HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Susan Rice: the liberal c...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

Susan Rice: the liberal case against her being secretary of state


Susan Rice: the liberal case against her being secretary of state
The left has little reason to mourn the diplomat's withdrawal, given her support for war in Iraq, her backing for Israel and more

(snip)

Rice was under increasing scrutiny over her record of militarism, including her support for the invasion of Iraq, her backing of authoritarian African leaders and her description of her post as ambassador to the UN as being intended to provide "unwavering support for Israel".

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/liberal-case-against-susan-rice


---

33 replies, 1908 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 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Susan Rice: the liberal case against her being secretary of state (Original post)
SHRED Dec 2012 OP
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #1
frylock Dec 2012 #7
jsr Dec 2012 #10
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #12
frylock Dec 2012 #14
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #26
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #16
flamingdem Dec 2012 #2
2naSalit Dec 2012 #3
TexasBushwhacker Dec 2012 #27
Gregorian Dec 2012 #4
BainsBane Dec 2012 #6
BainsBane Dec 2012 #5
frylock Dec 2012 #8
BainsBane Dec 2012 #9
frylock Dec 2012 #13
BainsBane Dec 2012 #20
frylock Dec 2012 #33
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #18
BainsBane Dec 2012 #19
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #21
BainsBane Dec 2012 #28
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #25
BainsBane Dec 2012 #29
frylock Dec 2012 #32
BainsBane Dec 2012 #22
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #11
WillyT Dec 2012 #15
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #17
shireen Dec 2012 #23
mountain grammy Dec 2012 #24
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #30
_ed_ Dec 2012 #31

Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:04 PM

1. Better that we should pull Kerry out?

bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:06 PM

7. are these the only two people on the planet capable of holding that position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

10. Evidently so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:18 PM

12. I know, right?

Bring in some fresh talent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:20 PM

14. agreed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:15 AM

26. Of course not. Giving Kerry the job would be double-capitulation

The GOP wanted to destroy Susan Rice -- mission accomplished

and they also wanted to put Kerry in the position. They don't care who is SoS. That's the POTUS' prerogative. They only wanted to cause trouble and create another chance to get the MA seat.

Even if Obama thinks the Dems will retain that seat, he should not give the GOP the satisfaction of TWO damned capitulations on one position.

There are surely dozens of excellent candidates for SoS. And if the deal is that Kerry should get a cabinet position as a reward (for what?), then wait a year and put him in as Secy of Defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:25 PM

16. Are you intimating that you still support Rice? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:08 PM

2. I was hesitant to go there but..

Susan Rice was not good for the somewhat left governments in Latin America or on Cuba. Her persona from what I remember grated against the officials she dealt with there and at the time I took a note.. not good, not respectful, another clueless diplomat who can't read the tea leaves and steps right into cultural dodo.

I have no idea if she would have been great, but this is about personality, she certainly has amazing credentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:23 PM

3. But another thing

that made me have second thoughts about her in such a position is that she has a small pile of stock holdings in that nasty mess over in the Alberta tarsands and the SoS will be playing a major role in making the decision on the damned XL pipeline this coming year. I don't want her anywhere near that one.

Plus all of the above, I wonder if she's really in a good position at present. Not that she isn't really intelligent, I just don't think she's cut out for an essential role as a Democrat. She seems to have too many ties with the plutocrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:19 AM

27. Yeah, her investments in Keystone XL related companies was a big problem for me n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:49 PM

4. I felt that Obama floated her to bait the Republicans, knowing full well she would drop out.

My only reason for saying this is that N-dimensional chess we keep hinting about.

So now they've played their cards, shot off their mouths, made fools of themselves. I see Dan Rather doesn't look at it this way. But I think Obama is one step ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:06 PM

6. all reporting says Rice was the President's choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:02 PM

5. Kerry voted for Iraq

Rice did not. If you're going to hold the Iraq war against people, why are you voting for Democrats at all.

So nice of you all to carry the water for the right. As though Fox news isn't enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:07 PM

8. so then let's find someone else..

why is it either or?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:14 PM

9. we don't find anyone

the president chooses his Secretary of State, who carries out his policy, just as Rice has carried out Obama's policy at the UN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:19 PM

13. oh, okay. thanks so much for that information..

I had no idea. I thought the SoS was chosen through various feats of strength. boy, do I feel stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:33 AM

20. Perhaps you thought it was American Idol

and you got to phone in a vote? So what was the reason for your comment that "we should find someone else"? What do you imagine is going to happen?

I'm pissed off because some nasty right-wing senators have repeatedly lied in an effort to destroy the career of a very able diplomat over a political vendetta--because McCain is pissed he lost the election of ,08 and the rest are pissed they got trounced in '12. And I'm even more pissed off that people here are finding reasons to side with McCain. If you, McCain, or anyone else has an issue with something Rice has done as UN Ambassador, that issue is with President Obama. Sure, it's easy to dump all over a women of color rather than for DU critics to direct their critiques at the president's policies, where any disagreements belong. But it's nonsense. The President sets foreign policy for his administration. That is how it always has been.

If the President thought Rice was the best qualified person, he should have fought for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:42 AM

33. if you want to go the mat for an iraq war cheerleader because she has a D next to her name..

then knock yourself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:29 PM

18. Who are you accusing of "carrying the water for the right"?

That's a pretty serious accusation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:19 AM

19. everyone who repeats McCain's talking points

and there are many on this site doing that right now.

For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974232

" There appear to have been were some high-level (mis)representations made in the White House early 2011 akin to Tenet's "slam dunk" claims about selling the Iraq War to the UN and finding Saddamís WMD. These things tend to end some promising careers. "

Sounds EXACTLY like Fox News to me. Since no one around here uses quotation marks, I can't be sure if it comes from Daily Kos or the poster himself, though it appears to be the former. Regardless, he agrees. And it is complete BS.

If anyone has an issue with ANYTHING about Libya, Benghanzi, or what Rice has done at the UN, that issue is with the President of the US, since he sets foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:39 AM

21. So you are accusing the OP of carrying the water for the right? Which talking points are you

referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:51 AM

28. I've already made myself clear on this point

read my posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:10 AM

25. sorry liberals are not cowing down to the 'carrying water for the right' meme anymore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:01 AM

29. what is so "liberal" about conceding to a right wing witch hunt?

Against a woman of color over US foreign policy set by the President? What is liberal about targeting Rice for a war the probable Secretary of State actually voted for? What is liberal about making Susan Rice a scapegoat for your opposition to US foreign policy because you don't want to direct your criticism where it belongs, against the President who sets that policy? I see a bunch of people making John McCain very happy by helping supporting the end results of his efforts to ruin the the career of a very able diplomatic official as a proxy for his petty political disagreements with the President. I don't see liberal. I see empty-minded bullshit that has the IDENTICAL aims as the sociopathic right-wing liars McCain, Graham, and Ayotte.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:39 AM

32. susan rice was a cheerleader for the iraq war..

she was convinced saddam had WMD. what's so difficult for you to understand that that alone is grounds for not wanting her as SoS? this isn't a damn game, and nominating someone just to stick it to McCain shouldn't be the end goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:46 AM

22. see my edit

On my first response. This particular OP is a bit different, but as off base as some of the others. The OP's foreign policy criticisms should be directed at the President because the foreign policy is his. Rice fulfilled his policy as UN Ambassador, as Clinton did as Secretary of State. Why is there a leftist case against Rice but not Kerry, when Kerry actually played a role in bringing us into the Iraq War when Rice did not. She had no governmental role at the time. Kerry voted for the war. Why wasn't their an issue with Clinton being confirmed if this is all about Iraq? Fuck, the majority of the Democratic party supported that war, but now somehow Rice is a legitimate target? That entire argument is vacuous. Rice's stepping aside is the product of a right-wing witch hunt directed as a very able diplomat. Why do people here need to join in that witch hunt? John McCain is happy as a clam tonight. He got his pound of flesh. Why are people here so intent on extracting more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:17 PM

11. You didn't get the latest Common Dreams Pseudo-Progressive Directive!!

Now it is a horrible, horrible thing that Dr. Rice has been abandoned by the spineless White House! All arguments against Dr. Rice's eminent qualifications are to be withdrawn immediately! This is an opportunity to attack Obama, for Gawd's sake! Common Dreams Pseudo-Progressives must stand together on attacking the Democratic President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:23 PM

15. Well... If You Say So...

Jonathan Karl?

QUESTION: Thank you Mr. President. Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. Senator Graham said, he simply doesnít trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. Iíd like your reaction to that? And -- and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

OBAMA: Well first of all Iím not going to comment on various nominations that Iíll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed. But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill, and professionalism, and toughness, and grace. As Iíve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.

OBAMA: If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me. And Iím happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? And to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. And, you know, weíre after an election now.

I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi and Iím happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information. And weíve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.

And I donít think thereís any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, thatís a problem. And weíve got to get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability. Weíve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They wonít get any debate from me on that.

But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think sheís an easy target, then theyíve got a problem with me. And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity at the State Department, then I will nominate her. Thatís not a determination that Iíve made yet.


Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-news-conference-on-nov-14-2012-running-transcript/2012/11/14/031dfd40-2e7b-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_print.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:28 PM

17. More trouble than she is worth... good riddance. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:59 AM

23. Wesley Clark

I'd love to see him nominated for SOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:06 AM

24. I was never comfortable with Susan Rice, but deplored the crap from the right.

There were true and sane reasons to dislike her appointment, like the ones stated here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:02 AM

30. Like it makes a shred of difference?

US foreign policy hasn't changed since Truman.

1) Leftism bad
2) Colonialism good.
3) Democracy iffy
4) Fascism less-iffy
5) Muslim BAD CRUSH KILL DESTROY!
6) What's this 'Africa' you speak of?

Susan Rice, Kerry, Clinton, Condi Rice, Powell, Albright, Christopher... All the damn way back. Makes no damn difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

31. Susan Rice was also personally invested in the company

that will build the Keystone XL pipeline. She would have been instrumental in this as SOS.

Good riddance to this "third-way" warmonger and oil profiteer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread