In defense of Susan Rice

[bemildred]

---

Nearly 100 House Republicans have come out against Rice, joining several prominent GOP senators. Meetings on Capitol Hill this week appear not to have helped her cause with them. They consider her either untrustworthy or incompetent, insinuating that she is too much of a partisan to represent the country as a whole on the world stage. But the Republicans should relent in their opposition.

I am no blind supporter of Rice. She is my friend and former colleague at the Brookings Institution, but I advised Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2007-08 primary campaign, while Rice co-led the Obama foreign policy team, and I supported the surge in Iraq, while Rice opposed it. Despite these battle scars, I consider Rice a person of high integrity and intelligence; she has a strong work ethic and a clear commitment to this country's security. There may be a valid debate as to whether Rice, or Sen. John F. Kerry, or someone else (Adm. Michael G. Mullen and another Clinton come to mind) should succeed Clinton as the nation's next top diplomat. But Rice is a solid candidate and would be a fine secretary of State.

The opposition to Rice begins with the matter of Benghazi. Her Sunday talk-show statements about what happened when Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11 were mistaken but far from unreasonable. Early on, some in the intelligence community suspected a spontaneous demonstration was the starting point for the situation. Five days later, more was known: The attack was preplanned. Rice qualified her statements, but the emphasis was wrong. Still, no evidence has been presented that her comments were mendacious.

There is a broader criticism of Rice, as well. Some view her as untried, untested, too young or too much of an Obama loyalist rather than an independent thinker. Her record deserves a more careful look.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1129-ohanlon-susan-rice-gop-20121129,0,4156159.story

[leveymg]

1. "Her record deserves a more careful look." Indeed, please see,

my post, "Susan Rice Vocally Supported the Iraq War, and Every Mid-East War Since". http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021895778

Can't see how any progressive can still support her, given that poor a track record of bad judgment on war and peace issues.

[bemildred]

2. I am aware of Ms Rice's "defects".

And not interested in arguing with you about it, I mean I see your point, but 99% of the government is complicit, and Ms Rice would not be in a position to get the job were she not complicit too, like her boss. Basically, I think the President should get whom he chooses as SoS, and also I think thwarting McCain is always a good thing.

[leveymg]

3. This isn't about thwarting Susan Rice, it's about deterring bad foreign policy

I agree that Dr. Rice is no worse than many of those at the apex of the US foreign policy Establishment. But, that's exactly the point. They don't get to do exactly what they like, as they like it. If Rice gets blocked, and that slows down the rush to escalate our proxy war in Syria and the push into military confrontation with Iran, then I'm all for that.

But, it's not about Susan Rice - personally, I admire her determination and accomplishments, but not her militant interventionist positions on many issues.

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, I know.

It's the old principle against pragmatism argument. She, like her boss, at least, does not appear to be a fool; and Congress is where pressure must be applied to do much good. (How was the Vietnam war ended, finally?)

I think your concerns about Syria are well-founded, though at this point I think there will be a crowd wanting to "help" with the endgame, so we may need to fight for our place at the table, our piece of the pie.

So all I'm saying is let's not fight about it, it's depressing enough already.

[stuffmatters]

5. Susan Rice owns hundreds of thousands in Trans Canada stocK!

Charles Pierce blog revealed this yesterday 11/28.

This is pretty dire info regarding approval of the Keystone Pipeline. She will bbe head of the department approving it.

Yes, she would have a substantial financial interest in approving this "game over for climate change" conduit. But even if she sells her stock prior, her ideological footprint is clear just by owning the stock in the first place. She invests in a company pushing the
transit of the filthiest crap on earth through the middle of the US, polluting and endangering our aquafiers, lands and health, then
shipping this poison off to China ( for the Koch Bros et alios tax free)

No surprising Rice has a history of supporting wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.Same ultimate business model as Iraq and Afghanistan wars actually...trillions of dollars of debt to American taxpayers, obscene death and destruction to our countrymen, then China gets the oil (Iraq) and cybermineral(Afghaninstan) contracts.

The more I read about Susan Rice, the more she appears to be both a military and filthy energy hawk.

[Sunlei]

8. everyone else who invests, invests in stocks that rise in value

Why should the SOS not be allowed to invest in whatever? Boehner himself is an invester in that crap pipeline of toxic sludge from Canada, why not call for him have no investments, to wear sackcloth and ashes while he serves.?

The only thing I see with the Rice hate are Republicans wanting to grab Sen. Kerrys seat. Republicans who want to make political the SOS position and make every single move the President makes as difficult as posible.

[BrainMann1]

6. Did you miss something here?

It appears to me that Mr. O'Hanlon is right. Appoint her no problem.

[bemildred]

7. Perhaps if you were more specific, I could respond.

As it is, I don't know what you want to say.