HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ray McGovern: Say No to S...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:30 PM

Ray McGovern: Say No to Susan Rice: Here's Why

##snip##

"President Barack Obama should ditch the idea of nominating U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State on substantial grounds, not because she may have knowingly or not - fudged the truth abut the attack on the poorly guarded CIA installation in Benghazi, Libya."

##snip##



http://truth-out.org/news/item/13143-why-to-say-no-to-susan-rice

It goes way beyond her investments...in fact, they are not even mentioned!

32 replies, 2793 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 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ray McGovern: Say No to Susan Rice: Here's Why (Original post)
Iwillnevergiveup Dec 2012 OP
JI7 Dec 2012 #1
jeff47 Dec 2012 #3
enough Dec 2012 #2
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #7
madinmaryland Dec 2012 #11
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #4
libdem4life Dec 2012 #5
Enrique Dec 2012 #6
rudycantfail Dec 2012 #27
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #8
Iwillnevergiveup Dec 2012 #10
ProSense Dec 2012 #16
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #24
Iwillnevergiveup Dec 2012 #9
joeunderdog Dec 2012 #12
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #13
Iwillnevergiveup Dec 2012 #14
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #17
roody Dec 2012 #15
Fedaykin Dec 2012 #18
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #19
OKNancy Dec 2012 #25
Fedaykin Dec 2012 #32
plethoro Dec 2012 #20
starroute Dec 2012 #21
JI7 Dec 2012 #22
Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2012 #28
ProSense Dec 2012 #30
SHRED Dec 2012 #23
ReRe Dec 2012 #26
ProSense Dec 2012 #31
still_one Dec 2012 #29

Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:35 PM

1. can you quote or tell us why ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:40 PM

3. Probably needs hits to jack up ad revenue.

The answer is she didn't fight her bosses enough on the Iraq war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:38 PM

2. A bit of the substance of the article:

snip from the article>

Rice’s biggest disqualification is the fact that she has shown little willingness to challenge the frequently wrongheaded conventional wisdom of Official Washington, including on the critical question of invading Iraq in 2003. At that pivotal moment, Rice essentially went with the flow, rather than standing up for the principles of international law or exposing the pro-war deceptions.

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

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

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

snip> MORE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:58 PM

7. Susan Rice not Condasleeza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:09 PM

11. BWAHAHAHA!! That's what I thought to!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:40 PM

4. I never understood why she was in this administration in the first place. She is not a

Progressive Dem.. She has been widely criticized over her views in Africa also, Rwanda, the Congo. She needs to go, this is the just the latest revelation about her that sort of only confirms what Progressives disliked about her years ago. I always wondered why she chose the Dem Party frankly. Some of her views on Foreign Policy were definitely not in line with with progressive democrats at all. Much more in line with Bush's policies.

If she had an R after her name, Repubs would love her, it's the D they don't like. I wonder if Dems are waking up to the fact that no matter how much they try to please the Right, they will never be accepted into that club. Why they want to be is a whole other question.

We have some great Democrats who should be in the cabinet of a Dem President. She was never one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:43 PM

5. Should be required reading...if only to sadly reinforce the fact that the Hawks continue to feast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:45 PM

6. being in favor of the Iraq War is a prerequesite for the job

the current Sec. of State, and the two candidates to succeed her, all pro-Iraq-War. I guess it shows "seriousness" to have been on the wrong side of the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:02 AM

27. Perfect summation.

 

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:59 PM

8. Am I confused or are people mixing up Susan with Condasleeza aka Beaver teeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:03 PM

10. lonestarnot

this is all about SUSAN Rice, who apparently is almost as bad as Condi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:00 PM

16. "SUSAN Rice, who apparently is almost as bad as Condi"

The smear campaign against Susan Rice is atrocious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:15 AM

24. Sorry but your argument is lacking substance. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:02 PM

9. What he said

McGovern describes Rice as an "ambitious staffer" rather than a "courageous foreign policy thinker." Go along to get along....great - just what we don't need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:11 PM

12. McGovern is a "courageous foreign policy thinker"

even when it has been dangerous and unpopular to be one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:22 PM

13. You do realize...

that during her tenure in the Clinton Administration, Rice was a thirty-something African American woman -- and a mid-level member of the diplomatic corps, at that. Exactly what expectations did you have of her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:35 PM

14. I get where you're coming from, Jeff

but she's 48 years old now which is prit near middle age. And she's been around government long enough hopefully to align herself with more progressive positions. My female African-American heros trend more toward Barbara Jordan, Barbara Lee, Shirley Chisholm, who have always stood for justice and fairness, the political climate be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:07 PM

17. As UN Ambassador, she doesn't have that much clout

Look at Benghazi -- she was simply repeating the talking points given to her by the White House. That's pretty much what the UN Ambassador does. Quick, and without Googling -- who was Rice's predecessor at the UN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:57 PM

15. A conscience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:54 PM

18. Respectfully

 

Many of you here have been on this site a good deal longer than me. I've enjoyed reading the articles posted with their links provided, plus all of your comments.
Mr. McGovern's article doesn't seem to provide strong substantive reasons to say no to Susan Rice.
But if I may, I'd like to add a link from a site called 'Black Agenda Report': News, Commentary, and Analysis from the black left.
http://blackagendareport.com/content/second-wave-genocide-looms-congo-susan-rice-point
In the article, well known journalist Glen Ford gives a thorough account of Susan Rice's credentials and her background beginning with the Clinton years when Ms. Rice was 28.
Apparently Ms. Rice has been involved, or as Mr. Ford points out in his article; 'A Second Wave of Genocide Looms in Congo, with Susan Rice on Point;' "has abetted the Congo genocide for much of her political career..." It would seem that she is being accused of delaying UN Reports on the situation on the ground in the Congo, obfuscating critical information, and blocking UN Security Council from demanding that Rwanda cease supporting, (actually manning) 'M23' rebels.

"...Susan Rice, as an energetic protector and facilitator of genocide, should be imprisoned for life (given that the death penalty is no longer internationally sanctioned). But of course, the same applies to her superiors, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. One would think that the Congressional Black Caucus would be concerned with the threat of a second wave of mass killings in Congo. Not so. A Google search fails to reveal a word of complaint from the Black lawmakers about genocide in Congo or suppression of documentation of genocide – or much of anything at all about Africa since the death of New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne, ranking member of the House Subcommittee on African Affairs, in March of this year...."
In my book these accusations are far more egregious than the ones leveled by Mr. McGovern...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fedaykin (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:56 PM

19. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fedaykin (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:09 AM

25. Glen Ford is a nut

Sorry, but he is one of those who labels Obama "evil"
I call bs on this article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:29 AM

32. Everyone is entitled to their opinion...

 

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Even journalists are entitled to their opinion. That aside, rather than attacking the man and his opinion, lets look at the evidence, from which there is plenty to look at. So you are entitled to your opinion too. By the way, killing innocent people using drones 'seems' like a kind of evil to me, that's my opinion by the way...
Conversely:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. "
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:26 PM

20. I think she is a bad choice also, but she is Obama's choice. She

 

has a lot of baggage now. Maybe now is not a good time for someone as SOS to have
a lot of baggage. But I will go with whatever Obama decides, strongly if DU backs it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:27 PM

21. The most damning thing is it sounds like she's a light-weight

Secretary of State is the most senior post in the cabinet and fourth in line of succession to the presidency. The post has regularly -- if not invariably -- been filled by high-profile people with substantial prior accomplishments of their own and an ability to deal with foreign heads of state as equals.

Susan Rice isn't any of that. The very fact that she's being defended over this Benghazi matter on the grounds that she was only serving as a mouthpiece for the official talking points makes that abundantly clear.

Perhaps Obama is using her as a stalking horse to get his real choice past the Senate more easily. But as things stand, she just doesn't have the credentials for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:31 PM

22. Obama has never brought her up as possible Sec of State

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:31 AM

28. So, how has this happened? Total supposition on everyone's part? It would be interesting

to see how she would be treated if Obama announced she was staying at UN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:21 AM

30. No, he hasn't, but

you know the people who like to scream that everyone else are "fans" are seriously personality obssessed.

They heard Kerry, and started advocating for Rice because they didn't want Kerry to get the position.

Then the people who hate Rice (and some have issues with her because she was a big critic of Clinton's response to Rwanda, and don't want to see another woman replace Hillary) are rushing to smear her.

The whole thing stinks. This is the President's choice, and some people are doing their best to ensure that his pick becomes a source of controversy even before he announces it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:32 PM

23. We don't need another Rightwinger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:52 AM

26. Amen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:21 AM

31. Oh, bullshit! Rice is not a right winger.

People need to get a grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:19 AM

29. A secretary of state does NOT do her own foreign policy, but does the bidding of the President. The

last Secretary State we had who would not do the bidding of a President was Cyrus Vance, and he stepped down out of protest

I am not saying she should or should not be nominated, but the SOS will NOT decide policy at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread