Susan Rice’s tarnished resume

[theworldismine13]

This is suppose to be a hit piece but everything in it makes me like her more

Susan Rice’s tarnished resume
Dana Milbank: Susan Rice’s tarnished résumé - The Washington Post

President Obama had a rare “bring-it-on” moment when ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked him about threats by Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham to block the confirmation of Susan Rice, should he nominate her for secretary of state.

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” Obama said Wednesday at his East Room news conference, defending his U.N. ambassador from charges that she misled the public about attacks on Americans in Libya.

“For them to go after the U.N. ambassador . . . and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. And, you know, we’re after an election now.”

It was reminiscent of his put-down of McCain in early 2010, when at a health-care forum he reminded his former opponent: “The election’s over.”

Obama’s over-the-top defense of Rice was surprising, particularly in contrast to the president’s relative indifference in accepting the resignation of CIA chief David Petraeus, one of the most capable public servants. And it was disappointing, because McCain, even if wrong on the particulars, is right about Rice. She is ill-equipped to be the nation’s top diplomat for reasons that have little to do with Libya.

Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Particularly in comparison with the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her.

Back when she was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she appalled colleagues by flipping her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department, according to witnesses. Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults.

Among those she has insulted is the woman she would replace at State. Rice was one of the first former Clinton administration officials to defect to Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Rice condemned Clinton’s Iraq and Iran positions, asking for an “explanation of how and why she got those critical judgments wrong.”

Clinton got a measure of revenge in 2010 after she worked out a deal with the Russian foreign minister on a package of Iran sanctions to be adopted by the U.N. Security Council. The White House wanted Rice to make the announcement (part of a campaign to increase her profile that included high-visibility foreign trips and TV appearances), but a Clinton aide got Kerry to ask Clinton about the matter during an unrelated Senate hearing.

Rice’s put-down of Clinton was tame compared with her portrayal of McCain during 2008, which no doubt contributes to McCain’s hostility toward her today. She mocked McCain’s trip to Iraq (“strolling around the market in a flak jacket”), called his policies “reckless” and said “his tendency is to shoot first and ask questions later. It’s dangerous.”

It was Rice’s own shoot-first tendency that caused her to be benched as a spokesman for the Obama campaign for a time in 2008. She unnerved European allies when she denounced as “counterproductive” and “self-defeating” the U.N. policy that Iran suspend its nuclear program before talks can begin. She criticized President George W. Bush and McCain because they “insisted” on it. But, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler pointed out at the time, European diplomats were rattled by such remarks because the precondition was their idea.

Rice’s pugilism provoked the Russians to weigh in this week in opposition to her nomination as secretary of state. The Russian business daily Kommersant quoted an anonymous Russian foreign ministry official as saying that Rice, who quarreled with Russia over Syria, is “too ambitious and aggressive,” and her appointment would make it “more difficult for Moscow to work with Washington.”

Compared with this, the flap over Libya is relatively minor — but revealing. It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning.

True, Rice was following orders from the White House, which she does well. But the nation’s top diplomat needs to show more sensitivity and independence — traits Clinton has demonstrated in abundance. Obama can do better at State than Susan

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

No one is perfect.

 

[Jello Biafra]

The piece makes her sound like she is off putting and churlish; qualities that are not at the top of the list when picking a SoS.
Plus she is being publicly framed by Republicans in a way that makes her undesirable and unlikely to be nominated even if Obama wanted to choose her. The last thing he wants to do is risk having one of his cabinet picks shot down during the confirmation process.

 

[TrueEpic08]

The piece makes her sound like she is off putting and churlish; qualities that are not at the top of the list when picking a SoS.
Plus she is being publicly framed by Republicans in a way that makes her undesirable and unlikely to be nominated even if Obama wanted to choose her. The last thing he wants to do is risk having one of his cabinet picks shot down during the confirmation process.

It's not just that. If you're a person who believes in the current global political economic paradigm and the efficacy of its institutions (I don't, but I also know way too much about it due to studying IR in undergrad), then she's utter garbage, an overly aggressive warmonger who tends to only stop such actions when it can affect the image of the US. She's more worried about the visual capacity of the United States as a military superpower and a virtual hegemon than actual diplomacy.

She screwed up US intervention into Rwanda in 1994 because she was more worried about the connotation and force of the word "genocide" than actually stopping the killing of Tutsis (Not that this was ever what US intervention was going to be about there. In fact, the interventions of the US and France constituted an immaterial, post-colonial colonial war between those two countries that only included Hutu/Tutsi relations where they could be successfully manipulated for either side. But that's a write-up for another time). That was the end of that phase, and the beginning of her interventionist phase.

She was behind the plan that resulted in the overthrow of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, which traded an authoritarian, US-backed Cold War anti-USSR stronghold that had deteriorated into nothing for a disorganized state embroiled in civil war and minerals abuses (which greatly aids our cell phone industry, incidentally). This, naturally, proved that we learned nothing from what was happening in Iraq at the time (Not coincidentally, Madeline Albright was Rice's mentor), which later became codified policy during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago on.

Misinformation on what happened in Benghazi? She propagated it for 5 days after the attack happened.

Arming the rebels in Libya, which resulted in the exact same type of mess that happened in Iraq when Petraeus did the exact same thing? Her idea, along with Hilary Clinton.

She's about as cretinous as Ron Kirk, honestly.

 

[No1]

It's not just that. If you're a person who believes in the current global political economic paradigm and the efficacy of its institutions (I don't, but I also know way too much about it due to studying IR in undergrad), then she's utter garbage, an overly aggressive warmonger who tends to only stop such actions when it can affect the image of the US. She's more worried about the visual capacity of the United States as a military superpower and a virtual hegemon than actual diplomacy.

She screwed up US intervention into Rwanda in 1994 because she was more worried about the connotation and force of the word "genocide" than actually stopping the killing of Tutsis (Not that this was ever what US intervention was going to be about there. In fact, the interventions of the US and France constituted an immaterial, post-colonial colonial war between those two countries that only included Hutu/Tutsi relations where they could be successfully manipulated for either side. But that's a write-up for another time). That was the end of that phase, and the beginning of her interventionist phase.

She was behind the plan that resulted in the overthrow of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, which traded an authoritarian, US-backed Cold War anti-USSR stronghold that had deteriorated into nothing for a disorganized state embroiled in civil war and minerals abuses (which greatly aids our cell phone industry, incidentally). This, naturally, proved that we learned nothing from what was happening in Iraq at the time (Not coincidentally, Madeline Albright was Rice's mentor), which later became codified policy during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago on.

Misinformation on what happened in Benghazi? She propagated it for 5 days after the attack happened.

Arming the rebels in Libya, which resulted in the exact same type of mess that happened in Iraq when Petraeus did the exact same thing? Her idea, along with Hilary Clinton.

She's about as cretinous as Ron Kirk, honestly.

You just said a whole lot here, (mind you I have not read that article yet) and it's too early to argue. But you're going to have to substantiate a lot of those statements about what she did. I'd also like to hear alternatives.

 

[Type Username Here]

Susan Rice should not be anywhere near the Secretary of State nomination.

 

[Colilluminati]

Robert Kagan: Scapegoating Susan Rice does America no good - The Washington Post


SAME PAPER

But the idea that Rice should be disqualified because of statements she made on television in the days after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, strikes me as unfair. It seems pretty clear now that she based her statements on information the CIA provided at the time. That information proved erroneous, and why the CIA was giving faulty information to senior administration officials remains unclear. I haven’t seen persuasive evidence to support the theory that Rice’s statements were part of a coverup to hide a terrorist attack. The fact that Rice was working from information provided by the CIA would seem to undercut such a theory.

 

[theworldismine13]

It's not just that. If you're a person who believes in the current global political economic paradigm and the efficacy of its institutions (I don't, but I also know way too much about it due to studying IR in undergrad), then she's utter garbage, an overly aggressive warmonger who tends to only stop such actions when it can affect the image of the US. She's more worried about the visual capacity of the United States as a military superpower and a virtual hegemon than actual diplomacy.

She screwed up US intervention into Rwanda in 1994 because she was more worried about the connotation and force of the word "genocide" than actually stopping the killing of Tutsis (Not that this was ever what US intervention was going to be about there. In fact, the interventions of the US and France constituted an immaterial, post-colonial colonial war between those two countries that only included Hutu/Tutsi relations where they could be successfully manipulated for either side. But that's a write-up for another time). That was the end of that phase, and the beginning of her interventionist phase.

She was behind the plan that resulted in the overthrow of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, which traded an authoritarian, US-backed Cold War anti-USSR stronghold that had deteriorated into nothing for a disorganized state embroiled in civil war and minerals abuses (which greatly aids our cell phone industry, incidentally). This, naturally, proved that we learned nothing from what was happening in Iraq at the time (Not coincidentally, Madeline Albright was Rice's mentor), which later became codified policy during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago on.

Misinformation on what happened in Benghazi? She propagated it for 5 days after the attack happened.

Arming the rebels in Libya, which resulted in the exact same type of mess that happened in Iraq when Petraeus did the exact same thing? Her idea, along with Hilary Clinton.

She's about as cretinous as Ron Kirk, honestly.

You just said a whole lot of nothing, everything you said applies 100x to the current sec of state and would apply to any other possible candidate and pretty much applies to Obama himself

Your beef is with American foreign policy in general, not with Susan Rice

 

[feelosofer]

It's not just that. If you're a person who believes in the current global political economic paradigm and the efficacy of its institutions (I don't, but I also know way too much about it due to studying IR in undergrad), then she's utter garbage, an overly aggressive warmonger who tends to only stop such actions when it can affect the image of the US. She's more worried about the visual capacity of the United States as a military superpower and a virtual hegemon than actual diplomacy.

She screwed up US intervention into Rwanda in 1994 because she was more worried about the connotation and force of the word "genocide" than actually stopping the killing of Tutsis (Not that this was ever what US intervention was going to be about there. In fact, the interventions of the US and France constituted an immaterial, post-colonial colonial war between those two countries that only included Hutu/Tutsi relations where they could be successfully manipulated for either side. But that's a write-up for another time). That was the end of that phase, and the beginning of her interventionist phase.

She was behind the plan that resulted in the overthrow of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, which traded an authoritarian, US-backed Cold War anti-USSR stronghold that had deteriorated into nothing for a disorganized state embroiled in civil war and minerals abuses (which greatly aids our cell phone industry, incidentally). This, naturally, proved that we learned nothing from what was happening in Iraq at the time (Not coincidentally, Madeline Albright was Rice's mentor), which later became codified policy during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago on.

Misinformation on what happened in Benghazi? She propagated it for 5 days after the attack happened.

Arming the rebels in Libya, which resulted in the exact same type of mess that happened in Iraq when Petraeus did the exact same thing? Her idea, along with Hilary Clinton.

She's about as cretinous as Ron Kirk, honestly.

Just on this alone, she should not be SoS. Obama would be wise to separate himself from her. I would rather he pick a neophyte, someone who hasn't been involved in international relations for so long.

 

[Blackking]

Susan E. Rice Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com

I still like her. Plus she's as qualified as anyone that could be recommended.. Might as well have a black lady in there that has an interest in Africa (seems like she does based on papers she's written and posts shes taken) than a white person who will basically promote the same policies as Any Obama selection. Her comments on the recent attacks, were wrong, but they were based off info that was given to her.

By the way Obama defended her so hard, like a personal friend- I but he's getting some of that Jamaican puzzy on the side, regardless of her C@C husband.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

You just said a whole lot of nothing, everything you said applies 100x to the current sec of state and would apply to any other possible candidate and pretty much applies to Obama himself

Your beef is with American foreign policy in general, not with Susan Rice

that was his point....Susan Rice is a by product of America's failed foreign policy

per his post, she's not a step in the right direction

 

[theworldismine13]

that was his point....Susan Rice is a by product of America's failed foreign policy

per his post, she's not a step in the right direction

the sec of state doesnt dictate foreign policy so the susan rice discussion is not about the direction of american foreign policy its just office politics

american foreign policy is litigated at the ballot box, obama won so whoever is sec of state is simply executing the obama foreign policy

 

[Type Username Here]

the sec of state doesnt dictate foreign policy so the susan rice discussion is not about the direction of american foreign policy its just office politics

american foreign policy is litigated at the ballot box, obama won so whoever is sec of state is simply executing the obama foreign policy

Henry Kissinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[theworldismine13]

Henry Kissinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Secretaries of State of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Type Username Here]

List of Secretaries of State of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a lot of Foreign policy being dictated on that list.