The Trouble With Susan Rice


#1

The Trouble With Susan Rice
By ANNE BAYEFSKY AND MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
WSJ.com
11/29/12

Several Republican senators continue to oppose the possible nomination of Susan Rice, currently the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to be secretary of state in President Obama’s second term. Their opposition stems largely from Ms. Rice’s repeated insistence, five days after terrorists murdered four Americans at a U.S. facility in Libya, that the slaughter stemmed from spontaneous Muslim rage over an amateur video. Sen. John McCain at one point called Ms. Rice “unfit” for the job.

… According to Mr. Obama (and to her), she simply repeated talking points provided by an amorphous and anonymous “intelligence community.”

But Ms. Rice did know at least a couple of things. She knew that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. She knew that after the attack the president insisted that U.S. leaders not “shoot first and aim later” but rather “make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts.” She knew that the video story line was questionable, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and administration officials had already suggested publicly that the attack was al Qaeda-related. And she knew that the president had a political interest in asserting that al Qaeda wasn’t successfully attacking senior American officials but was instead “on the run,” as he maintained on the campaign trail.

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.”

Senators might also explore Ms. Rice’s broader record at the U.N. Why, for example, did she think it was appropriate to absent herself from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s September speech to the General Assembly, the purpose of which was to offer the global community a painstaking explanation of why Iran must be stopped before it can weaponize its growing stock of enriched uranium.

Then there is the matter of U.S. participation for the past three years in the U.N. Human Rights Council, alongside such paragons as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia (soon to be replaced by Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Ivory Coast and Venezuela). Ms. Rice has continually defended America’s presence on the council while boasting to Congress that the U.S. “succeeded in getting Iran to withdraw its candidacy last year.” She omitted that, in return, the Obama administration stood aside while Iran was elected to the U.N.'s top women’s rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women.

Bottom line, Amb. Rice has done a lousy job representing the US in the UN - kinda hard when you don’t show up to many key meetings! - and let herself be used as a cheap, disposable, mouthpiece to advance Obamian talking point she had to know were utterly false. She’s hardly qualified to be a spokesmuffin for PETA! Oops! Is my using the word, “qualified” racist?!


#2

Rice’s Failure in Rwanda Precludes Her From Becoming Secretary of State
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
HuffingtonPost.com
Posted: 11/30/2012 9:37 am

But what is not arguable is that she deserves to be denied the post for a different reason altogether: Rwanda. What emerges when taken together – Rice’s weak response in Benghazi, blaming the murder of four Americans on a stupid video, and her shameful lack of action in the Rwandan genocide – is a career diplomat of singular weakness, lacking the spine or muscularity to assert American moral influence in the world.

Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team that in 1994 refused any involvement whatsoever in the Rwanda genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded. The Clinton Administration had just been spooked by the Black Hawk down incident in Somalia and wanted no further foreign entanglements. But the lengths to which they went to deny assistance to the Tutsis, with Rice being central to the decision-making process, will forever live in infamy.

But not content to insist on American non-involvement, the Clinton administration went a step further by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. …

Another huge example - how many Tutsis were slaughtered? 750,000! 1,000,000? - of Susan Rice’s failure in foreign policy!


#3

Whoa. She was a gov’t toady for that, too?! But then, why should any of us be surprised. It was probably her very prerequisite for ‘team Obama.’

FWIW, I’m glad to hear that somebody besides the few of us is asking just what a UN Ambassador has to do with a U.S. consolate in Benghazi getting attacked.
Nothing. But even with that, a person in her position would obviously know that the lies she was speeling after the fact were, indeed, lies.


#4

For Susan Rice, Benghazi Was Kenya 1998 Deja Vu


11/30/12

In the spring of 1998, Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, sent an emotional letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begging for a more secure embassy in the face of mounting terrorist threats and a warning that she was the target of an assassination plot.

The State Department had repeatedly denied her request, citing a lack of money. But that kind of response, she wrote Albright, was “endangering the lives of embassy personnel.”

A matter of months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were simultaneously attacked with car bombs. In Kenya, 12 American diplomats and more than 200 Africans were killed.

As in Benghazi, requests for more security were denied, warnings were issued, prior incidents were ignored and Susan Rice went on TV to explain it all.

Also then, as now, she went on TV to claim, falsely, that we “maintain a high degree of security at all of our embassies at all times” and that we “had no telephone warning or call of any sort like that, that might have alerted either embassy just prior to the blast.” There were plenty of warnings and our East African diplomats were begging for help as Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi.

What a Useless Idiot! But there I go, questioning her performance and competence … I’m such a racist!

2c, don’t give MSM folk any credit, yet anyway. Anne Bayefsky is a well-known critic of Obamian Israel policy, Micheal Mukasey was AG under Pres. G. W Bush, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was an unsuccessful R candidate for Congress. And IBD isn’t exactly an MSM source either.


#5

I wonder if some Prog-Enviros are sensing that Susan Rice’s nomination won’t fly:

Environmentalists Petition Susan Rice to Divest ‘Every Dollar of Stock’ in Oil Pipeline Co.
by Tony Lee


1 Dec 2012

Environmentalists are furious that potential Secretary of State nominee and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice owns stock in TransCanada Corp, the pipeline firm that would benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline, which the State Department would have to approve.

In an online petition, they have urged Rice to divest “every dollar of stock” in TransCanada Corp.

According to The Hill, Rice owns between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada Corp. stock, and the group RootsAction.org, which claims 200,000 members, has started a petition that says, “it’s indefensible that Rice has millions of dollars invested in oil companies and banks that will make huge profits if the State Department gives approval to the XL pipeline.


#6

whats going to happen to the phrase…**WHITE …on RICE **at this point??


#7

Except John Kerry, the person Republicans are suggesting as Rice’s alternative has far more investments in polluting energy.

Really, given the Republican response to Rice, I don’t see how Obama even can nominate someone else. If he did, it would basically telegraph the message that he will do literally anything Republicans tell him to, provided they scream loudly enough about it.


#8

The whole thing is such an incredible joke. No, I’m not giving MSM much credit. Was simply glad that at least SOMEbody wasn’t letting the subject drop.

It will be, eventually, though.

They’ll make a bruhaha out of firing some underlings, just as in F&F, and somehow the front pages of the newspapers will tell us how all those involved were cleared of any wrong doing.

Or they’ll simply skip that part, and go to the next chapter.

It sucks to be us.


#9

Really, given the Republican response to Rice, I don’t see how Obama even can nominate someone else. If he did, it would basically telegraph the message that he will do literally anything Republicans tell him to, provided they scream loudly enough about it.

Is Obama’s pride that stubborn that he can’t admit, “I was wrong about Susan Rice”? Or was Rice “just following orders” given by Obama and he can’t admit, “I was wrong about that video”? Do you really think he has to march straight over a cliff defending Rice? I would think that at some point he would have to stop expending political capital and credibility (not that he has a surplus of either!) and cut his losses. IMO, the Susan Rice situation is getting so bad that the only thing salvageable by pursuing it is a scrap of Obama’s pride.


#10

No, I mean because Republican attacks are petty and without merit. She read CIA talking points verbatim. It’s exactly what she should have done. And Benghazi is a fake issue. The administration handled it the right way.

Let’s compare and contrast this potential Secretary of State Rice, to the last Secretary of State Rice. This Rice, read CIA talking points verbatim. The last Rice, read numerous warnings about terrorism in America, specifically New York and targeting airliners and failed to make that a priority. This administration could not have prevented the Benghazi attack. The last administration could have prevented 9/11. They had warnings and intel. They just failed to do so. 4 Americans died in Benghazi. Over 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and 5,000 more in subsequent wars fought because of 9/11. You would need a new Benghazi to happen every single day of Obama’s term to match the body count of that one huge screw up by the last administration.

And yet even with that one very important mistake, that resulted in thousands of American lives lost, Condoleezza Rice was perfectly qualified to be Secretary of State. And was one of the highlights of Bush’s cabinet.

Susan Rice is qualified to be Secretary of State. And Republican attacks on her are both baseless and petty.


#11

No, I mean because Republican attacks are petty and without merit. She read CIA talking points verbatim. It’s exactly what she should have done. And Benghazi is a fake issue. The administration handled it the right way.

Diminishing security in the face of increasing threat in Libya and pleas for increased security from our staff there while maintaining or augmenting security in safe places like Vienna is “petty”, “without merit”, “a fake issue”? Are you serious?

She read CIA talking points verbatim.

That is factually incorrect. Former General Petraeus has stated that the summary provided by the CIA identified the Benghazi attack as almost certainly planned well in advance by organized groups with links to A-Q. Obama Administration people changed the talking points, but Rice was in a position to have seen the original version.

Consequently, Susan Rice lied to the nation and the world on US national TV. She didn’t unknowingly repeat falsehoods fed to her, *she knew what she was saying was false, at the time she said it. Then she repeated the same preposterous lies to the world at the UN. Lying to the nation she supposedly represents and to the world - parroting preposterous absurdities! - is not “petty”, “without merit”, “a fake issue”. That performance, of itself, disqualifies Susan Rice from being SecState.

The SecState is supposed to be a key player in formulating policy and representing the US to the nations of the world. What nation would take a sycophantic parrot like her - parrot for Obama, parrot for Clinton twice over (the Kenyan embassy bombing and the slaughter in Rwanda) - seriously?! And what Administration official would take a Yes-Woman sycophant like her seriously?

And spare me the talking-point nonsense that 9/11/2001 was preventable by the Bush Administration, especially if you don’t even seem to know/remember that Condoleeza Rice did not become SecState until 2005. The warnings you cited were general warnings about hijackings - which historically were hostage situations - not that airliners might be used against buildings (let alone suggest specific cities or buildings in a huge, target-rich, nation). The whole Bush-could-have-prevented-9/11 narrative is as absurd as the 9/11-was-a-Bush-plot narrative. OTOH, had Clinton taken out OBL on one of the occasions when he could have, A-Q might have been so disrupted that 9/11 couldn’t happen (not that Clinton could possibly know that).


#12

Trouble with Rice?

Supports UN Agenda 21

Supports UN World Govt Rule

Supports giving up US sovereignty to the UN

Anything else is a smoke screen to be washed away and get her into the post…she is being groomed for VP under Julian Castro or Obama’s 3rd term!!!


#13

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:11, topic:37329”]
And spare me the talking-point nonsense that 9/11/2001 was preventable by the Bush Administration, especially if you don’t even seem to know/remember that Condoleeza Rice did not become SecState until 2005.
[/quote]She was National Security Advisor. My entire point was after that major failing, she was still qualified to be Secretary of State when she was nominated several years later. As is Susan Rice, after much smaller failings.

Diminishing security in the face of increasing threat in Libya and pleas for increased security from our staff there while maintaining or augmenting security in safe places like Vienna is “petty”, “without merit”, “a fake issue”? Are you serious?
Yes. There were about a dozen major embassy attacks under Bush. A half dozen with US casualties. How many of those did you harp on, endlessly? Zero. Cuz, Bush has got that nice shiny ®!

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
12 dead in attack.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
9 Americans killed. 18 others.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Another Karachi attack. Gunmen kill two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Two killed by suicide bomber

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Five Americans killed, four others killed. When the compound is breached.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
US Diplomat is killed. As well as three other Americans.

If you want to throw Bush under the bus here and declare him far worse than Obama, you could then at least proceed without glaring bias.

The warnings you cited were general warnings about hijackings - which historically were hostage situations
And? Still preventable. Moreso than Benghazi. There are numerous threats at any given time and no administration can be expected to perform perfectly. We had advance warning for 9/11. The lead hijacker (Attah) was on a terrorist watch list. This was not a “no one could have stopped this” scenario. It was possible. I don’t indict Bush on this, because there are so many things going on at once. Hindsight is 20/20. 9/11 probably seemed pretty unlikely. So too did Benghazi. Were you or other Republicans consistent on this matter, I could at least respect your positions. As it is, it’s nothing more than naked partisanship and ODS.


#14

I not only have no problem with Susan Rice being nominated for Secretary of State; I’d probably welcome it. The US has no detectable foreign policy, and hasn’t had one in some time, what further harm could she do to it? To answer that question you first have to assert that anyone in the world is currently listening, let alone responding to, the current Secretary of State.

The president is entitled to whomever he desires as Secretary of State, absent any compelling objections from the Senate, and I for one await with great anticipation an amateurish president sending an amateurish nominee up to those hearings, where she should be confirmed. I just don’t understand why Republicans are so bound and determined to stop their political opponents, when those political opponents are doing a more than adequate job of marginalizing themselves all on their own.


#15

Its about Susan Rice, not Bush and Bush NEVER did sit in the war room and what on TV our people get killed nor did he give the order to NOT support

Then I guess I have to ask, what is it about post #12 you FAIL to understand?


#16

Oh bullshit.
Nothing more; nothing less.


#17

Hysterical ideas, that are never going to come to pass, offered by hysterical people, who see a dragon under every basket, don’t usually find me warranting them a response.


#18

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, you have not been watching her and you left Lib blindness will never let you see…


#19

Yes, that must be it. Which will come as good news to my doctor; he’d ascribed my blindness to self abuse.


#20

There were about a dozen major embassy attacks under Bush. A half dozen with US casualties. How many of those did you harp on, endlessly? Zero. Cuz, Bush has got that nice shiny ®!

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
12 dead in attack.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
9 Americans killed. 18 others.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Another Karachi attack. Gunmen kill two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Two killed by suicide bomber

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Five Americans killed, four others killed. When the compound is breached.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
US Diplomat is killed. As well as three other Americans.

Nice random list. Trying the throw mud against the wall hoping something sticks strategy? Your “argument” lacks a couple elements needed for it to stick or be relevant: 1.) Bush and his Administration knew the attacks were likely yet reduced security; *2.) Bush and/or senior officials in his Administration knew with near certainty that the attacks were terrorism, yet lied - implausibly and absurdly - about who committed the attacks. Your moral equivalency arguments need to be factual and complete to have a chance to work, CW. This random list of embassy attacks doesn’t even qualify to be a “good try”.

*Try to get something very simple straight, CW. The problem with Susan Rice and Benghazi is not that the attack happened, nor the simple fact that it was terrorism. The problem with Susan Rice is that she KNEW the attack was terrorism but CHOSE to LIE about its perpetrators and cause to the American public and the world. And then add in the fact that she is frequently absent from important UN sessions, when she is supposed to represent the US as our Ambassador to the UN. Then add in her lying about the attack on our embassy in Kenya (again, the problem is her LIE, not that the attack happened). Then add in her refusal to try to stop the slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda - and impeding those who would.

The problem with Susan Rice is not that she is unqualified to be SecState, but that her actions and job performance over the past 2 decades ***dis***qualify her for that position!