CSNbbs

The fact that Obama ever wanted her shows how similar he is to W.

Quote:In fall 2002, as President George W. Bush and his administration were pounding the drums for war, Rice wasn’t exactly a profile in courage. A senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institution, she echoed the neoconservative demands for “regime change” in Iraq and doubted the “need [for] a further [U.N. Security] Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions” on Iraq, according a compilation of her Iraq War comments by the Institute for Public Accuracy.

In an NPR interview on Dec. 20, 2002, Rice joined the bellicose chorus, declaring: “It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.”

Rice also was wowed by Secretary of State Colin Powell’s deceptive speech to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003. The next day, again on NPR, Rice said, “I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”

After the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, Rice foresaw an open-ended U.S. occupation of Iraq. In a Washington Post online forum, she declared, ““To maximize our likelihood of success, the US is going to have to remain committed to and focused on reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq for many years to come. This administration and future ones will need to demonstrate a longer attention span than we have in Afghanistan, and we will have to embrace rather than evade the essential tasks of peacekeeping and nation building.”

Only later, when the Iraq War began going badly and especially after she became an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, did Rice take a less hawkish position. She opposed President Bush’s troop “surge” in 2007, a stance in line with Obama’s anti-Iraq War posture. During Campaign 2008, she also mocked one of Sen. John McCain’s trips to Baghdad as “strolling around the market in a flak jacket.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/03/why...usan-rice/

Maybe she's just going to be too busy helping out her despotic African friends.

Quote:ON Sept. 2, Ambassador Susan E. Rice delivered a eulogy for a man she called “a true friend to me.” Before thousands of mourners and more than 20 African heads of state in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ms. Rice, the United States’ representative to the United Nations, lauded the country’s late prime minister, Meles Zenawi. She called him “brilliant” — “a son of Ethiopia and a father to its rebirth.”

Few eulogies give a nuanced account of the decedent’s life, but the speech was part of a disturbing pattern for an official who could become President Obama’s next secretary of state. During her career, she has shown a surprising and unsettling sympathy for Africa’s despots.

This record dates from Ms. Rice’s service as assistant secretary of state for African affairs under President Bill Clinton, who in 1998 celebrated a “new generation” of African leaders, many of whom were ex-rebel commanders; among these leaders were Mr. Meles, Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Jerry J. Rawlings of Ghana, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Yoweri K. Museveni of Uganda.

“One hundred years from now your grandchildren and mine will look back and say this was the beginning of an African renaissance,” Mr. Clinton said in Accra, Ghana, in March 1998.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinio...inion&_r=0

Quote:Support for Mr. Kagame and the Rwandan government has been a matter of American foreign policy since he led the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front to victory over the incumbent government in July 1994, effectively ending the Rwandan genocide. But according to rights organizations and diplomats at the United Nations, Ms. Rice has been at the forefront of trying to shield the Rwandan government, and Mr. Kagame in particular, from international censure, even as several United Nations reports have laid the blame for the violence in Congo at Mr. Kagame’s door.

A senior administration official said Saturday that Ms. Rice was not freelancing, and that the American policy toward Rwanda and Congo was to work with all the countries in the area for a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

Aides to Ms. Rice acknowledge that she is close to Mr. Kagame and that Mr. Kagame’s government was her client when she worked at Intellibridge, a strategic analysis firm in Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/world/...wanted=all

The term you're looking for is "toeing the company line."

Kerry to the State Dept & Scott Brown to Senate

Brookings is centrist? Geesh, way to start off w/ a load of crap.

Rice is the only leftist I can recall in the recent past to step aside willingly and publicly. I give her credit for that. It's a breath of fresh air.

(12-14-2012 01:10 AM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]Rice is the only leftist I can recall in the recent past to step aside willingly and publicly. I give her credit for that. It's a breath of fresh air.

I don't blame her. The pay for that potential job can't be all that great compared to the media storm surrounding her nomination. She'll now make more $$ "talking" about what happened.

(12-14-2012 08:02 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 01:10 AM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]Rice is the only leftist I can recall in the recent past to step aside willingly and publicly. I give her credit for that. It's a breath of fresh air.

I don't blame her. The pay for that potential job can't be all that great compared to the media storm surrounding her nomination. She'll now make more $$ "talking" about what happened.

I don't blame her for anything. She didn't know better. The people who used her did.

They needed someone who could sell a pack of lies long enough for the election to pass. She had a title that made her sound authoritative, like she should know, but she had neither actual knowledge nor the need to know. So have her memorize a bunch of talking points and spend Sunday morning with the slobbering, fawning media. She could do it, with deniability later.

Really masterful plan when you think about. But these guys are good at illusion.

She saved what was left of her dignity by stepping aside. But make no mistake...she was never going to get confirmed. She dropped out because she had to. Shame on her for lying to the American Public about Benghazi.

The bad news is john kerry is an even worse choice....

(12-14-2012 08:37 AM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]She saved what was left of her dignity by stepping aside. But make no mistake...she was never going to get confirmed. She dropped out because she had to. Shame on her for lying to the American Public about Benghazi.

The bad news is john kerry is an even worse choice....

Guessing she just took one for the team. She'll be rewarded with a raise in some other part of the admin.

Let's be clear that she was never officially nominated for anything here.

Did Obama even ever mention her publicly as his top choice?

(12-14-2012 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear that she was never officially nominated for anything here.

Did Obama even ever mention her publicly as his top choice?

Obama didn't mention her publically as far as I know. But the media had her name all over it and Rice must have thought there was a good chance or why the public back-out?

(12-14-2012 09:45 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear that she was never officially nominated for anything here.

Did Obama even ever mention her publicly as his top choice?

Obama didn't mention her publically as far as I know. But the media had her name all over it and Rice must have thought there was a good chance or why the public back-out?

She was an easy target for the GOP. They needed someone to pin the blame on and the Obama administration was ready to offer her up.

In the end, it wasn't a fight worth taking for Obama.

(12-14-2012 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:45 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear that she was never officially nominated for anything here.

Did Obama even ever mention her publicly as his top choice?

Obama didn't mention her publically as far as I know. But the media had her name all over it and Rice must have thought there was a good chance or why the public back-out?

She was an easy target for the GOP. They needed someone to pin the blame on and the Obama administration was ready to offer her up.

In the end, it wasn't a fight worth taking for Obama.

Yeah, during times of foreign crisis and violence how many times do you see the UN ambassador speak for the administration? She was easy pickings for the GOP.

Do you think obama sacrificed her because of her color?

(12-14-2012 09:59 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:45 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear that she was never officially nominated for anything here.
Did Obama even ever mention her publicly as his top choice?

Obama didn't mention her publically as far as I know. But the media had her name all over it and Rice must have thought there was a good chance or why the public back-out?

She was an easy target for the GOP. They needed someone to pin the blame on and the Obama administration was ready to offer her up.
In the end, it wasn't a fight worth taking for Obama.

Yeah, during times of foreign crisis and violence how many times do you see the UN ambassador speak for the administration? She was easy pickings for the GOP.
Do you think obama sacrificed her because of her color?

It was a charade. She was put out there because she could sound authoritative without actually having a clue. That way nobody has to lie. And republicans fell for by going after her instead of the people who put her out there. This is Chicago politics and republicans are clueless how to play it.

(12-14-2012 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:59 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:45 AM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2012 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Let's be clear that she was never officially nominated for anything here.
Did Obama even ever mention her publicly as his top choice?

Obama didn't mention her publically as far as I know. But the media had her name all over it and Rice must have thought there was a good chance or why the public back-out?

She was an easy target for the GOP. They needed someone to pin the blame on and the Obama administration was ready to offer her up.
In the end, it wasn't a fight worth taking for Obama.

Yeah, during times of foreign crisis and violence how many times do you see the UN ambassador speak for the administration? She was easy pickings for the GOP.
Do you think obama sacrificed her because of her color?

It was a charade. She was put out there because she could sound authoritative without actually having a clue. That way nobody has to lie. And republicans fell for by going after her instead of the people who put her out there. This is Chicago politics and republicans are clueless how to play it.

What exactly was this charade? DO you think the GOP is confusing her with Condoleezza Rice who knowingly lied about WMD?

I think Obama could've pushed her through the Senate if he had really been willing to invest some time/effort/etc. The GOP would've filibustered, but the Dems could -- eventually -- have beaten that down. The basic problem is that such a process -- even though it would have ended in Rice's confirmation -- would have still required the Senate to carefully review and parse every public utterance about Libya from the entire Administration: the White House, the State Dept, etc., etc. Not to mention a close, play-by-play review of all the private communication between the consulate and other branches of the government in the hours/days/weeks leading up to the attacks.
Obama doesn't want any of that to happen, and was willing to not-nominate her in order to avoid it.

(12-14-2012 12:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]I think Obama could've pushed her through the Senate if he had really been willing to invest some time/effort/etc. The GOP would've filibustered, but the Dems could -- eventually -- have beaten that down. The basic problem is that such a process -- even though it would have ended in Rice's confirmation -- would have still required the Senate to carefully review and parse every public utterance about Libya from the entire Administration: the White House, the State Dept, etc., etc. Not to mention a close, play-by-play review of all the private communication between the consulate and other branches of the government in the hours/days/weeks leading up to the attacks.
Obama doesn't want any of that to happen, and was willing to not-nominate her in order to avoid it.

All of that can be, and will be done anyway. There is nothing there. The Republicans have nothing and need to grandstand on something.

I think she was honest in that it was just a distraction and/or it had more to do with their investments in Canadian oil companies and infrastructure and wondering if she could be objective on the keystone pipeline if anything.

word is that there is a big negative report looming. Hillary Rodham is not going to testify. Susab Rice lied to the American Public and she knows it... Good Riddance. Benghazi is not going awayd. Dear leader talked tought about nominating this Rice but then Dear leader threw her to the wolves...

(12-14-2012 02:14 PM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]word is that there is a big negative report looming. Hillary Rodham is not going to testify. Susab Rice lied to the American Public and she knows it... Good Riddance. Benghazi is not going awayd. Dear leader talked tought about nominating this Rice but then Dear leader threw her to the wolves...