 2013, Psaki said that the U.S. valued its relationship with “the new Libya,” adding that “we have a strategic partnership based on shared interests and our strong support for Libya’s historic democratic transition.”
Regarding the Benghazi Terrorist Attacks and Political Scandal
On the night of September 11, 2012, a U.S. diplomatic mission and a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya were infamously attacked by a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists with ties to such jihadist organizations as al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia. By the time the violence was over, four Americans were dead: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. In the aftermath of the attacks in Benghazi, the Obama administration immediately and persistently characterized them not as acts of terrorism, but rather, as spontaneous, unplanned uprisings that had evolved from what began as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video that disparaged Muslims and the Prophet Mohammed. In reality, however, within a few hours following the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that they were planned terrorist incidents rather than spontaneous eruptions of violence carried out in reaction to any video.
At a State Department briefing in the fall of 2013, Fox News producer Lucas Tomlinson asked Psaki why two of the (known) chief suspects in the Benghazi violence — both of whom had longstanding ties to al Qaeda — had never yet been listed on the Department’s “Rewards for Justice” program, which offered money in exchange for information leading to the apprehension of terrorists. Psaki replied: “I will say, you know, the question has always been who, exactly, the attackers were, what their motivations were and how … the attack evolved. We’ve always said that there were extremists that we felt were involved. There’s an ongoing criminal investigation, as you are very familiar with, that you just referred to, so I’d refer other questions to them.” In a follow-up question, Psaki was asked: “When you call them ‘extremists,’ will you not say ‘al Qaeda’ from that podium?” She replied, “It’s an ongoing FBI investigation.”Contrary to Psaki’s claim that the identities, motives, and terrorist affiliations of the Benghazi attackers could not be ascertained with certainty, a number of media reports by such notables as Lara Logan, Catherine Herridge, and The Weekly Standard had already established conclusively that a number of the perpetrators were intimately linked to al Qaeda. Some examples:
- Muhammad Jamal: This Egyptian had long served as a subordinate to Ayman al-Zawahiri, a top lieutenant of the late Osama bin Laden. The State Department was well aware that Jamal had cultivated relationships with al Qaeda “senior leadership” as well as with al Qaeda affiliate groups in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic Maghreb. Moreover, Jamal was known to have trained some of the individuals who took part in the Benghazi attacks.
- Faraj al Chalabi: This former bodyguard of Osama bin Laden fled Libya for Pakistan soon after the 9/11/12 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi. He was also suspected of delivering sensitive materials from the American compound in Benghazi to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan.
- Sufian Ben Qumu: A Libyan who was once imprisoned at the Guantánamo Bay detention center, Qumu trained some of the jihadists who carried out the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi. A known associate of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, Qumu in the 1980s traveled to Afghanistan to wage jihad against the Soviets. He also became the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Derna, Libya, and he trained some of the rebels who helped remove Muammar Qaddafi from power in 2011.
- Mokhtar Belmokhtar: On the night of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, this longtime al Qaeda commander received a congratulatory phone call from members of Ansar al-Sharia in Libya. He also served as a leading commander for al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
During a June 2014 State Department briefing, Fox News reporter James Rosen asked Psaki why it had taken so long for the U.S. to capture Benghazi terror suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala (who had been arrested by American forces in Libya just a few days earlier) — even though Khattala had openly given several interviews to the pres during the years since the Benghazi attacks and had never even gone into hiding. Psaki replied that while the Obama administration had taken “every step possible” to capture Khattala, a “range of factors” had made it difficult to achieve that objective any faster. Rosen then countered by noting that Khattala had happily given interviews to a number of journalists over the years, and asked why U.S. forces hadn’t simply disguised themselves as reporters in order to gain access to the suspect and apprehend him. In response, Psaki joked, “Well, we appreciate your view. If you’re volunteering yourself for future endeavors, we’ll take that into account.” “You’re still not answering the central question, Jen,” Rosen retorted. “You’re not answering the question of why a reporter was able to get within six inches of this guy, and U.S. Special Forces weren’t for more than two years.” Psaki replied: “Reporters have interviewed a range of terrorists in the past. There’s nothing new about that. They have their own desire to get their story heard, their agenda heard. That’s entirely different from taking the steps necessary to apprehend someone … as has happened in this case. We did it as expeditiously as possible.”
Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood
In an August 2013 press briefing, Psaki said that the government of Egypt would be ill-advised to issue a ban against the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization from which numerous Islamic terrorist groups have sprung. For example, Psaki had the following exchange with one reporter:
QUESTION: “Somehow, the trend which is in Egypt and according to the official announcement there … they are talking about dissolving the Muslim Brotherhood or even the political party of it. Do you have any comment about that?”
PSAKI: “Well, we’ve certainly seen those reports. As we’ve consistently said from the beginning, we believe any process moving forward needs to be inclusive and include all parties and all sides. That continues to be our public and private message.”
QUESTION: “So that means banning the Muslim Brotherhood is not a good idea?”
When an Egyptian court did indeed proceed to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood (and seize its funds) in September 2013, Psaki reiterated that the Obama administration would have preferred to see Egypt employ a political process that excluded no one: “All parties should avoid steps that would undermine this process,” she said.
In February 2015, the Obama administration admitted that Psaki was mistaken when she had previously told reporters that a recent meeting between the U.S. State Department and a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and allies had been “organized and funded by Georgetown University.” In issuing a correction, Psaki said: “Unfortunately, I didn’t have the accurate information on one small piece. The meeting was set up by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy [CSID], a nonprofit. So the visit was not funded, as you know, by us or the U.S. Government, but it was also not funded by Georgetown.” According to Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch, CSID “was founded in 1998 in what appears to have been a cooperative effort among the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. State Department, and Georgetown University academic Dr. John Esposito,” and it has consistently “argued that the U.S. government should support Islamist movements in foreign countries.”
A notable incident that occurred during the State Department’s 2015 meeting with the aforementioned Brotherhood delegation, was that one of the delegation’s members was photographed standing in front of the State Department seal while flashing the four-finger Rabia symbol of the Muslim Brotherhood. When a reporter asked Psaki “if there’s been any rethink … about the appropriateness of this visit, considering what happened afterwards and the photographs that some of the participants took,” Psaki replied: “No.” The reporter then asked, “Are you—is the [State Department] comfortable with continuing to do business with this center, this group [CSID]?” Psaki answered, “Yes. Yes.”Deeply troubled by the State Department’s decision to meet with the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood delegation, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri said in February 2015: “[W]e do not understand that there will be such a communication with the elements involved in terrorist acts to intimidate the Egyptians.” “The Brotherhood is not a political party,” he added, but “a terrorist organization.” A few days after the State Department’s meeting with the delegation, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement calling for “a long, uncompromising jihad” and a commitment to “martyrdom.”
Regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal
In 2015, the Obamaadministration and the leaders of five other nations finalized with Iran a negotiated agreement allowing the Islamist regime in Tehran to continue to enrich uranium, build advanced centrifuges, purchase ballistic missiles, fund terrorism, and eventually have a near-zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road. Nevertheless, Psaki and the rest of the Obama administration portrayed the accord as a flawed but highly significant step towards thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.Prior to 2015, the administration had consistently claimed, among other things, that private U.S. negotiations with Iran had not begun until 2013, and that it was only the election of more moderate Iranian leaders during that year which made it possible for any talks at all to place. But by December 2013, reports were beginning to surface that the United States had actually begun secret bilateral talks with Tehran as early as 2011 — long before any purported moderation had taken place there. Against that backdrop, Fox News reporter James Rosen asked Psaki whether her predecessor at the State Department, Victoria Nuland, had lied when she said, ten months earlier, that there had not yet been any negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Psaki replied to Rosen, “I have no new information for you today on the timing of when there were any discussions with any Iranian officials…. I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress.” In June 2016, it was discovered that the State Department had deleted that particular portion of Psaki’s exchange with Rosen from the video archives of the December 2013 press briefing.
In May 2017, Psaki joined former Secretary of State John Kerry as an Advisory Council member of Diplomacy Works (DW), a newly formed organization dedicated to defending the Iran nuclear deal against any changes which the Trump administration might be inclined to make to the accord. Other notable members of DW’s Advisory Council include:
- Jon Finer, former Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning at the Obama State Department;
- Antony Blinken, former Deputy Secretary of State in the Obama administration;
- Michele Flournoy, who served in the Obama administration as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
- Wendy Sherman, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the Obama administration;
- Puneet Talwar, former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs in the Obama administration;
- Robert Malley, former Senior Adviser to the President (Obama) for the Counter-ISIL Campaign;
- Jeff Prescott, former National Security Council Senior Director for Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Gulf during the Obama administration;
- Colin Kahl, who served the Obama administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Adviser to the Vice President; and
- Nicholas Burns, who served in various government posts under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON JEN PSAKI
Psaki Cannot Identify any Achievements of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
In an April 2014 press conference, Psaki was asked, “Can you, off the top of your head, identify one tangible achievement” of Hillary Clinton that was identified in the State Department’s most recent Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review summarizing the former Secretary of State’s goals and accomplishments. In response, Psaki forced a smile and replied: “I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one.” Moments later she said, “I’m sure there are a range of things that were put into place that I’m not even aware of.”**
Psaki Refuses to Say That a Terrorist Attack Against a Kosher Supermarket Was Anti-Semitic
Not long after a January 2015 terrorist shooting that killed four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris, a reporter asked Psaki whether the Obama administration stood by the president’s initial claim that the victims of the atrocity were “random” (rather than specifically targeted because they were Jews). She replied: “Well … if I remember the victims, specifically, they were not all victims of one background or nationality, so I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically, but the individuals who were impacted.” In a follow-up question, the reporter asked: (a) whether “even if the victims came from different backgrounds and different religions, different nationalities, the store itself was the target,” and (b) whether “the administration believe[d] that this was an anti-Jewish attack” against “a Jewish community in Paris.” Psaki responded: “I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation [there].”
Psaki Refuses to Admit That President Obama’s Policies in the Middle East Are Failing
**In February 2015, Houthi rebels seized the Yemeni parliament building, forced the resignation of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, and caused the U.S. to abandon its embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa — making it the third embassy which the United States had been forced to vacate since the start of the Arab Spring. When Psaki was asked whether it was accurate to conclude that Americans in Yemen were “being run out of town,” she replied: “We certainly don’t look at it that way. I would remind you that we’re not the only country that moved our staff out of Yemen last night.” A moment later, Psaki added: “[T]he United States leadership is reflected in the fact that we want to return. We want to be engaged. We want to play a role, if we can play a role.”
Regarding Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek
When Psaki was asked in a December 2014 press briefing to comment on a recent Egyptian court decision not to prosecute the country’s former president (and U.S. ally), Hosni Mubarak, she read a prepared statement from the Obama administration that said: “Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends.” Immediately after the briefing was over, Psaki, not realizing that her microphone was still live, could be heard telling one of her associates: “That Egypt line is ridiculous.”