HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » New blow for Rice: Modera...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:56 PM

New blow for Rice: Moderate senator voices concern

Source: AP-Excite

By DONNA CASSATA

WASHINGTON - A moderate Republican senator, vital to any White House hopes of getting U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice confirmed as secretary of state, said Wednesday she couldn't back any nomination until more questions are answered about the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Libya and Rice's State Department role during the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya.

In a fresh suggestion of eroding GOP support for Rice, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine emerged from a 90-minute, closed-door meeting with the ambassador voicing new criticism of her initial account about Libya. Collins also questioned what Rice, the assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in the Clinton administration, knew about requests for enhanced embassy security before the Nairobi truck bombing.

Pressed on how she would vote if President Barack Obama names Rice to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Collins said, "I would need to have additional information before I could support her nomination."

President Barack Obama came to Rice's defense during a Cabinet meeting, calling her "extraordinary" and saying he couldn't be prouder of the job she has done as U.N. ambassador. Cabinet members joined Obama in applauding Rice, who attended the meeting. Obama has not named a replacement for Clinton, who has said she intends to step down soon.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20121128/DA2R9M603.html

78 replies, 9151 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 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply New blow for Rice: Moderate senator voices concern (Original post)
Omaha Steve Nov 2012 OP
NYC_SKP Nov 2012 #1
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #4
wisteria Nov 2012 #6
cyclezealot Nov 2012 #40
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #33
SharonAnn Nov 2012 #77
elleng Nov 2012 #2
wisteria Nov 2012 #5
elleng Nov 2012 #8
DallasNE Nov 2012 #19
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #21
frylock Nov 2012 #66
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #67
KamaAina Nov 2012 #68
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #69
karynnj Nov 2012 #11
elleng Nov 2012 #12
karynnj Nov 2012 #23
JI7 Nov 2012 #44
Texin Nov 2012 #34
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #37
elleng Nov 2012 #38
graham4anything Nov 2012 #3
tomm2thumbs Nov 2012 #26
klook Nov 2012 #52
Nancy Waterman Nov 2012 #57
still_one Nov 2012 #7
Beacool Nov 2012 #9
elleng Nov 2012 #10
Beacool Nov 2012 #15
elleng Nov 2012 #22
Beacool Nov 2012 #25
still_one Nov 2012 #14
Beacool Nov 2012 #17
still_one Nov 2012 #18
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #24
Beacool Nov 2012 #28
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #30
FogerRox Nov 2012 #71
tama Nov 2012 #72
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #73
tama Nov 2012 #74
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #75
tama Nov 2012 #76
LuvLoogie Nov 2012 #31
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #35
LuvLoogie Nov 2012 #70
yardwork Nov 2012 #27
davidpdx Nov 2012 #49
Beacool Nov 2012 #61
xxqqqzme Nov 2012 #32
brentspeak Nov 2012 #13
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #20
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #29
DallasNE Nov 2012 #16
John2 Nov 2012 #43
ciking724 Nov 2012 #45
quakerboy Nov 2012 #36
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #39
David__77 Nov 2012 #41
John2 Nov 2012 #42
ciking724 Nov 2012 #46
Ash_F Nov 2012 #47
John2 Nov 2012 #51
Ash_F Nov 2012 #55
plethoro Nov 2012 #64
King_Klonopin Nov 2012 #48
loyalkydem Nov 2012 #50
bowens43 Nov 2012 #53
rurallib Nov 2012 #58
tyne Nov 2012 #54
Overseas Nov 2012 #56
Tutonic Nov 2012 #59
SemperEadem Nov 2012 #60
cosmicone Nov 2012 #62
Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #63
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #65
and-justice-for-all Dec 2012 #78

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:58 PM

1. You know what? Fuck Susan Collins and the RW BS horse she rode in on, fuck her.

Why is this newsworthy?

I support Susan Rice unequivocally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:03 PM

4. Why? Honest question

so I'm asking this only because I'm curious - well, what is your reasoning behind supporting her unequivocally? What do you think is happening here? What will supporting her result in?

I'm honestly not baiting - just trying to understand the situation better. Do you think this is a political hit and if so, why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:07 PM

6. Thank you for being a voice of reason and questioning the questionable. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:07 AM

40. The Republicans want John Kerry

so Scottie Brown will have another shot at Massachusetts' Senate slot. That is what this is about.
And why should Susan Rice be involved in security planning in Libya to the depth asked by the gobbers.
She is not Secretary of State , ask Hillary Clinton. As UN Ambassador , its not her job...
. They know if they ask Hillary, she will bite back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:51 AM

33. Who sez she's "Moderate"?

If by moderate, you mean usually polite and sometimes able to speak in complete sentences that represent her own thoughts, I guess. But I'd hardly call her moderate. She just looks a little less reactionary than the senile old men around her. She is still far right, and obviously willing to engage in petty partisan politics when there are real problems that need attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:04 PM

77. I don't think she's moderate. She's very right-wing. Just not as right-wing as some otheres.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:58 PM

2. Collins was one of the 3 who supported brown for MA Senator this year,

and the other 2: mccain and ayotte. Its all politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:06 PM

5. Did you think she would support Warren?

Really, the idea that because they supported Brown is the reason they are now attacking Rice seems implausible to me. Republicans support Republicans and Democrats support Democrats. I see no conspiracy here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:13 PM

8. Sorry, my earlier post was incomplete.

Those 3 accompanied brown around the State, were highly supportive of an otherwise and allegedly 'moderate' repug (at the time.) They actively supported him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:54 PM

19. Not Sure How Closely You Have Been Following The Theory

The theory Republicans want to block Rice so Obama will name Kerry and that will open up Kerry's seat to a special election where Scott Brown could again run for Senate where low voter turnout might favor Brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:00 AM

21. Why would the President make such an error?

His record and political savvy thus far would not indicate that he or his staff would make such a serious strategic error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:17 PM

66. he made that error when he chose napolitano for director of homeland security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:00 PM

67. I dunno

I don't think the governorship of AZ is as important as Kerry's seat. Maybe it is - maybe I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:30 PM

68. It is to Arizonans

particularly brown ones. Sus papeles, por favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #68)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:13 PM

69. When I was 3 i thought the world revolved around me

When I was three, I thought the world revolved around me
I was wrong, and so I sing along
And if you dance, then dance with me

I know a girl, a girl called Party - party girl
I know she wants more than a party - party girl

I know a boy, a boy called Trampoline
You know what I mean

20,000 points if you can guess the group without checking google

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:25 PM

11. As did Olympia Snowe and Marco Rubio - and likely others

In fact, the ENTIRE Republican party supported Brown - just as every Democratic Senator supported Warren. In both cases, not all actually campaigned in MA - and many would carry no weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:31 PM

12. still one, in reply #7 said

'Meadow (Maddow?) reported today that 3 of the republican senators against Brown were actively in campaigning,' and I added, in #8, 'Those 3 accompanied brown around the State, were highly supportive of an otherwise and allegedly 'moderate' repug (at the time.) They actively supported him.'
I don't know how actively supportive the entire repug party was, of the moderate repug brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:10 AM

23. Olympia Snowe traveled around the state with Brown and endorsed him

I can't find any article that speaks of Graham campaigning for Brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:09 AM

44. Graham has been the nastiest also in terms of words

against Rice. McCain comes off more senile. Ayotte and Collins sounded confused.

but Graham just came off as very mean .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:55 AM

34. You're right. It's all about the Senate.

They (the rethugs) see an opp and they want to exploit that. If Obama is "forced" into appointing Kerry (for anything - doesn't matter which cabinet post), that would leave a vacant seat in MA Senate. There is no gubernatorial appointment of a replacement, which Patrick would happily appoint another Dem to. Thanks to a Kennedy era change to law in MA, there is no gubernatorial appointment that Patrick would be able to make in Kerry's vacating of that seat. Therefore, another special election is mandated by law, under which Brown could and would do by law throw in for. The rethugs are chomping at the bit, slavering like wolves in the wilderness at the prospect of picking up another seat in Senate that Brown has stated this week he would be eager to take up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texin (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:06 AM

37. Again i ask

Why would the President be stupid enough to be "forced" into appointing Kerry?

Hell, put Dean in there. Put Rice in there. Put Donald Freaking Trump in there - but in no way would anybody be dumb enough to risk a precious senate seat all for the sake of a cabinet seat. Am I missing some coercive force here that would make Obama do this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:11 AM

38. I think folks think 'Kerry' because of his experience in the field.

You're correct, of course; POTUS could name anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:59 PM

3. Susan Rice is being lynched.Let's nominate McCain & make his seat available

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:18 AM

26. I'll nominate him as Moron of the Century (pick any century)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tomm2thumbs (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:59 AM

52. How about the one he lives in? (The 19th.) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:35 AM

57. Exactly: it feels like a lynching!

That was my thought as I watched Susan Collins' bulls**t on Hardball last night. If there was any validity to what they are saying, they would be attacking Hillary Clinton or David Petraeus. But nary a word against those who actually were in charge. This is clearly a proxy war, the only question is about what:

They want to get back at Obama for winning? McCain's hatred is visceral.
They want at least one small vindictive victory to make up for their devastating loss?
They want to attack the female African American because she seems more vulnerable?
They are just instinctively, unconsciously racist?
They want to manipulate Obama into giving them that Senate seat?
Or, most likely, all of the above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:08 PM

7. Madow reported today that 3 of the republican senators against Brown were actively in campaigning

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

For brown in mass. Who lost to warren

Do you think there is a link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:19 PM

9. Far more concerning is this.

WASHINGTON - Susan Rice's would-be path to the U.S. State Department hit another snag on Wednesday following revelations that she owns significant stock in Calgary-based TransCanada, the energy giant hoping to win approval from the Obama administration to build its Keystone XL pipeline.

The State Department is in charge of making a final decision on the $7 billion pipeline since it crosses an international border.

If Rice, the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is tapped to be Hillary Clinton's replacement as secretary of state — and subsequently survives the nomination process in the U.S. Senate — she'd be in a potential conflict-of-interest situation.

As first reported by On Earth, an environmental news website, Rice holds substantial investments in several Canadian oil companies and financial institutions that stand to gain from both the pipeline and the expansion of Alberta's oilsands.

Financial disclosure records show that Rice, who's married to a Canadian, owns stock valued between US$300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada (TSX:TRP).

The records also show that about a third of Rice's personal wealth — estimated to be as high as $43 million — is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators and other energy industries in Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/28/susan-rice-transcanada-oil-investments-conflict_n_2207808.html

Some of her other investments:
Bank of America - $50,000
BP - $100,000
Wal-Mart Stores - $115,000
Pfizer Inc - $15,000
Murphy Oil - $150,000
McDonald's Corp - $50,000
Imperial Oil - $1,200,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:24 PM

10. Yes, Beacool, this is the big one, imo.

I have pointed out elsewhere, tho, that she likely does not manage her investments, and may or may not be aware of their extent, and I wonder whether these are owned jointly with her husband.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:42 PM

15. She is married to a wealthy Canadian.

I would assume that they own them jointly. According to what I read the investments are not in a blind trust. Even if they were, it appears that she favors the oil industry.

I'm indifferent as to who Obama chooses as SOS, Hillary will be a tough act to follow. I'm just pointing this out because I was surprised at her wealth and portfolio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:03 AM

22. SOMEONE appears to favor oil industry,

but I wonder where the diversification, or lack thereof, in hers, comes from. Her husband may be the decider of those matters, they may have financial advisors who they trust, there are many ways to deal with a large portfolio which don't require frequent personal oversight or even knowledge of what's in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:16 AM

25. True.

I'm sure that she's going to be asked about this sooner or later.

Dana Milbank also has an interesting article on Rice.

"Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Particularly in comparison with the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her.

Back when she was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she appalled colleagues by flipping her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department, according to witnesses. Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-susan-rices-tarnished-resume/2012/11/16/55ec3382-3012-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

I wonder if she has the temperament for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:40 PM

14. Do you really believe the SOS is independent? The SOS does the bidding of the President. Doesn't

Determine the direction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:45 PM

17. That's something to consider too.

Foreign Policy had an article about Rice maybe being too indebted to Obama and not being enough of an Independent thinker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:49 PM

18. Perhaps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:14 AM

24. The pipeline investments are of more concern to me

And coupled with the Canadian connection (though she can hardly help who's she's married to) SHOULD have prompted her to divest herself from the pipeline well ahead of this. She may have had no sinister plans, but the sheer naivete as to the implications of these involvements should have clued her in that this would be a problem.

I don't ask for a saint, but I do request that the person in this position have some basic political acumen. She's in the wrong business - politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:22 AM

28. I was surprised about the pipeline and the other oil investments.

I'm not a particular fan of either top candidate for the SOS job, but I do think that of the two, Kerry would be a better choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:39 AM

30. I think Kerry would be great but...

strategically, I can't - just can't - see him as a viable option. The president isn't dumb. He won't nom Kerry unless Kerry does something silly like swear that he will give up his Senate seat if he isn't nominated. Dems need every Senate seat that isn't nailed down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:09 AM

71. Kerry has about 1.5 mil in tar sands investment too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #71)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:54 AM

72. What's wrong with those people... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #72)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:43 PM

73. Well

Let's see - 99% of our leaders are assholes. You don't get into these positions without being an asshole.

All we can do is try to make sure their assholery doesn't get us all killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #73)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:57 PM

74. Sure, being a psychopath is a job requirement

 

Which is why I'm not a follower of any psychopathic leaders. It's not the psychopaths that I really worry about, but the authoritarian followers who are "just following orders".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #74)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 08:36 PM

75. Gotta solve that problem I figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 08:59 PM

76. My favorite conspiracy theory

 

is that the "Illuminati Lizards" or what ever is behind the "leaders" are doing their damnest (literally) to teach the hard way the authoritarian followers how wrong they are to follow them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:47 AM

31. It's not naivete.

Why should she give a damn how it looks? She hasn't been nominated. It certainly shouldn't be a mark against her with the Republicans. They would be glad of it. Besides, she could divest herself easily if needed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:56 AM

35. Because how she looks is how the President looks

and how the party looks and how the party sees her. She would serve at the will of the President. It's her job to give a damn how it looks. She obviously should have divested herself earlier to avoid this in the first place. It shows a lack of planning for the future and it indicates a disregard for the overall purpose of the administration. Divesting herself after it is disclosed to the public is not only counterproductive to the process, but it makes the job of the President and his allies in Congress even more difficult than it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:32 PM

70. Nobody has made an issue of it in the last four years.

If it hasn't been a conflict of interest during her ambassadorship, then why should it matter? She has not been offered the SOS job. If it would be a conflict in her SOS position, then she could divest herself. This is not a big deal. The Democrats aren't going to oppose her because of it, and the Republicans would look ridiculous doing so. Besides some of the loudest voices against Keystone are coming from ranchers in red states. A SOS is going to be occupied by Palastine/Israel/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Russia/China/Korea. Besides environmental issues US/Canada is not a problem--nor a priority.

The President has enough real difficulty dealing with the Republican pettiness. Why borrow trouble?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:19 AM

27. That is a real problem, imo. I don't care what the Republicans think.

I don't like the idea of a SoS who is beholden to the gas and oil companies. We already had one of those, the other Rice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:50 AM

49. The oil investments are a much bigger deal then the crap about Bengazi

I supported her up until now, but am not entirely sure. I don't want Kerry appointed because he is important in the Senate.

The question who else is there?

It seems like only two names are being mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #49)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:33 AM

61. Yes, you would think that Obama had more choices than just Kerry or Rice.

Who knows, maybe he'll surprise everybody and choose someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:49 AM

32. Meadow?

Are you speaking of Rachel Maddow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:36 PM

13. Rice was an Iraq War cheerleader

Actually pimped the line, with a straight face, that Saddam was threat to us -- a line that was completely ludicrous. She's no more qualified to be SOS than the guy who flips burgers for a living at the nearby fast food joint.

Plenty of decent SOS candidates Obama should otherwise choose from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:57 PM

20. Agreed

But beyond this, this is a dirty game and I doubt few if any of us know all the facts. The fact of the matter is that its a damn shame we're losing the one we have.

I don't claim to know everything here, but a good SOS is going to have to play the game better than this. We can wish the game away all we like, but that doesn't mean that it's not still there. Its the finances and the pipeline issue that worry me the most about her common sense. She seems almost naive and I can't imagine a worse trait for this position.

Just standing blindly by the potential nominee without recognition of the potential pitfalls is a serious error, in my opinion, but I'd be welcome to any opposing opinions to that - and I wish some more in the party willing to stand up for her besides pundits.

Where is her backing in the party itself? Who is standing up for her? I'd like to know because I'm not seeing it in what I've read thus far. What's the President's stance on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:34 AM

29. Nevermind

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” Obama said Wednesday at his East Room news conference, defending his U.N. ambassador from charges that she misled the public about attacks on Americans in Libya.

So he's defending her on Libya - but what about the pipeline? I don't know. I just don't know about this one. Something just doesn't feel right. I trust his judgment, but something just doesn't smell right about this - and her. Too many bad opinions of her.

On the other hand, many great leaders were not well liked by their peers. I just don't know. I think that if the President continues to support her, then so will I.

I've been researching a bit tonight about alternatives and I saw Samantha Power. She might not be level-headed enough for the job though. Berman is right out. Kerry would be a HUGE mistake because of the Senate seat issue.

You'd think we'd have more to choose from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:45 PM

16. I'm Sure There Is A Lengthy Report That Already Addresses

Embassy security in Nairobi prior to the truck bombing at that facility some 15+ years ago. So, why doesn't Sen. Collins simply read that report. And where was her concern over the August 6, 2001 PDB headlined "bin Laden determined to attack inside the US". That is some screwed up priorities, if you ask me.

Also note that none of these Senators ever bother to specify the particulars of their concerns. They have had extensive discussions with Amb. Rice so the time to raise the concerns is in those question and answer sessions. Additionally, since all testimony is to the effect that standard protocol was followed it is hard to understand what those grave concerns could be. If there is anybody not leveling with the American people it is the critics of Amb. Rice as it is obvious that another issue is driving this faux concern and reminds me of the tactics used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy some 60 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:57 AM

43. Not only

 

this, I find it interesting that John McCain, Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte were the only senators out campaigning for Scott Brown. Maybe they should remove themselves from the process because they have a conflict of interest. I don't think too highly of their credibility either and I'm an American citizen. It is my right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:16 AM

45. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:03 AM

36. The lies start in the title

There are no moderate Republicans in the congress. They all became Democrats long ago. What remains are extremist Republicans and the Teaparty Nutjobs who make them look almost normal by comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:13 AM

39. What about Martin Indyk instead of any of the current accepted favorites?

There's a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:06 AM

41. I hope that Susan Rice is not nominated for anything at all.

She doesn't deserve it. Not because of this Republican nonsense, but because she is a warmonger and lacks diplomatic skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:50 AM

42. I don't

 

agree with you at all. She was the Ambassador and Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton is in the Cabinet and would have also signed off on any War you attach to Rice. She also approves of Susan Rice. And everybody serves for the President, which would mean, the buck stops with the President on any War. And if they are doing what the President wants, you can't detach any action of War on his subordinates. So this notion to attached any War on Susan Rice or any of President Obama's subordinates are ridiculous and also when the Secretary of State has more sway and is in charge of Diplomacy overall. The woman was doing what the President wanted. You also have the Vice President and Secretary of Defense with more sway to go to War than Susan Rice. The only thing Susan Rice does is report back to the President about the conditions of a certain country. She has nothing to do with military conditions.

I also don't think a Republican senator should be the only say on a President's cabinet choice. That didn't keep Condeleeza Rice or Colin Powell from the position and to think a prerequisite for Secretary State is not to advocate War on any condition is ridiculous also. She was thought of well in the Clinton Administration and apparently President Obama thinks highly of her. If he wants her, then he should pick her. There is nothing in her record that disqualifies her. And did Susan Collins approve of Susan Rice when she was nominated for the U.N. Ambassador? That should shut her trap, once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #42)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:18 AM

46. Good points!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #42)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:46 AM

47. She was not "just doing her job"

Her statements on Iraq were ridiculous. Read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/28/1165415/-Susan-Rice-Vocally-Supported-the-Iraq-War-and-Every-MidEast-War-Since

That said, criticisms that make sense are not the ones used by Republicans so damned if I will stand with them on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:53 AM

51. I will answer

 

this. My whole point, is Susan Rice in her position, was taking her directions from the President and his Administration. She is a subordinate and carries out their directives. She is not some lone wolf carrying out her own directives as U.N. Ambassador. That is what Republicans and others want you to believe.

I served in the military, and whether I liked the Policy or not, I had to obey orders. Her job as U.N. Ambassador, was to communicate the stance of the U.S. Government. And furthermore, John Kerry also advocated a No Fly zone in Libya. Not only this, everyone of those Senators, including Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton advocated initially going to War against Iraq, based on faulty Intelligence. Do you now regret Senator Clinton as Secretary of State?

I don't buy this benghazi goose chase either, because of my military back ground. Look up the definition of covert activities and if you read it carefully, the Republicans are full of shit! I don't buy that consulate was what they claim it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:11 AM

55. Those quotes indicate that she was not just relaying the stance of the government

...but that those were her genuine opinions. Ludicrous, militant opinions.

I do regret Clinton's position as SoS for the reasons you cited. Many Americans were not anywhere near her privileged vantage point but still did not fall for it, including myself. What excuse does she have? Rice also has no excuse.

If I had to choose between Rice and whoever the Republicans want, I would go with Rice of course. Same case with Clinton, but there are plenty of better candidates in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:41 AM

64. I agree with you here. However, if Rice owns or co-owns Canadian Oil

 

properties, whether or not they will be part of Keystone, she has to step away from consideration. I would prefer another for this and other reasons. At this point, I think Rice's problems are diverting attention away from the Fiscal Cliff and pending congressional actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:47 AM

48. WOW, one more Senator on board with the Three Stooges

I bet McCain and Graham have been begging all of their Senate
colleagues to join in this chorus of assholery, and all they could
come up with is Ayotte (feminine window dressing) and now
Collins.

Pathetic losers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:51 AM

50. Susan Collins is a harpie

I have no respect for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:03 AM

53. moderate Republican is an oxymoron.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:44 AM

58. a non-existent figment of the corporate press

has not existed for 40 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:05 AM

54. Me thinks

it's time to play with their heads with the news that Scott Brown is being vetted for SOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:14 AM

56. They want Kerry's Senate seat so they put a "moderate" on stage to increase the pressure.

It is so very clear now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:45 AM

59. Collins stopped being a voice of moderation around the time Dubya's dadd

got elected. Look carefully...they're trying to poison the waters for Rice and Kerry. Scott Brown lost by 8 percentage points--the same number he would lose by if Patrick or another popular figure (Frank???) were to run for open seat. This seat is solid BLUE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:29 AM

60. susan collins is a malliable idiot

that woman doesn't know what she thinks until she's told what to think...

how she keeps winning is amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:45 AM

62. Recess Appointment. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:49 AM

63. Rachel did an outstanding job last night uncovering the bullshit concern from Susan Collins.

Bottom line: they want Kerry out of the Senate so that they can put Scott Brown back in. It's just that simple.

The more they go after Susan Rice, I feel more convinced that she may be the best person for the job, and the more I support her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:53 AM

65. Oh goodness, a "moderate" GOPer has voiced concern!!

It's over, Ms. Rice! SOMEONE GET THE HOOK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:43 PM

78. I know what they are doing and Obama is surely up on their bullshit...

They want to force Obama to reject Rice and in doing so will hand the job to Kerry which will create a special election to get their fuckwad-asshat-rep Brown in the vacated senate seat.

Hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread