HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Susan Rice Vocally Suppor...

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:28 PM

Susan Rice Vocally Supported the Iraq War, and Every Mid-East War Since

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/release/1737-background-of-obamas-foreign-policy-group/
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)


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/wp-srv/liveonline/03/special/world/sp_iraq-brookings041103.htm

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/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=285292

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.

59 replies, 10370 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Susan Rice Vocally Supported the Iraq War, and Every Mid-East War Since (Original post)
leveymg Nov 2012 OP
Enrique Nov 2012 #1
leveymg Nov 2012 #3
kelliekat44 Nov 2012 #36
blm Nov 2012 #4
Enrique Nov 2012 #6
leveymg Nov 2012 #7
FarCenter Nov 2012 #11
leveymg Nov 2012 #16
blm Nov 2012 #8
KoKo Nov 2012 #13
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #23
karynnj Nov 2012 #33
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #2
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #24
elleng Nov 2012 #5
vilify Nov 2012 #9
Report1212 Nov 2012 #10
moondust Nov 2012 #12
KoKo Nov 2012 #15
Auntie Bush Nov 2012 #14
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #17
KoKo Nov 2012 #19
grantcart Nov 2012 #18
KoKo Nov 2012 #20
Comrade Grumpy Nov 2012 #21
fried eggs Nov 2012 #22
jsr Nov 2012 #25
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #26
still_one Nov 2012 #27
morningfog Nov 2012 #29
still_one Nov 2012 #31
mike_c Nov 2012 #28
karynnj Nov 2012 #34
Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #35
ProSense Nov 2012 #37
ProSense Nov 2012 #39
ProSense Nov 2012 #38
H2O Man Nov 2012 #30
leveymg Nov 2012 #32
grantcart Nov 2012 #40
blm Nov 2012 #42
Puzzledtraveller Nov 2012 #50
Quantess Nov 2012 #41
Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #43
otohara Nov 2012 #44
Martin Eden Nov 2012 #45
leveymg Nov 2012 #46
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #54
Martin Eden Nov 2012 #59
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #47
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #48
leveymg Nov 2012 #49
still_one Nov 2012 #51
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #52
Solly Mack Nov 2012 #53
Capt. Obvious Nov 2012 #55
joshcryer Nov 2012 #56
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #57
joshcryer Nov 2012 #58

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:35 PM

1. same as Hillary

if there are any differences with Hillary they are probably subtle. And likewise with John Kerry, who for some reason is the only other choice. I'm not sure what committee narrowed all the choices down to those two, but maybe that's none of my business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:47 PM

3. It's been written about Rice that she reflects Obama's views more closely than any other advisor

In which case, we are in for a Hell of a second term. I think the time for simple, quiet trust has officially passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:54 PM

36. No, she actually reflects John McCain's views more closely than any other advisor.,

That is precisely why McCain's attacks on her are so strange. So his motives are not pure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:47 PM

4. The dog and pony show being performed by McCain and Co. proves that they think Obama's cornered

now into choosing Rice. Funny how all of a sudden GOP just can't lavish enough praise on Kerry on camera resulting in Dems circling the wagons around Rice and taking potshots at Kerry because they BELIEVE McCain and Co is earnest in their claims that they prefer Kerry.

The left can be manipulated so easily at times - and this is one of those times. The hawks do NOT want a Secretary of State Kerry. I don't, either, but for completely different reasons - I would prefer he remain in a more independent position as top senator on Foreign Policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:01 PM

6. isn't it odd that everyone is accepting Kerry would be the only other choice?

he is the president, he can choose anyone. If they block Rice, and Obama thinks they did it to get Kerry out of the Senate then he can pick someone else. But I haven't heard anyone say that. It's almost like he was given a list of acceptable candidates to choose from. Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations, maybe it was Skull and Bones, who knows. Anyone know if Rice is a bonesman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:08 PM

7. Not a Bonesman. She went to Stanford and Oxford.

The two schools probably have more modern and much older secret societies, respectively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:08 PM

11. She was a Rhodes scholar

Rhodes scholarships were funded by that old imperialist Cecil Rhodes to encourage solidarity of the Anglo-Saxon empire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:43 PM

16. The Empire got darker, but the sun never really set.

TPTB realized sometime around 1945 that the Old World was about to go away. They put the formalities off until 1963, and in Hong Kong it was deferred further until 1997, and Cecil would just have a stroke and die if he saw who gets some of his endowment. But, the world is still pretty much run the same it was in the 1870s. Look at a Degas painting. Not much has really changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:09 PM

8. Isn't it odd that GOP senators are now praising Kerry who they don't agree with when it comes to

exhausting diplomacy before interventionism, and are targeting Rice whose hawkishness ala Hillary they DO agree with most often?

I'm surprised so many Dems are falling for the dog and pony show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:51 PM

13. My feeling was that the Repugs want Rice (she's hawkish) and were hoping to push Obama

into picking her by trashing her and therefore making him look weak if he didn't defend her by appointing her as SOS.

Others say Repugs want Kerry but there's the fear of losing his Senate seat in Massachusetts by us Dems.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:08 PM

23. I think you're right. They're trying to make it so that he can't help BUT nominate Rice. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:18 PM

33. Kerry was VERY different

One clear difference is her February 2003 statement. Kerry on January 22, 2003 at Georgetown University said that Bush should NOT RUSH TO WAR and said it was not a war of last resort - which I assume that most GU students knew meant he was saying it would not be a just war.

The significance of the date is important. When Kerry voted to get inspectors in, there had been no inspectors with for 4 years. Rice's comment was made after the IAEA and Hans Blitz were there for about 4 months inspecting even in the Presidential palaces - finding nothing. There was FAR more reason to know that there were no WMD in 2003 than 2002. (By the way, Dean himself was more agressive in 2002 than in 2003 - he just did not have to vote.)

As to later - 2 words: Kerry/Feingold - The exit plan that set a dead line to get out - Neither Obama or Hillary voted for it, but 6 months after the vote when it became popular, both had plans simiolar to it with longer timelines.

As to the 2004 quote, compare to Kerry's Iraq speech in 2004 given at NYU. The gist was to involve the regional powers and interntional organization to a greater degree, have no permanent bases and start leaving in 2005.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:44 PM

2. Libya was bad news, and Syria is worse.

 

The destruction of Libya was obscene, even before the extra judicial execution of Gaddafi, but no one has bothered to come up with a rationale for taking out Assad. Obama said he hated dumb wars, and I give him and his advisors the benefit of the doubt in misjudging the benefit of these MENA interventions, but they are humanitarian disasters and I believe we are being played by the UK and its allies. Very dumb indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allrevvedup (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:12 PM

24. Yes, it was obscene, the destruction of one of Africa's most independent and

thriving countries. Can't have free and independent African nations. Especially when they use their own resources provide for their own citizens, free education, free Health Care, have a law that says that every Libyan citizen has a right to own a home and pays to make sure that happens. Or provides special care for the mentally disabled, including homes and whatever Health Care they need.

They actually shared the country's profits from its resources with its own citizens.

What a wast of money, well in the view of the old Imperialists. So something had to be done about it.

Now all those oil revenues will be safely in the hands of those who are entitled to them, in their view.

The entire enterprise was one big war crime. It was shameful. A once developing country where minorities were protected and paid well, has been reduced to rubble and no citizen who doesn't support the destruction of their country, is safe. This was no grassroots uprising. Once again we were lied to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:00 PM

5. Thanks for this substantive review,

none of which would apply to MY nominee for SOS/SOD, Wes Clark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:51 PM

9. I'm not the biggest fan of Rice. I just thought she was unfairly being criticized by the GOP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:02 PM

10. Rice is very hawkish, Huntsman would be better. Or maybe Kerry nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:18 PM

12. Soooo, does McCain & Co. actually want her to be SoS for that very reason?

And this goofy Benghazi side show is their way of daring the President to nominate her?

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb everybody...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:00 PM

15. well..that's what I'm thinking..and of course I could be wrong but it "smells." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:56 PM

14. Good call...you never know who/what the con artists are coning.

Each other or you and I? However, I'm not about to write off Rise from my list. I personally like her and I'd hate to lose Kerry from the senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:08 PM

17. I know its impossible but I'd love it if Obama would select someone from outside the 1% as SOS

Like Bill Moyers.

Or Dr. Deane Marchbein, who is currently on the Doctor's Without Borders board of directors, who has tons of international experience (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/page.cfm?id=3773)

I don't know. There are so, so many smart candidates who AREN'T part of the elite whose perspective, drive, intelligence and ability to think outside the box would be so welcome.

Why does it have to be Rice or Kerry??



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:59 PM

19. Sigh...we are the dreamers...I agree with you...but will never happen..still

the dreams are ahead of us. Maybe "One Day..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:58 PM

18. An article that supports your basic points.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/rice-378894-war-administration.html

I don't agree that she will necessarily be a voice urging to war as she later urged an end to Iraq and didn't support intervention in Syria.

And not all intervention IMO is inherently bad. Our intervention in Libya and in the post break up of Yugoslavia has saved many innocent lives.

In the thread it is suggested that she would be another Clinton. If you evaluate Clinton's quiet influence for example in Burma that is something I find reassuring. The fact is that the so called interventionist SOS Clinton did not end up in broad engagements with disastrous effects if she can accomplish in North Korea what has been done in Burma (and the parallels are not as different as they might seem) then it would be a great achievement.

In any case I believe that you raise very substantive issues and if she is the nominee I would like Democratic Senators to raise these issues in the hearing and I would like to see a very clear statement that "I was wrong about Iraq" before she was confirmed.

The unfortunate fact is that if we eliminated all of the people who were wrong about Iraq we would not have many to choose from, so you raise some important questions that should be addressed in the confirmation hearings, if there are any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:01 PM

20. Susan Rice would not be my choice for SOS......Interesting Article...but then that's

stuff I've watched about Susan Rice for awhile ...but, good to see it posted here.

Cautions about her.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:02 PM

21. Thank you. There are enough real reasons to be wary of Rice. We don't need the GOP bullshit ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:06 PM

22. She appears to be in lockstep with SOS Clinton

As far as her Israel comment, should she have said there was daylight, several weeks before the election? I'd be glad if she did, but it's not very realistic (although I doubt many Americans care about the US-Israel relationship).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:14 PM

25. Pick someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:21 PM

26. "Homeland" is such a Fascist word; I HATE THIS BUSHISM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:21 PM

27. Same as every SOS proceeding and including hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:30 PM

29. How about we get someone to end that tradition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:39 PM

31. That would be nice but it won't happen. The SOS represents the president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:27 PM

28. she just joined the ranks of my "hell no" list....

It has been my general policy to oppose ANY political office, elected or otherwise, for anyone who helped to grease the skids for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I also oppose John Kerry for the same reason, and will be glad to see Hillary Clinton leave. War mongers, every one of them.

edit: Thank you for posting this information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:20 PM

34. John Kerry was never a war monger - ever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:31 PM

35. Which is why he voted for Bush's wars.

I know, I know, he was for it before he was against it. He'll still be known as the guy who manged to lose to the worst. president. ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:59 PM

37. And

"He'll still be known as the guy who manged to lose to the worst. president. ever."

...look what that got us. Look at the suffering and death that brought. I wished more people had voted for Kerry and the Republicans hadn't succeeded in suppressing the vote.

I'm sure the effects of Bush are far worse and lasting in people's mind than what Kerry is "known as."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:02 PM

39. Exactly, but

you'll never convince detractors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:01 PM

38. Does that

"for anyone who helped to grease the skids for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan"

...include Kucinich, who voted for the Afghanistan war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:39 PM

30. Recommended.

Rice is, of course, the resident neoconservative in the administration.

The fake crap that McCain et al are doing is a lower level of domestic politics .... the republican party is in a win-win situation: if it's Kerry, they get another shot at a Senate seat in MA; if it's Rice, they get the neoconservative.

On the higher level -- and this is international, of course -- the neoconservatives play point for the forces that depend upon, and indeed demand, an on-going US military presence in the Middle East. This force -- that Merton called the "Unspeakable," and that I refer to as the "machine" -- already has special forces throughout the Middle East, a significant area of Africa, and southeast Asia.

It would take an enormous effort to slow the machine, much less stop it. That machine doesn't much care how many young US soldiers are maimed or killed. And it sure as hell doesn't care about the native populations in those regions. It's all about resources, money, and control.

Certainly, President Obama is far superior a person, hence President, than Mitt could/would have been -- on domestic policies. But the international scene is different. I know that as a human being, Barack Obama cares about people -- including US soldiers and the citizens of other nations. But I question if he believes that he can stop the machine, and I do not think that he would be likely to take the risks necessary to try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:47 PM

32. We should encourage him to take those necessary risks to try to stop the next war.

Susan Rice is not the person Obama needs at State to try to stand up to, or at least slow down, the killing machine.

Thanks for the rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:30 AM

40. The thing about international success is that it is invisible and quickly forgotten.


Four years ago we were ginning up a major confrontation with Russia. That is gone. We have had multiple transfers from dictatorships to struggling democracies with remarkable little loss of life.

Then there is Burma. I have a house that is less than 2 kilometers from the Burmese border. For the last 15 years I have given up all hope that a major civil war could be avoided there. The Army was so entrenched. And a new generation of leadership came and the President took an enormous risk by making a personal trip there and embracing a very shaky transition.

Now we see for the first time in decades the possibility of a peaceful transition for the people of Burma. Burma is very much like Yugoslavia in that it has no real center and is made up of dozens of ethnic groups that really don't like each other.

But it goes deeper than that. I believe that the President (and SOS Clinton's) major second agenda in Burma was to show the new but isolated leadership in North Korea that if they take a step towards us, even a small one, the President will take a big step towards them. Burma was, behind China, North Korea's number one trading, diplomatic, and military friend. By bringing Burma out of isolation the President is showing North Korea that entirely new relations are possible.

I don't think that the message of the President getting Aung Suu Kyi out of house arrest and into parliment was lost on Cuba either.

Similarly I don't think that the message was lost on Iran either.

People don't see the very nuanced, and high risk, efforts of the President's international movements because the President, and SOS Clinton would rather deflect attention and get results than land on aircraft carrier and have a photo op.

I believe that the President's actions have saved tens of thousands of lives, and his foriegn policy has advanced the interests of peace in areas where there wasn't a lot of hope, more than any other President in recent times. Clinton's intervention in Yugoslavia saved the lives of thousands of Muslims. The President's interention in Burma has done the same, but he did it without landing a military force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:01 AM

42. Agreed - I'd like to see Kerry stay in Senate and lead Foreign Policy there, but, know he'd make one

helluva Sec of State exhausting all avenues to promote diplomatic alternatives in order to prevent military intervention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:10 PM

50. You first line said it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:58 AM

41. Oh, great.

More status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:12 AM

43. All through this Benghazi flap I've had this feeling that we are being manipulated ...

into defending someone over nothing for a reason I can't figure out yet. Is Susan Rice going to be the Democratic candidate in 2016? Is all of this about building the stature of another right wing Democrat? A Black Woman Democrat under attack from old Republican white men for something she basically has no connection to? Could this be a cynical ploy to create a corporate approved Democratic candidate for 2016?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:55 AM

44. No Daylight Between Condi and Susan

not feeling the love anymore for this Rice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:45 PM

45. "It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat."

No, it was clear the Bush administration was conjuring the threat pursuant to the PNAC agenda.

Susan Rice should have known this. We here at DU did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:57 PM

46. Take the Susan or Condi quiz at FP. Bet you can't tell who said what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:04 PM

54. The Iraq War is a good litmus test issue

Someone's position on the Iraq War says a lot about their morality and intelligence. Some Democrats didn't support the war for partisan reasons, so the litmus test isn't perfect.

It was very easy to tell that that evidence was cooked; and even if Iraq had the alleged weapons, the war was still not justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:17 PM

59. Obama came out against the war in 2002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:02 PM

47. to pick her based entirely on the fact that the republicans don't like her

would be a mistake. I do think she was unfairly targeted. Any nominee should be picked based on their credentials and on who would best represent our values and interests abroad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:04 PM

48. Thanks for starting this thread my friend. k&r n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:00 PM

49. Well, thank you again, my friend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:28 PM

51. She will do whatever the president tells her to do if that is the case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:32 PM

52. Okay ...

It's official ... Now that the gop-enemy, in the form of one mitt romney, has been vanquished, Democrats can turn to our favorite past-time, attacking Democrats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:32 PM

53. “I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them...

and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”


LMAO

Wonder what she has to say on those WMD now?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:05 PM

55. Kucinich is looking for work now

How come his name is never mentioned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:21 PM

56. Would you support Chuck Hagel over Susan Rice?

He was critical of the Iraq War surge (though he did vote for the Iraq War Resolution), he was against intervening in Syria and Libya, he was for toning down the rhetoric against Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:23 PM

57. False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.

See also: What you just did.


PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:27 PM

58. I'm just seeing if that is the extent of their criticism.

Not ruling out other options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread