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.
Too many posts to respond to, so I'll just use this one:
-Yeah, you could say that she's a symptom of the history of US foreign policy, and that I have more of a problem with American foreign policy than anything (you'd by wrong. I have a problem with the very conception of
Foreign Policy and the very conception of global political economy in the general, but that's another discussion), but Rice is the absolute worst of both. She continues old, pseudo-Realist legacies that should have been long left behind.
-On Benghazi: I haven't looked around the board, but you do know that Petraeus just testified right? If not, here's a summary: The CIA immediately knew that the attack was planned and deliberate, and Rice lied (or at least misled everybody) by saying it was related to demonstrations in Cairo over the "Innocence of Muslims" video and was spontaneous. Now, take that with a huge grain of salt due to how caught up in the political binary debate it is, but that says something, no? The article:
UPDATE 4-In Benghazi testimony, Petraeus says al Qaeda role known early | Reuters
-On Africa: Here's a bit of a summary of Rice's involvement in Rwanda and the DRC, which honestly goes far beyond the two instances that I just posted there and becomes more and more sordid (but not at all shocking) the more you actually know about the situations there:
Susan Rice: Benghazi May Be Least of Her Problems - NationalJournal.com
So yeah, I find absolutely nothing that needs to be redeemed about the current global political paradigm on any level, but even if you did, Rice is terrible. She's completely reckless and plays with the lives of people and entire regions due to her recklessness.