Skip to main content

After weeks of dog whistles and GOP bullshit, the truth about Susan Rice is finally emerging. It may not be what those Democrats who have circled their wagons around her may expect or want in the next US Secretary of State:

Susan Rice was a cheerleader for Bush’s invasion of Iraq (11/02, 12/02, 02/03)

http://www.accuracy.org/...
Assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Rice has been a prominent foreign policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign. Here are some of her claims shortly before the invasion of Iraq:

“I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.” (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)

“We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. … 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.” (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)

“I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it’s a question of timing and tactics. … We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)

- MORE -

Susan Rice advocated the US stay in Iraq “for many years to come” (04/03)

From WaPo transcript (response to last question): http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Susan Rice: “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. We would be wise to involve as early as is feasible the UN and key allies in the complex tasks of democracy building and reconstruction, and we would be wise to help foster organic internal processes for selecting a new national leadership in Iraq, as the international community did in supporting the loya jirga process in Afghanistan. We can not be seen to select or anoint new Iraqi leaders. We need also to be to be exceedingly careful with the Americans coming in under General Garner to assume governance roles in Iraq.”

Susan Rice swayed the President to pursue a UN authorization for airstrikes in Libya (03/11)

Time Magazine observed in March 24, 2011 issue about Rice’s role in swaying the President: http://www.time.com/....
As Muammar Gaddafi's troops closed in on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi on March 15, President Barack Obama put the fate of the city's 1 million residents in the hands of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. At a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) that afternoon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, leery of another war in the Middle East, told Obama a U.N.-proposed no-fly zone would not stop Gaddafi from taking the town. Rice, participating via video teleconference from New York City, said she could get a tougher resolution allowing broader intervention — including the ability to attack armor and ground troops — that would do the trick.

Obama gave Rice the go-ahead . . .

Susan Rice then sought a similar UN authorization for military intervention in Syria (10/11)

Rice was one of the most vociferous champions of international armed intervention against Syria. On October 5, 2011, after Russia and China led a group of countries which vetoed a Security Council resolution similar to that which authorized the use of outside force in Libya. Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon abstained. After the vote, Dr. Rice used unusually nondiplomatic language to say that those countries had carried out “a cheap ruse” and, addressing a press confererence after the vote, she said that the Syrians “have been slapped in the face by several members of this Security Council today.”
‘And as I said in the chamber, I think the people of Syria and the people of the region have had today the opportunity to determine who among us stand with the people of the region in their quest for a better future, and who will go to whatever lengths are necessary to defend dictators who are on the warpath. . .

I think Libya has been beat to death, overused, and misused by countries as an excuse by countries to not untake their responsibilities with regard to Syria.”

Susan Rice led the push for the US to join Israel in Confrontation with Iran (09/12)

Dr. Rice has also been the point of the spear in the escalating US confrontation with Iran. Her rhetoric toward that country has been often hostile, played out on the UN stage underlined by gathering regime change operations and economic destabilization under the U.S.-led sanctions regime.

During the past three years, US relations with Iran have steadily deteriorated as the international sanctions regime overseen by Ambassador Rice has intensified. Iran sees the U.S. as playing a see-saw game of threats and economic warfare with Israel to ratchet up pressure and tensions. The Jerusalem Post reported on September 16, 2012: http://www.jpost.com/...

US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said Sunday that "there is no daylight" between Israel and the United States on the issue of the Iranian nuclear program, in an interview with CNN. The comments came after a media blitz by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the United States. . .
Susan Rice has pushed every Middle East war during this past decade.

If she becomes Secretary of State, chances are she will be a leading voice urging the United States into the next one.

Measure twice. Cut once.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama fell into a trap set by GOP (6+ / 0-)

    by sending her into talk to all those Senators. What the hell did he think they would say about her? Of course, they are going to oppose her. President Obama needs to cut her loose and move on. He should not spend one shred of political capital on her. She is not worth it.

    •  Yeah, I didn't understand that at all. (5+ / 0-)

      Why send her on a suicide mission that only dignifies their stupid objections?

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:03:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She held the same position on Iraq (19+ / 0-)

      as our current Secretary of State. Did everyone suddenly forget Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and Susan Rice had worked for the Clinton administration. My guess is that this was generally accepted (wrong) idea within the Clinton administration and likely among Bill and Hillary.

      So if that is the criteria for supporting a candidate....
      Sorry, but he cannot get into a position of allowing republicans to dictate who he chooses for his Cabinet. She is more than qualified and quite capable.

      It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

      by smartdemmg on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:35:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And that stand (11+ / 0-)

        is why I won't be voting for Hillary for president if she runs.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:42:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know why we keep hearing her name (7+ / 0-)

          on this site for 2016.

          Are we all neocons now since Obama led us to a brave new future that looks.....  just like the past?

          •  pretty much does, or at least way too much (7+ / 0-)
            brave new future that looks.....  just like the past?
            I don't care to hear Hilary Clinton's name for 2016, nor Jeb Bush.

            What kind of a country are we that we can only run a Bush or a Clinton?

            I am not voting for another Clinton, not even if Chelsea.

            At least the Clintons only had one child, the Bushs have a busload of children and grandchildren, who we can only hope will stay away from public service.

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

            by allenjo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:42:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  agree. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              leveymg

              Don't people realize that Clinton took us to the right, thereby staking out the ground that Repugnantcons previously held?

              Repugnantcons didn't get to the right all by themselves.

              I've never heard Hillary admit any error in promoting Iraq or voting for it.

              I have enormous respect for Bill, especially after seeing some of his interviews after leaving office with Peter Jennings and Fox, don't remember which one, probably Chris Wallace.  He took them to the woodshed for their treatment of him while he was prez.  He is miles above any repugnantcon I've seen in my lifetime.  But I think a Clinton is not moving forward.  It would be back to the past.

              I keep hearing the villagers talk about people sitting it out if she runs, boy I hope not.  We need to turn the ship of state back to the left after the trauma of 8 years of W, and 4 more years of W lite.

        •  Now now (0+ / 0-)

          then your position is either staying home which means,effectively voting for a Republican, last I saw the Republicans are no doves, or you make sure that you look at the totality of the candidate before making any decissisons.

          •  aren't you forgetting something? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rusty Pipes, divineorder, George3

            primaries?  Hillary didn't get past the primary before, there's no guarantee she will a second time, nor that she'll even run.

          •  that's what primaries are for. (0+ / 0-)

            We should have primaried Obama, but we didn't so I voted against Romney, not for Obama.

            I voted for Obama the first time, based on 1 issue:  Iraq.

            My whole family did too, and I never asked the brothers, but it was probably mostly war.  BTW we are all over 50 now.  I for one am one very angry white male, but Lindsey Graham was wrong, they are generating lots of angry white males, a lot of us are Democrats though because of our anger.

            Also, my Mom who was 72 (in 2008) and an ardent feminist voted for Obama both times.  I was afraid to ask her during the 2008 primaries, avoided the subject like the plague.  My brother got brave and asked her if she supported Hillary, I held my breath and she said no.  Why?  Because of Iraq.  I let my breath out.

            I never would have considered myself a single issue voter although never voted republican until 2008.

            My view is that if you give up the moral high ground on the most important issue:  life and death, you give up the moral high ground on everything of lesser import.  And up until very recently the dems have allowed themselves to be rolled on practically everything.  It almost seems like an unspoken moral code of governing by Dems and Pugs.  They didn't really get upset when it mattered, so now they can hardly find anything bad to say about repugnantcon policies that don't rise to the level of immorality that issues of life and death do.

            After observing the political arena towards the end of the 8 year W debacle up until now, I feel that the Democrats having allowed Butcher to not only have his wars, but not impeach or prosecute proves my point.  The dems have legitimized the criminal behavior of the pugs, which allows them to continue acting like they have a shred of credibility.  I think that explains the crazy.  They thought they could do whatever they wanted after W and have the red carpet rolled out the way W had the red carpet rolled out not only by the Media but also by dems not opposing him.  And they started getting crazy angry that they had to start justifying and defending their policies and run for elections instead of just being annointed.

            A little long, sorry.  I think the most important issue flows on down to the less important ones.  Which is why I'll never vote repugnantcon.

  •  In that case: (7+ / 0-)
    Susan Rice has pushed every Middle East war during this past decade.
    sounds like she is just the type of Serious Person needed for this job . . ..
    •  Hard to think of (6+ / 0-)

      non-fan of "freedom bombs" who could be on any kind of short list. Sen. Levin would certainly be better.

      At least Kerry is inclined to publicly soul-search before he supports a war.

      Anyway, yeah, you don't rise through the ranks opposing wars, especially if you're a woman of color.

      •  Yeah, true enough (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        George3

        although I'm not ENTIRELY convinced of the veracity of the claim.

        For example, did she support Israel's war against Lebanon ca. 2006?  Yeah probably, but that and a few other more minor Middle East wars aren't really documented in this diary.

        Yeah, in that case it'd have to be a really long diary, but if the title claims something, it'd be nice to see the claim backed up down below.

        •  JPOST: Rice tried to thwart UN probe into Cast Ld (10+ / 0-)

          http://www.jpost.com/...

          'US led major efforts to help Israel at UN after Cast Lead'
          By JPOST.COM STAFF
          LAST UPDATED: 04/19/2011 17:13
          'Foreign Policy' report citing WikiLeaks cables says Susan Rice tried to thwart independent UN probe into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
          US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice Photo: Reuters/ Jim Young
          US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice spearheaded major efforts to thwart an independent UN investigation into possible war crimes committed by Israel and Hamas in Operation Cast Lead, according to a Foreign Policy report published on Monday.

          WikiLeaks cables quoted by the report state that Rice used the prospect of such an investigation as a means of pressuring Israel to participate in a US-supported peace process.

          RELATED:
          US plotting strategy to have Goldstone report withdrawn
          Peres to ask UN to shelve Goldstone report
          Goldstone: Israel didn't target civilians

          The release of the WikiLeaks cables follows the publication of Richard Goldstone's op-ed in The Washington Post saying that his report had unfairly accused Israel for intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians during Operation Cast Lead.

          The release of the WikiLeaks cables follows the publication of South African jurist Richard Goldstone’s op-ed in The Washington Post saying that the factfinding mission he led, whose findings are known as the Goldstone Report, had unfairly accused Israel of intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians during Operation Cast Lead.

          The new cables are surprising, according to the Foreign Policy report, because they reveal in depth “how America wields its power behind closed doors at the United Nations.”

          They also show how the US and Israel were given special access to “highly sensitive” UN deliberations on an “independent” UNinquiry panel into the Gaza operation. This, according to Foreign Policy, raises questions over the independence of the process.

          The report cites one WikiLeaks cable in which Rice spoke with UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon several times about blocking recommendations of the board of inquiry to launch an investigation into alleged war crimes by IDF soldiers and Palestinian terrorists.

          “Ambassador Rice urged the secretary-general to make clear in his cover letter when he transmits the summary to the Security Council that those recommendations exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and no further action is needed,” Rice is quoted as saying in the May 2009 cable.  [. . . ]

          •  Hmm, she almost sounds like a female Colin Powell (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            leveymg, George3

            which I'm suspect will be interpreted to be a sexist or racist statement somehow, but the bottom line is that if something unpopular needs to be said around here, I'm not afraid to bite the bullet and spit it out.

            •  I won't interpret it wrong. (9+ / 0-)

              My only issue is with the person throwing lynching around below.  People can oppose Rice for many reasons, some I  may agree with, some not.

              I know full well that you despise Colin Powell for the same reasons I do, that he's a lying opportunistic scumbag.  He and Tony Blair are very high on my most hated list, cause both knew better, might have been able to stop Bush, but chose not to.

              "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

              by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:36:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, we no doubt agree of CP being a (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Empty Vessel, chuckvw, annecros, George3

                first class war mongering fuckwad.

                Ms. Rice probably isn't * that * bad now that I've a couple of minutes to cool down.  

                But still, out of a country of 310,000,000 people or so, it's hard to imagine that there's no one even slightly better . . .

                •  I think she will be an excellent SoS (7+ / 0-)

                  Or at least as good as can be expected...in that she fairly represents where the Obama administration stands.

                  My single largest criticism and disagreement with the Obama admin is its position on Afghanistan...we shoulda pulled out 3.5 years ago.  But I knew where he stood on that when I voted for him.  I would love to have a better foriegn policy than we have, but this is what we got...and Rice is clearly competent in her job...so I think she should get it.

                  I guess in part, this diarist is using the Rice nomination as a proxy fight against Obama foriegn policy.  Its his/her right...but it strikes me that the diarist is attacking the wrong person for the wrong offenses.

                  "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                  by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:44:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, like I said above, I'm not entirely (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Empty Vessel, progressivevoice

                    convinced that she really did support EVERY middle east war over the past decade (there's been a whole boatload of them and it will take some time for me to work through the mess) - but if that IS true, it is quite troubling.

                  •  Agree (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Garrett, unfangus

                    I could not agree more on Afghanistan and Rice.

                    Firstly, on Afghanistan, I am still not sure he had the standing on foreign policy in his first year to go with Biden's counter-terrorism strategy when the pentagon was pushing for counter-insurgency. I do think he is trying to get us out now, and I have FULL FAITH that the residual force nonsense is a political ploy for now, and will end just as in the case of Iraq, with a failure to get a status of forces agreement with Karzai.

                    Second, I am sure we could find a better independent thinker than Rice, though I think she is very bright, she does appear a little rough-edged at times. I sort of expected her to mollify McCain like a toddler in one way or another, though prejudice is hard if filled with vengeance, so I will not be very hard on her.

                    But I still think she wil make a fabulous SoS, because she will be an advocate for Obama's foreign policy. That is what matters in the end. He is calling the shots, and he needs someone he can trust implicitly to carry out his agenda. And she certainly is willing to throw herself into the ring for Obama, and that is more than some Democrats have been willing to do.

                    •  I honestly can't say I care (0+ / 0-)

                      whether its Kerry or Rice...they'd both be fine.

                      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                      by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:56:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Agree, pretty much, about Susan Rice (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      chuckvw

                      But I don't think the residual force nonsense is just a political ploy.

                      U.S. Special Forces are now an exceptionally important power center in influencing policy. And Special Forces still cavorting with our selected Afghan warlords, post 2014, is exactly in line with their doctrine and worldview.

                      •  I would concede that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Garrett

                        I wouldn't necessarily say Obama would be viscerally opposed to a residual force. But I just don't see the US agreeing to keep any forces unless they get immunity from Afghan law, and no way is Karzai agreeing to that. That provides an out. Now if Obama was desperate for a presence, he could find a way around it (just as he could have in Iraq), but I sense he is not that desperate. The idea that a US marine could be tried (even arrested) in Afghanistan is so toxic here, that it is a no deal.

                  •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annecros

                    Because we're not allowed to expect much anymore...



                    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

                    by chuckvw on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:36:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  every time we're supposed to believe that (4+ / 0-)

                  "there's no one even slightly better" in this supposedly great nation of ours.

                  And this person coincidentally just happens to always be a proponent of everything we're supposedly against.

                  •  I didn't oppose (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pistolSO, hooper, smartdemmg

                    the US actions in Libya, nor did Obama, and as for the claims of the diarist about Syria and Iran, I am not convinced.

                    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                    by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:04:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I was only commenting in general on the idea (0+ / 0-)

                      that we always have to have someone on the right in these positions, which we heard a lot of the 1st go around with Obama.  Hiring all the clintonites and banksters.

                      I didn't know anything about Rice and Libya, by that time my response was something like "I'm too worn out by opposing Reagans follies, GHWB's war #1, clintons bombing campaigns, Butcher's personal wars, and now Obama goes in to a situation that I don't know how we can ever improve but could it hurt?  I don't know.  My only objection is why not you know say oh I don't know, maybe Tibet, Darfur, practically any country in Africa.  You get my drift.  Even though I was to tired to be against it, it seems once again we're only there because you know, Oil.  

                      However somebody said she was pushing the Iraq war.  Don't know if it's true, but if it is, well that one was pretty much cut and dried.  I knew W was lying.  How did I know?

                      1. His last name was Bush.
                      2. He has an R next to his name.
                      3. If I needed additional proof, I believe I was reading the editorial sections of newspapers where columnists were outlining how he was firing people who wouldn't agree with his accusations on Saddam and WMD.  Don't remember for sure if it was Newspaper though, didn't have internet then.  I know it was there for anyone who wanted to know the truth, which I did.

                      But I realize it's too much to ask not to have neocons running around in our democratic administration right now.

                      However, because of the right wing meltdown over Bengazhi, I think Obama should nominate Rice, and force her down their throats because of their treatment of her.  That is if she wouldn't mind.  I would like for her to tell John CmPlain  to go suck on his "arm the rebels" foreign policy pork chops.

            •  bite and spit away, there needs to be more of that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              on this particularly supposedly "progressive" web site.

              After all we're supposed to be better than them (rwnj's) right?

              •  Nah, we're not supposed to be better (0+ / 0-)

                the stated purpose of this site is to elect Dems.

                And although the Powers That Be tolerate discussion of other things, the bottom line is that electing Dems is what this site is about - in many ways the mirror image of the Repub's "win at any cost" mantra.

                •  I've was shocked to see that this is the agenda (0+ / 0-)

                  here.

                  I was really enjoying the site in the runup to the election until I happened on a couple seemingly smart diaries and or comments opposing drones and the wars.

                  I was disgusted to see that this was so controversial.  Also that there seems to be a majority of people here who justify what we're involved in.

                  I had been thinking of posting some diaries unrelated to the wars up until then.  Now seeing the same attitudes here that I've encountered from angry name calling right wing republicans has been quite an education.  In a lot of ways that's exactly the kind of stuff I've heard over the years about divisions in the party over a prior war and subsequent election losses.  I believe that prior one was somewhere in southeast asia.  I believe that was sometime in the late 60's and early 70's, while I was too young to know about it.  Now I feel like I have a front row seat to that time period, sans the actual sustained protesting.

                  I can understand not criticizing the dems after the primaries, but after the general election too?

                  That seems self defeating.  And mark my words, the repugnantcons can continue to stay f'ed up crazy, if dems don't start acting like they're in charge (4 years too late, in Pelosi and Reid's cases 6 years too late) there will be a whole generation who only knows Obama and mostly democratic rule, and they will start wondering what it's gotten them, and they will be forced to try the criminal party out of sheer desperation.  And they will probably try them for more than just 4 years if nobody decides to make the 1% suffer and start bring some jobs back here.  Me, I'm already there, but I know our history and which party works exclusively for the 1%.  So here I am.

      •  true enough, which makes me wonder why (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros, Roadbed Guy

        there is such a thing as a progressive web site cheering for electing democrats if they have to be just like republicans in order to have a position of power.

        •  Please. Repubs & Dems are the same, then? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheLizardKing
          •  Pretty much (0+ / 0-)

            From what I've seen the main difference is that a Dem is willing to give you 99 weeks of unemployment benefits when they outsource your job while a Repub begrudges you 6 months.

            And the SC appointees are definitely less insane when appointed by a Dem (but still, when Clinton appoints Orin Hatch's suggested nominee you start wondering "is this really what I voted for?")

            On most other things that are important (education, energy, foreign policy, national security, etc) they're basically the same.  Except where Obama raised the ante and out-did even Bush in craziness - like education.

          •  well not exactly the same. (0+ / 0-)

            When was the last time you saw a republican tell his base to F*** off?

            There is that difference which I'd forgotten.

            You see my opinion has been slow materializing.  I've been a lifetime dem and pretty much uncritical mostly.  But my conclusion comes from a good hard look at why we've gotten to where we are right now.  Right on the cliff edge of tea party right wing crazy.  And during election season I started asking myself how we got here.  I'd decided even though we elected Obama in 2008, that we were well on our way to right wing hell, before I ever heard anyone on the political shows dare to mention the fact.  

            How did we get there?  It apparently started with, well there's no point going there.  We've been waging wars on foreign nations from practically our founding, so naming a few democratic presidents in my lifetime is pointless.

            But as far as other progressive issues go, I haven't really heard much about any since before Carter.  In addition to that each President starting with Carter has deregulated.  That actually started with Carter.  Yes the repugnantcons start the wars (lately anyway), but they don't do it by themselves.  Dems have always voted for them, except for some.  Then the Dems turn against them later.  So the dems go to the right to get elected or re-elected and let the Repugnantcons lead them around on a leash, always trying to show they're tough on foreign policy.  Then the dems push to the right on other stuff claiming ground the used to be held by pugs.

            That's why the thugs have been able to go to the right all these years.  Not only no opposition, but active encouragement from the dems.

            So the difference between the 2 parties, in my best guess, is depending on the actual policies, between 0 and 8 years.  Obama has picked up W's most egregious powers and policies and actually gone to the right of W.

            See:  Drones, NDAA, Assassinations (citizens, terrorists), drilling for oil.   Not to mention the extremely slow exit from Iraq, and the as yet not exited Afghanistan.  War on terror, war on drugs etc. etc.

            So you see, there is a difference, it's just a matter of time.

            Now that the repugnantcons are certifiable though, I'm hoping we can stop pretending we can't win elections without emulating them.

            But we have a 2 party system.  If the pugs are the other party, who takes us back to the left?

    •  Hell, yeah, cause we sure fucking need another (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, canyonrat, Rusty Pipes

      war in the Middle East.

      Serious person my ass - national security state kool aid drinker is more like it.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:29:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  SO DID CLINTON, SO DID KERRY (12+ / 0-)

    Now the Liberal lynching begins by John Kerry's henchmen. There is nothing there that Senator Kerry (prospective SoS) and then Senator Clinton (current SoS) have not also supported in some form or another, from Iraq to Libya. So spare me the lynching as a John Kerry mouthpiece. Or at least have the integrity to have a disclosure.

  •  Damn it! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros

    I hate to agree with McCain on anything, and I doubly hate for appearances to be that he beat the President on anything.  But if these quotes are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt the diarist) then I don't support Susan Rice for anything and hope she disappears immediately.

  •  Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq (9+ / 0-)

    and is a hawk.    I doubt that John Kerry would be any better since he voted for the Iraq War too and Kerry being SoS would hurt us in Massachusetts.

    I would be open to your suggestions as to great SoS candidates who aren't Senators or Governors past this January.

    •  Chomsky for Secretary of State! (8+ / 0-)

      I eagerly await the first DKos diary inviting us to sign that petition on whitehouse.gov.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:03:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm, is he still alive? (0+ / 0-)

        I saw him give a lecture about 20 years ago, and had trouble right then and there telling if he was alive.

        Just saying, 20 years later if he's lost any of his meager-to-begin-with dynamism, it does not portend well for a SoS position . ..

        •  Still alive. Still perceptive. n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, allenjo, chuckvw

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:34:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, good for him! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobdevo

            And I wasn't suggesting that he wasn't perceptive.

            Just that you'd never know it from actually attending one of his lectures . ..

            •  He can take a while to get to the point. :) (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy, Rich in PA

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by bobdevo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:50:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The larger context is that I had the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bobdevo, FG

                privilege to visit MIT round about 1992 and in the same day attended lectures by Chomsky (who of course everybody knew who he was, so I was totally looking forward to it).

                But in the meantime, to kill time, I noticed a notice on a bulletin board that a guy called Mario Molina was giving a talk on CFCs and their environmental consequences (i.e., their role in the ozone hole).  I had no idea who the guy was but was interested in the topic and attended his lecture - it was a totally compelling, blow-your-socks-off affair.    And when I learned he won the Nobel Prize 2 or 3 years later, I thought that was freakin' great, no one could be more deserving.

                But then later in the day, going to Noam's talk - quite frankly I never did figure out what his point was.  Guess 90 minutes wasn't quite long enough for him to get around to it.  It was kinda profoundly disappointing to say the least.

      •  At least he would be a SMART Secretary of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw

        State . .  which is more than you can say about either Hillary of Susan.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by bobdevo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:33:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't Kerry at least say he got it wrong? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes

      That seems to be pretty different than Rice, doesn't it? (Although she may have said that - have to admit I dont' know.)

      •  I haven't heard one Democrat who supported that (0+ / 0-)

        war apologize for their error, other than Kerry.  Not sure what he said when he ran against the Butcher.  Too painful a subject to research, but probably the closest to an apology that any person has ever come.

  •  On KPFA this morning there was a segment on (0+ / 0-)

    Congo, in which the correspondent said that Susan Rice was a good friend of the Ruanda administration, which is guilty of repeated human rights violations and is reportedly funding the M23 rebel group in Congo in order to have access to Congo's mineral riches.

    "UpFront" on KPFA

    •  Everyone in official Washington is a good friend (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY

      ...of the Kagame regime, mostly for good and understandable reasons.  

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:02:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you know anything about Rwandan Genocide? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      You would know who Paul Kagame is.  You would know that Bill Clinton, Tony Lake, Susan Rice did nothing to stop the genocide.  Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered with machetes. children, old folks, women, men, for no reason but that there were the "wrong" ethnicity.  

      Paul Kagame saved his nation.  Bill Clinton went to visit years after he was no longer President and cried out "If only I knew".  Liar.  The Canadian in charge of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda said that the West turned its back on genocide because it was genocide of Africans by Africans.  

      To her credit, Susan Rice learned the lessons of genocide. It was why she, and Samantha Power (the world's foremost authority on genocide & a special advisor to Obama), urged US military involvement in Libya.  Anyone who believes Ghaddafy would not have started murdering his own people is reengaging in Western blindness.  Going to war to stop genocide, in my view, is a moral and ethical imperative.  

      You can view all wars as wrong, that's your right.  I don't agree.

      "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

      by Uncle Moji on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:40:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree in theory, but how on earth do you do it? (0+ / 0-)

        "Going to war to stop genocide, in my view, is a moral and ethical imperative."

        I view starting all wars as wrong, but if someone else starts one, who could possibly say it's unethical to defend yourself.  

        Maybe we just don't have any experience in that regard to know how to do it.

        It seems that it would require going to war against the nation committing the genocide, and then it seems like they'd all join forces to defend the country against us.  Then the party in power would pick up where it left off after we left, because after all we would leave someday.  Either that or we would in essence have to remove their government which would require installing our own, inviting anti US rebellion.

        My problem with WWII is supposedly that's why we attacked Germany, but it seems like we waited until the war was about over before we invaded.  For all the bombing we did, it seems like we didn't bother to try to disrupt the rail transportation of the Jews to the death camps.

        Ultimately, it seems like we just used WWII for our own purposes.  Figured if we let em all destroy each other we could "save Europe from the nazis" and be the most powerful nation of the allies.

        I saw an interview with someone, can't remember who, interviewer or interviewee who said that humanitarian goals have been used to justify every war every nation has ever started.

  •  Two things (11+ / 0-)

    1.  The last two quotes, about Syria and Iran, do not say what you claim they say...they do not suggest that she favors a more interventionist stance than the Obama Admin.  In fact, as she is UN Ambassador...they are to be taken as statements expressly voicing the Obama position. And the Obama administration is clear that they want avoid a war in either.  Be that as it may...there is nothing in either quote that even remotely backs up your claim that she supports a US invasion of either Syria or Iran.

    You might be sure there is a super-secret US plan to do whatever.  But the quotes you provide show nothing of the sort.

    2. As far as Iraq, H. Clinton supported the invasion...and that's one of the main reason I voted against her in the primary.  But, she has been an excellent SoS.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:01:36 PM PST

    •  And (8+ / 0-)

      in the Washington Post Q&A, Rice was striking a realist tone, post-intervention in Iraq.  For example, the last sentence of her response to the next-to-last question:

      Moreover, few Americans want , I believe, to see U.S. forces bogged down indefinitely and largely alone in a very complex situation, if not a potential quagmire.
      Not exactly boosterish.

      Après le thé, le déluge. -- Glenn Beck, aka Napoleon XIV

      by mspicata on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:08:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're slapping around a red herring - never said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes

      Rice or anyone in the Obama Admin , on the public record as far as I know,

      "supports a US invasion of either Syria or Iran."
      As we all know, by now, this Administration has found other ways to make war that do not have the politically undesirable side-effects of U.S. boots on the ground.  We organize others to do the fighting and killing, but that is not to say it's entirely without cost and blowback.

      What I said is that Susan Rice is right out front leading the charge toward war with both Syria and Iran.  The former conflict is further advanced, but the same basic regime change and killing by proxy model -- with the possibility of US air strikes -- that has been applied since Libya.

      Not sure just how they'll figure how to avoid the introduction of US troops (at least naval and air forces) if shooting starts in Iran -- perhaps just a naval occupation of the off-shore oil fields in the northern Persian Gulf -- but, that's a problem they'll find some way to overcome.  They are professionals, you know.

      •  And this claim (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG
        What I said is that Susan Rice is right out front leading the charge toward war with both Syria and Iran.
        is not supported by either of you provided.  Read em, there's no there, there.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:54:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  either of THE QUOTES you provided. nt (0+ / 0-)

          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

          by Empty Vessel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:54:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We are already in a proxy war in Syria, 40K killed (0+ / 0-)

            so far, when I last checked.

            We're only at the "make the economy scream" softening up and causing privations phase in Iran.  That one is going to have blowback.  Big time.

            •  Proxy war? So you call every civil war anywhere (0+ / 0-)

              in the world a proxy war of US with one of the sides in this war now?

              •  It is at its core a 1300 year old religious war (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FG

                between the two major wings of Islam, hinged in Saudi Arabia and Iran.  

                We have taken sides in this and are clumsily trying to play the two off each other, all the while our regional "allies" in the Middle East and the Gulf see us as little more than overpaid mercenaries, and really hope we completely exhaust ourselves and bash ourselves to bits in a long, twilight struggle against the Shi'ia.

                The Europeans would also like to tuck into our wake and ride back into the region.  A war between the US and Iran will take care of what was half-jokingly called at Davos (c. 1999) "The Last Rogue Superpower" problem, once and for all.  

                As we've already seen, this a very complex, costly gambit.  Expect more blowback.  That can only get worse, and the odds are against a big pay-off.

                Indignant hotheads like Susan Rice aren't what we need at the wheel right now.

  •  You know, she would be replacing Clinton... (17+ / 0-)

    ....who to my knowledge held and holds all of those positions.  My sense is that the President doesn't care what positions you hold, as long as you advocate them cogently in the appropriate settings (which means "when he asks") as long as you go with his decision in the end.  Clinton has done that, and if Rice is nominated it will be because Obama believes she'll do that. Cabinet posts aren't rewards for holding correct views, they're predictions that you will effectively implement correct policies and at the highest level those policies come from the President.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:01:37 PM PST

    •  Those are all really good points (0+ / 0-)

      and without doubt the main points.    I get what you're saying and I can recall how Clinton abandoned some of her 2008 campaign positions and became a team player for Obama

      Let me ask you sincerely though, would it be too much to hope that an incoming SoS would actually have some solid background and insight that would be a good fit for our times?  That she would have some solid thoughts of her own on some of the trouble regions and fresh ideas for policy?  I'm thinking about the Asia pivot, the "war on drugs", etc.

      (if you're not sure what I'm asking also see the end of my comment below.)

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:41:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We don't have any Cabinet secretaries like that (0+ / 0-)

        And at the risk of overgeneralization, I would suggest that we never, ever have.  

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:36:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Are you serious?? Do you not know who our (6+ / 0-)

    current Secretary of State is and what she supported...or John Kerry for that matter?? Ridiculous!

    •  "Do you not know...?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes
      Four years to the day after voting to authorize war in Iraq, Senator John F. Kerry yesterday asserted that the vote is his greatest regret of his political career, and said all lawmakers who voted for the war should admit that it was a mistake.

      ``There's nothing -- nothing -- in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close," Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, wrote in a dispatch on the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com. ``We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution."

      Twenty-nine Senate Democrats joined all but one of the Senate's Republicans in approving the war resolution Oct. 11, 2002. Other prominent Democrats -- including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, one of Kerry's possible 2008 presidential rivals -- have not repudiated their votes.

      That kinda stuff actually matters. It matters that that pronouncement was made publicly and loudly. And it matters in assessments going forward.
    •  Just looking - Clinton kinda went there (0+ / 0-)
      •  So, an apology/semi-apology re: Iraq is all that's (0+ / 0-)

        needed to make it all better? Weren't Amb. Rice's Iraq war "issues" known before she was nominated and confirmed as UN Ambassador? Was there outrage/dismissal of her here then? I can't seem to find anything. DKos Search

        Anything's she's done since then was carrying out the President's stance, right? So, this, here, makes no sense.

        •  Take everything you see as extra away. (0+ / 0-)

          Is it within reason, and fair for someone on DKos to make an objection to a possible SoS pick? And to lay out reasons regarding war and peace for that objection? Sure as fuck seems like it to me.

          and no - an apology doesn't make it all better. Grow the fuck up.

          •  Where was this diarist's or your red flag whining (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            leftreborn

            about Rice's Iraq war stance the first time she was confirmed for the damn job she holds now...if it's a part of what's disqualifying, as this diarist claims--and one which you seem to support? I've seen you whine about everything else on here, funny I can't seem to find your objections to Rice from 4 years ago over Iraq or any damn thing else.

            You also pointed out that Kerry apologized and Clinton semi apologized. For what if it didn't make it all (or somewhat) better for you? What was your point? Nevermind, I'm sure you didn't have one.

            This diarist laid out shit here when the current SoS holds/held the same damn view as Rice at the time of her confirmation and I pointed it out.  You have your opinion. I have mine. You don't like mine, too damn bad for you.

    •  Well aware of it . . .and totally uniumpressed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      canyonrat, Rusty Pipes

      with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. She offers up more of the same stupid foreign policy that her husband, Bush and Obama have pushed:  American exceptionalism.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:31:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the diary. After weeks on end of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leveymg, smartdemmg

    endless demagoguery, finally some actual facts and analysis.

    However, I must say your analysis does not sway me from my opinion that it is the President's prerogative who he nominates, particularly for Secretary of State.  

    Whoever serves in this capacity will represent the opinions and positions of the Obama administration.  Period.  Secretary Clinton has/had certain differences with the President, nevertheless, she has been an able, competent and effective representative of the country and the administration.  She will be a tough (if not impossible) act to follow.  

  •  Pretty much why I could care less (0+ / 0-)

    if McCain keeps sniping forever.

  •  What's the point? (10+ / 0-)

    Supporting the Iraq War should disqualify her from being SoS?
    So did the current SoS.
    It is Barack Obama's policy that matters.
    Supporting the Iraq War makes it ok for McCain and his buddies to harass and demonize her?
    And I am not convinced by the few cut and pastes you used to decorate your diary that she has supported all wars since the illegal invasion of Iraq. Case not proven...but thanks for giving McCain a pass on his crusade against her.

    866-OUR-VOTE!!(866-687-8683) Lyndon Johnson: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.

    by JoanMar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:27:22 PM PST

    •  conversely, just because McCain et. al. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw

      have made her the target of racist attacks, does not mean she would be a good choice for SOS.

      The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.

      We have Senate confirmation of Cabinet officials because it is the sworn duty of the Congress to exercise oversight over the people the president picks to execute the laws of the United States.

      Just because McCain has chosen to shirk his sworn duty and talk about nonsensical bullshit, doesn't mean that Rice is automatically the right person for the job.

      McCain's attacks reflect much about McCain; they reflect nothing about Rice. Nothing bad--but also nothing good. Simply nothing.

      The fact that she is being attacked by reactionary troglodytes is not an argument in her favor nor is it of any relevance whatsoever to her qualifications, or lack thereof, for the job.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:57:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who would be a better choice for SoS? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez

        With the exception of Kerry, that is.
        Who?

        866-OUR-VOTE!!(866-687-8683) Lyndon Johnson: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.

        by JoanMar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:33:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I know quite a few Libyans who see Susan Rice (9+ / 0-)

    , Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton as heroes for masterfully putting together a coalition for intervention in Libya and, in the specific case of Susan Rice, outfoxing the Russians in the U.N. Security Council.

    Libya is doing pretty well as a country, btw.  Much better than Egypt, that much is sure.

    As for Iraq, many people were duped into believing the Bush Admin b.s. about weapons of mass destruction.  Hillary Clinton was, too, and she is an excellent secretary of state.

    And it seems to me that Susan Rice was prescient in regards to Afghanistan.  From one of your quotes:

    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.
    Afghanistan went so badly wrong because we didn't do diddly to help them rebuild in the first 4 to 5 years or so.  I fully agree with Susan Rice that we need to embrace nation building if we make the hard decision to go in to a country.

    We did it in Germany, and it worked.

    We did it in Japan, and it worked.

    We did it in South Korea, and it worked.

    We, as Americans, need to be fully aware of the fact that winning a war isn't just about winning battles, but entails much more once military hostilities have died down.  Waging a war should always be a measure of absolutely last resort.

    That being said, we obviously should not have proceeded with the stupid invasion of Iraq and it could be argued that nation building was not likely to succeed there for the very reason that it was a stupid, illegal, and in parts locally very unpopular war, ie. it wasn't even close to being a measure of last resort.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:27:35 PM PST

  •  Each of these statements (5+ / 0-)

    were made in quite different contexts and to bundle it all up and simply paint Rice as a warmonger is a bit over the top.

    Much of what she said was in support of Obama administration policy and her doing her job.  The one on prolonged stay in Iraq was with a focus to rebuilding the country (if you remember, we bombed the shit out of it).

    The only real concern I have about Rice is what were her views in the Fall 2002 timeframe when the US was ramping up hysteria and consensus for invasion of Iraq.  Even on that point I find her thoughts carry more nuance than this diary of cherry picked comments portrays.  It's clear she bought into the WMD.  But there is even some evidence that even so, she preferred waiting to let diplomacy have more time:

    I acknowledge there are significant risks to proceeding with caution, but I believe they are outweighed by the risks of launching a precipitous strike against Iraq without broad international support and at least regional acquiescence. We should maintain the credible threat of the use of force against Iraq. Yet, we ought to let good judgment drive the timetable for any eventual U.S. military action, not the impatience of the civilian hawks in the Pentagon or the false fear that we must act swiftly because U.S. credibility is on the line. If military action is deferred even to next year or beyond, it will not necessarily be a bad thing, if the U.S. can then proceed with sufficient support in the region and UN. Nor would it be bad if we used the intervening time to make further progress on the war on terror and homeland security.  Moreover, we might then find ourselves fighting against an at least partially disarmed Iraq, if weapons inspectors are able to obtain even half a loaf of cooperation...
    I don't have any horses in this SoS race.  I just wish the left blogosphere would get off the ridiculous impulse to push their favorite personality du jour and talk more about the job requirements.  Trade instead of militarism?  Asia pivot?  The disastrous  "war on drugs"?

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:33:14 PM PST

  •  why is it so frickin' important (0+ / 0-)

    that this woman be the new SOS?

    Hillary is a hawk, but at least she's capable of being diplomatic. Rice is at worst marginally more hawkish, but she is apparently more abrasive and contentious, which would seem to mitigate against her.

    I'm pretty much agnostic on the issue; I'm just curious why it's so important to the president to have his good buddy in the SOS spot.

    What's sooooo special about what she's done?

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:40:17 PM PST

  •  Misleading. She opposed Iraq invasion. (17+ / 0-)

    One of the reasons she supported Obama over Clinton in the primary was Clinton's support for Iraq. That out of context quote doesn't include her later comments in the same interview opposing the invasion.

    http://www.npr.org/...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    In every other claim you make, the actual quote doesn't exactly say what you claim it does. You're creatively misinterpreting her comments.

    Doesn't anyone else get tired of the constant cynical exaggerations about everything Obama? What does it accomplish?

    •  I'd like to see leveymg address this. nt (4+ / 0-)
    •  She opposed Iraq when everyone else did, she (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Rusty Pipes

      endorsed it when that was consistent with what was also become the status quo opinion.  

      None of these quotes are inconsistent with similar statements she was making at the time, so it's not cherry picking and its not misleading.  

      Finally, one can not excuse her actions simply because they are part of her leadership role in bad foreign policy.  This is all about policy, not personality.

      •  You have provided no quote (3+ / 0-)

        The quote in your diary does not contain any statement of her supporting the invasion. If you have such a quote, then please post it. There are people who thought Iraq had WMDs yet did not support an armed invasion. Rice saying that Powell made a case that Iraq had WMDs is not the same as her saying she supported invasion. It's absolutely misleading to claim otherwise.

        The left is supposed to be better than using edited, out of context Brietbart tactics.

        •  "Rice saying that Powell made a case that Iraq had (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          had WMDs is not the same as her saying she supported invasion."

          What the fuck, man. Powell went to the UN TO GET SUPPORT FOR THE INVASION.

          Jesus. You warranted a response, but you are really pushing it here.

          •  You don't remember? (3+ / 0-)

            Many people thought Iraq had or likely had WMD's. Some people thought that justified an invasion. Others thought it was better to continue sanctions, diplomacy, and inspections. That's where most of the debate took place. So, no saying Iraq likely had WMD's does not equate to supporting invasion.

            •  "Arming the weapon, putting it in the child's hand (0+ / 0-)

              and telling it to point it at the playground and shoot does not mean she approved shooting those kids."

              Yeah, thanks.

              •  True or False... (3+ / 0-)

                "Everyone who thought Iraq likely had WMDs supported invasion as the best option for dealing with that problem."

                You seem to be arguing that this statement is true. I remember things differently.

                •  How about we deal with what you're ignoring. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  leveymg

                  Did Rice come out in opposition to the invasion?

                  If not - does that imply something to you? And does a member of the public have a right to think it does? Especially given statement's like this by Rice, in December 2002:

                  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.”
                  You can keep playing with the "But she didn't say it exactly like I insists she must have!" game if you like - but you can play it alone.
                  •  By 2009, Rice said "no proximate threat" from Iraq (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Little

                    In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Rice was claiming that Pakistan poses an imminent threat to the US, and that US military operations there are justified.  In the same context, she says at 8:44 that Iraq in fact, posed "no proximate threat", and that represents a difference between the two interventions that justifies the latter.  http://www.youtube.com/...

                    Wow, Susan Rice is versatile.  She even recycles an old false threat to justify starting a new front in the Af-Pak war.  Add another conflict for which she is an enthusiast.

                    •  seems like a mental disease (0+ / 0-)

                      You put someone in a high government foreign policy position, and pretty soon every banana republic is a mortal threat to "the most powerful nation on earth".  Doesn't seem to matter how sane they are or what party they belong to.

  •  This reads like a hatchet job. (9+ / 0-)

    Rule of Thumb:  Never trust a quote presented out of context.  It doesn't matter who does it.  Using quotes clipped from a larger statement is a lazy way to make a point and I see that the Institute for Public Accuracy at accuracy.org found some that it attributes to Ambassador Rice.  Before drawing any conclusions, I'd have to know what was edited to produce the quotes that were used.  Since the quotes are 10 years old, I'd also like to know her current thinking on the topics that were addressed.

    When Rice was a fellow at the Brookings Institution in 2002, she co-authored a paper on preemption which was being pushed by the Bush administration as a key part of its foreign policy.  The positions expressed in that paper don't comport well with what this diary is trying to advance.

    I appreciate the 'heads up' offered by the diarist, but it goes to far to suggest what Rice would do in the future.  It may be my own personal taste, but I find it unseemly for anyone to throw her to the dogs right now.

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:48:54 PM PST

    •  Please see my comment at 01:10:01 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw

      If there is a hatchet job, sir or madam, I believe that is yours.  None of this is out of context.

      Yes, people are allowed to change their opinion one events.  But, Rice consistently makes bad new choices.

      That doesn't make her fit to be SOS.

      •  Hatchet job means dubious intent . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smartdemmg, Denise Oliver Velez

        I made it clear that my intent is to look for more information.  Using quotes out of context is sometimes a way to lie by omission.  If you don't appreciate my asking to see what was cut, it just makes me more suspicious. It turns out that my suspicion was correct.  Here's the full quote that Susan Rice gave when she was interviewed on Feb. 6, 2003.

        Well, I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that. But whether he's made the case for war, I think, is more complicated. He certainly made the case that if the United Nations fails to act, then they will have essentially set aside their own resolutions and begun to make themselves irrelevant. But I think the problem is that many American people are not convinced that going to war against Iraq will actually make us in the United States safer. I think they fear reprisals and attacks. I think they think that our homeland is not yet secure and that with developments in the Middle East and al-Qaeda still very much on the loose, there are many, I think, who fear that going to war against Iraq may, in fact, in the short term, make us less secure, rather than more secure.

        "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

        by leftreborn on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:41:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am now tempted to HR this diary. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leftreborn, Larsstephens, FloraLine

          The full quote here indicates a completely different meaning than that implied by the diarist. It is clear from Rice's full quote that she is not supporting going to war, she makes a nuanced argument that while the Bush administration may have made a case for weapons of mass destruction (which later turned out to be wrong), still they had not made the case for war. They simply played on the fears of the American people.

          It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

          by smartdemmg on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:02:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's the linkage --- (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            smartdemmg, pistolSO
            Hidden by:
            leveymg

            http://www.brookings.edu/...

            I noticed something else that makes me question though it isn't an accusation.  The first response to the diary seemed awfully opinionated to come in so quickly after publishing, considering the complexity of the subject matter.  When I checked the diarist's profile and the profile attached to the comment, they were created a day apart 8 years ago.  What a coincidence!  

            I don't know if this piece is HR worthy.  It's misleading and biased but it isn't clear to me whether the diarist is attacking Rice from the left or only pretending to do so to stir up confusion, doubt, division, and dissent among the Democrats who gather here.  If there's an anti-Democratic Party stance behind the piece, it should be HR'd.  The implied attack on Obama, who, after all, has been protective of Rice, makes it seem anti-Democratic Party by itself.

            "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

            by leftreborn on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:15:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What the fuck are you intimating? (0+ / 0-)

              Do you really think I sock puppeted the first comment, you are dead, dead wrong.  I've been posting here for six or seven years, and that's a first.

              If you think this is some extra super secret Republican stalking horse, read some of my diaries.  You gotta be tripping.

              I don't give 'em out often, but have a doughnut and some day old coffee.  Go diddle yourself.  

        •  All that adds is Rice's view that those who oppose (0+ / 0-)

          the war with Iraq were simply afraid of the consequences.

          That's adding insult to injury, in my book at least, this does not help her case at all.  You're really pushing the line between polemic and distortion if you think this is at all exculpatory or proves that Rice was really meant that invasion of Iraq was unjustified.

          Sorry, you'll have to do better than that to prove that her words or meaning was in any way misrepresented.  But, you're welcome to try.

          Thanks for the additional material.  

  •  This is a thinly sourced hatchet job. (12+ / 0-)

    Your attempt to paint Ambassador Rice as an uber warmonger is patently ridiculous. She made the same error as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as regards Iraq.

    Her actions in dealing with Syria, Libya, and Iran are a reflection of White House policy.

    She was one of those in the administration, along with Sec. Clinton and Samantha Power, who lobbied the President to intervene in Libya. That is to her great credit. She helped save thousands of lives and liberated a country from a truly evil dictator.

    There is nothing in your selective quotations which in any way disqualifies her from becoming SoS. I hope the President appoints her.

    If Kerry is involved in trying to undermine her chances of becoming SoS, he has totally betrayed his President and his party in pursuit of his own personal ambition. This would disqualify him from any consideration for the position.

    Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

    by OIL GUY on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:52:39 PM PST

    •  How could this happen? (0+ / 0-)

      "She made the same error as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as regards Iraq."

      I didn't make that mistake and I'm just a average person.

      Here's how I knew shrub was lying.

      1.  His last name was Bush.
      2.  He had an R next to his name.
      3.  I don't indulge mainstream media.
      4.  I'm not a member of the governing class, therefore do not reflexively accord those who are in it without a hefty dose of skepticism.  I don't have much respect for the system.
      5.  I'm generally not pro war.

      I did read some opinion columns in the runup to the war which explained how W was getting rid of people who would not say what he wanted them to say about WMD.

      So, they all fell for it.  However everybody didn't.  I don't know the difference, but I've noticed a certain respect that people have for the system and the people in it, that causes them to withhold the cold hard truth even when they criticize them.  Financial fraud reporters seem to suffer from this.  They can delineate in great detail the fraud and crimes they've investigated maybe even wrote a book, maybe even trying to convince people to fix the problem.  But when it comes to calling lies lies, crimes crimes, and bullshit on a fellow politician they just can't do it.  So if that politician is willing to do whatever it takes to get his war, any mild and gentlemanly objections will be steamrollered.

  •  Rice argued for rebuilding a country we destroyed. (8+ / 0-)

    I can't see anything wrong with Rice arguing that the US is obligated to help rebuild Iraq, and the way she wanted to do so is something progressives would support.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

  •  Which warmonger will we get, stayed tuned. (5+ / 0-)

    It doesn't really matter, the SOS is actually the SOE, Secretary of Empire.  Nothing will change.

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:18:26 PM PST

    •  resistance is futile (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt

      Though I do not ever want to come to believe that, I do feel our democracy slipping away.

      In the pursuit of war, wars, and more wars, global power, bases around the world, an MIC choking us, our country implodes.

      And here at home we listen to an idiot like Blanfein given a stage to spout off about how we must expect less in entitlements because we are not going to get it. And he is at the White House today to "advise" the president.

      What is terribly wrong in this country is that those we elect never lack votes for war funding, and our economy for far too many of us is still in the tank.

      But the wars and global empire must go on.

      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

      by allenjo on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:54:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  resistance is futile (0+ / 0-)

        I've heard that on the few times I've heard Alex Jones.  He claims he's a conspiracy investigator but it seems like he's just a right wing hatemonger, and hearing that "resistance is futile" makes me feel like he's just trying to get us to submit to the empire.

        I still don't get having CEO's over for advice.  Especially failed bankster CEO's.  I'm waiting for my invitation to give advice to Obama.  

        What can a CEO tell Obama he doesn't already know?

        I want lower taxes, cheaper labor costs, more wars etc.

        Especially in this day and age.  I mean isn't it completely obvious to everyone what 1% banksters and CEO's want?

        It seems we should be doing the opposite of what they want.

        As far as I'm concerned he doesn't need anybody's advice.  He just needs to A) quit the wars, B) quit violating the constitution in support of the wars, C) raise tariffs and bring jobs back, D) get rid of defense, E) take all the savings and apply a little to the resulting social safety net that may still be necessary after we get full employment at livable wages.

        In other words unicorns.

        I think I'd be ok if I wasn't indoctrinated to believe all our good guy democracy stuff.  It's pretty tough finding out the death and destruction your country has been perpetrating on the world in your name all the while pretending to spread freedom and democracy and capitalism.  Well at least they were telling the truth about spreading capitalism anyway.  

        When I first found out I wanted to inform everybody, but couldn't because I knew they'd think I was crazy.  Then after the 8 year W debacle, I felt it was so obvious I didn't need to inform anyone.  Despite the obvious though, denial seems to be in vogue.

    •  still waiting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt

      For a horse to be appointed to the senate.  Our republic died on 9/11/01.  Who is nominally in charge doesn't matter if they're not responsive to the people.  Whoever it is will be pro drone and will scold others for behavior we model.  Rice, Kerry, hell why not Cheney.  

      ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

      by Nada Lemming on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:24:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah I had my doubts before 2000. (0+ / 0-)

        When the 9 votes of the supreme court were substituted for the votes of the electorate, I knew the final nail in the coffin had been hammered home with a finality so supreme it was like screaming it to the universe.  "We absolutely reject democracy in favor of the shrub".  

        My mom spends part of the year in Ireland, and she says it's just common knowledge there that W stole the election.  She says that they had news stories related to the theft that we never got here.  Not that we needed any more evidence than what we had for the theft.

        But the response to 9/11 really killed it.  I always wondered how a certain german dictator could ever pull of such a dastardly deed.  How did he get enough people behind him?  Well after 9/11 I felt like I was getting a front row seat to the past.  I could see some of the same dynamics in play that I'd only read about.  People cried foul at these kinds of comparisons back then, but it's my contention you don't just wake up one day with the "evil dictator", but that a nation such as ours can start down the path that leads to that result if nothing is done to reverse the course.  In other words a bad guy paves the way for a worse guy until one day when it's too late, here you are with the "evil dictator" that we weren't supposed to dare suggest could ever come to power here.

        I find it galling to listen to our leaders lecture dictators on their human rights abuses.  Not that they aren't right, they just lack any credibility on the subject.

  •  Just another avatar for the village consensus (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo, BigAlinWashSt, canyonrat

    Nothing new really. So routine as not even to disappoint anymore.

    She's got her neoliberal ticket punched at all the right schools and think tanks. She's associated herself with all the right neoliberal heavyweights.

    Just another Village climber. It's her turn.



    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

    by chuckvw on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:25:50 PM PST

  •  Rice argued Iraq War could make US less secure (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO, S F Hippie, Larsstephens

    Don't ever take a quote at face value when it's presented out of context.  

    Here's an example.  The piece starts out with quote attributed to Ambassador Rice in a NPR interview on February, 6, 2003.

    “I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”
    It's sure that Rice didn't blurt that comment out without saying anything else either before or after, or both.  Filling in what was omitted tells you more than what was included.
    Here's the rest of the quote:
    Well, I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that. But whether he's made the case for war, I think, is more complicated. He certainly made the case that if the United Nations fails to act, then they will have essentially set aside their own resolutions and begun to make themselves irrelevant. But I think the problem is that many American people are not convinced that going to war against Iraq will actually make us in the United States safer. I think they fear reprisals and attacks. I think they think that our homeland is not yet secure and that with developments in the Middle East and al-Qaeda still very much on the loose, there are many, I think, who fear that going to war against Iraq may, in fact, in the short term, make us less secure, rather than more secure.
    I added the bolded font for emphasis.

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:51:14 PM PST

    •  You are misreading that. Please see 03:02:54 (0+ / 0-)

      All she's saying is that she thinks some people opposed the war because they were afraid of the consequences.  That's not arguing against the war, just calling its critics chicken.  

      It's an educated person's insult, but not in the least bit diplomatic.  Certainly not a call for diplomacy.

  •  So Obama could outfox them... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlexThorne, Rusty Pipes, Nada Lemming

    by nominating someone completely different.  Not Susan Rice, not John Kerry.

    •  Second that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes

      At this point, I'd say think outside the box if you don't pick Rice. John Kerry is not that great and the downsides are huge. The loss of a senate seat is significant, and giving Republicans a win is also very wrong, not for ego, but for what it encourages them to do next time.

      Also, I don't think John Kerry himself has a great record on judgement (no I don't mean Karl Rove nonsense, that was filthy) when it comes to foreign policy. The strongest cases I have heard for him are that he is a "safe pick" and that he is "owed by Obama" or "next in line after being snubbed for Hillary".

      I say if you are not picking Rice, stump everyone with an out of the box pick Mr President. Like you did with Hillary. One of our fine ambassadors, or someone distinguished from a foreign policy think-tank you would trust. If you want to pivot to the Asia Pacific, Huntsman is about as reasonable as it gets, if he doesn't quit in two years to rung again.

  •  These quotes don't support the diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Denise Oliver Velez, leftreborn

    Most of first ones are simply Rice stating the consensus based on the lies the Bush administration told everyone, and of course before that she opposed the war.

    The rest of the quotes are out of context or don't support the diarist's claims.

    This is another hysterical emo-prog rant.

    "The sky is failling! The sky is falling!"

    •  Rice took an active part in speading those lies (0+ / 0-)

      and in attempting to justify the US presence there "for many years to come."  That is disqualifying, in my view, in itself from a position of high trust and supposed good judgement in diplomacy and foreign affairs.  She has continued to exercise poor judgement in advocating several conflicts since.

      It is ridiculous to argue that she's been duped, and continues to be duped, and is nonetheless a good candidate for Secretary of State.  Unless, of course, you think these wars are justified.

      •  Sadly I find this to be the case around here: (0+ / 0-)

        "Unless, of course, you think these wars are justified".

        This subject doesn't seem that complicated, so I'll take you at your word about spreading those lies.  

        I guess I'd heard so much outrage during the W debacle, and demonization of Dkos by the right wing, I'd assumed that outrage would be present on this web site.  

        I'm kind of wondering what the Faux Snooze network was seeing here that was so bad if there was no outrage here over the wars.  I don't know cuz I didn't ever come here til 2008 I think.

        Now I'm sorta confused, if there was no outrage over the wars here, what was the outrage over?

        If there was outrage over the wars here, what happened since shrub left the scene?  What could be the difference?  Gee I dunno.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site