The Rice Melodrama
Posted: December 13, 2012 Filed under: Foreign Affairs | Tags: Susan Rice 45 CommentsI’ve been searching for some good, definitive articles on Susan Rice since she’s one of those individuals that’s had notoriety thrust upon her by a group of disgruntled 
Republican losers. I state this as no Susan Rice fan. She rubbed me the wrong way through out the 2008 election season. Still, I’m not into witch hunts and it certainly seemed like she’s been the proxy witch of the moment. Here’s a great article at TDB from 3 days ago that talks how Susan Rice typifies what’s historically been problematic about democrats and their reputation as foreign policy lightweights. This goes further back than Benghazi and have to do with her waltz around the Iraq issue.
It’s not true, as some left-wing websites claim, that Rice “was a cheerleader for Bush’s invasion of Iraq.” But if, as Rice herself claims, she supported Obama in 2008 because on Iraq he made “the same unpopular choice I had made,” the evidence is hard to find. In fact, what’s striking about the four NPR interviews Rice did in the run-up to war was her capacity to avoid taking a clear position one way or another. At times, Rice does indeed sound skeptical of military action. In November 2002, she warned that there are “many people who think that we haven’t finished the war against al Qaeda and our ability to do these simultaneously is in doubt.” In December, she urged a “more honest assessment of what the costs will be of the actual conflict, as well as the aftermath.” And the following February, she said that “there are many who fear that going to war against Iraq may in fact in the short term make us less secure rather than more secure.”
But at others times, Rice sounded more hawkish, declaring on Dec. 20, 2002 that “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 and hopefully we’ll bring as many countries as possible with us … even as we move forward as we must on the military side.”
Unable to decipher Rice’s view from these NPR interviews, I called two colleagues who worked with her at the Brookings Institution at the time. Neither was sure if she had supported the war or not.
How could a rising foreign-policy star like Susan Rice, faced with the most controversial foreign-policy issue of her career, avoid taking a clear position? Because avoiding controversial positions is what Democratic foreign-policy elites do. When the GOP holds the White House, and would-be Democratic foreign-policy appointees park themselves at places like Brookings or the Council on Foreign Relations, their primary imperative is to make sure they don’t say anything that would keep them from leaving those halfway houses when their party takes power again.
But in another way, this is completely typical Obama – ruthless, pragmatic, cold-blooded. He took a look at the lay of the land in the Senate; decided that he had no appetite for a bruising confirmation battle in the midst of what is shaping to be a fierce fight over the fiscal cliff, and decided instead to push Rice over the edge.
In fairness, Rice didn’t give him a great deal of wiggle-room to work with. Since Obama’s stout defense of his UN ambassador, her reputation took hit after hit – and it wasn’t just over Benghazi. Rice and her allies appeared incapable of mounting an effective PR campaign on her behalf.
There has been a steady stream of news stories that have poked holes at Rice’s qualifications for the top diplomatic job. First, there was this Roger Cohen op-ed in the New York Times, which quoted former UN Ambassador Thomas Pickering criticizing her conduct as US assistant secretary for African affairs. Pickering is as highly respected a foreign service officer as you will find in Washington: for him to come out and publicly question her judgment was an eyebrow-raising move.
Since then, there have been more stories: about Rice’s former work at the consulting firm Stonebridge on behalf of Rwandan strongman Paul Kagame; about her financial dealings and potential conflict of interest over the Keystone XL pipeline; and a devastating Daily Beast article about her supposedly suspect diplomatic “temperament”.
Here again, Rice did little to help herself by getting in an undiplomatic contretemps this week with the usually mild-mannered Chinese ambassador to the United Nations. Nonetheless, it was striking how many people were willing to make disparaging comments, off the record, about Rice – a clear sign that it wasn’t just John McCain who didn’t want to see her get secretary of state.
Put all of this together and it raised legitimate questions about Rice’s suitability for the job. None of this is to say that – had Obama fought for her – she wouldn’t have won approval. It’s quite possible she would have gotten through the Senate hearing, but at what cost – both to herself and to the Obama administration?
Instead of waging that fight, Obama cut his losses.
However, is this something that ultimately makes the re-elected President appear weak because he basically caved to hapless loser, John McCain?
After McCain’s first assault on Rice, Obama came to her defense, calling the assault on her character “outrageous” and inviting McCain and the others to come after him. Only a few other Republicans rallied behind McCain. It seemed that Rice, if nominated, would be confirmed with a healthy margin, albeit after some struggle.
But then McCain pulled a very clever gambit, announcing publicly that he would seek a chair on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (while retaining his status as top Republican on the Armed Services Committee). This would give him a direct role in the interrogation and confirmation of Rice or any other nominee for secretary of state and, indeed, the entire tier of assistant secretaries and undersecretaries. It would also allow him to request hearings and to call the secretary as a witness on any number of topics that he and his Republican colleagues might wish to investigate. He could be a constant thorn in the administration’s side on an issue—foreign policy, broadly speaking—that presidents are usually allowed to pursue with great leeway and that this president has pursued with success and high ratings.
In the end, with all the other fights Obama has on his hands in his second term, this one didn’t seem worth the struggle. As Rice herself put it in a letter released this afternoon, “I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly—to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities. … Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time.”
A White House spokesman said in an email this afternoon that McCain’s attacks had nothing to do with Rice’s decision. A spokesman on McCain’s staff said in a phone conversation that Rice’s pending nomination had nothing to do with his decision to seek a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Both statements deserve a cocked eyebrow.
It’s obvious this was turning into a political dick size campaign from several vantage points. Primarily, the several times the President clearly indicated that the fight was him and his statements defending Rice. Does the proverbial falling on your sword movie really create a solution for the President?
After a series of strikingly unsuccessful meetings on Capitol Hill in which she failed to impress even moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins of Maine, Rice also found herself facing resistance from foreign-policy elites who questioned her temperament and her record. In addition, human-rights critics were up in arms over her behavior toward African dictators, particularly her role in allegedly holding up publication of a U.N. report that concluded the government of Rwandan President Paul Kagame, with whom she has a long and close relationship, was supplying and financing a brutal Congolese rebel force known as the M23 Movement.
That may have been the tipping point, though an official on Rice’s team declined to say so. As she put it herself in her letter to Obama, the president had some other “pressing national international priorities.… It is far more important that we devote precious legislative hours and energy to enacting your core goals, including comprehensive immigration reform, balanced deficit reduction, job creation, and maintaining a robust national defense and effective U.S. global leadership.”
In other words, the Obama team was quickly coming to realize that, even though it appeared he had considerable leverage over the Republicans following a more-robust-than-thought reelection victory, a Rice nomination was simply going to cost him too much political capital, especially when it came to a long-term budget deal.
Whatever the deal, the optics are not good. This makes a set of Republican Senators look petty. It also does not help the Republican cause with blacks or women. It doesn’t play well into any story of an Obama fighting for his people or beliefs. Again, I’m not a Susan Rice fan but none of these optics sit well with me.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
This seems like one of those DC dramas where everybody involved comes out a loser. Rice won’t be SOS and McCain/Graham/etc look like idiot bullies. Even Kerry is a loser cause, even it he becomes SOS, he’ll have an asterisk by his name as the second choice.
This is so good, I’d like to post it here, as well as, the last thread.
Charles Pierce: The Defenestration Of Susan Rice
Thanks! I don’t know if you noticed but I asked if you’d do it under the last thread!!!
You’re most welcome, I saw it. McCain wishes Rice well. I say ‘Fuck you McCain’ and would laugh if he died in a fire. Does that make me a bad person?
McCain Thanks Rice, ‘Wishes’ Her Well
politics is a nasty nasty business …
Obama doesn’t have a record of that anyway.
If it’s a choice between fighting for Rice or fighting to block cuts in earned benefits/for taxing the rich, I’d rather he do the latter.
I wasn’t too happy about his selection of Rice — I especially dislike her support for Kagame — but it’s always bad for a President when he allows one of his picks for a Cabinet post to be forced out even before Congress votes on the candidate.
SHE WAS NEVER NOMINATED! Its funny to see people get their panties in a bunch over something that never happened.
You are right about Obama not having a record of fighting for his people. There is a list of people that Obama has thrown under the bus when it became politically necessary.
OK, we hear you, no need to shout. People are disturbed by something that did happen: two old white men beating up on a black woman for something she didn’t do. Get over it already.
If you think she was attacked because she was black and a woman its time to put down the kool-aid.
She was attacked because that is all Republicans know how to do these days. They lie. They make up stuff and they demean people because its the only way they get their way. McCain called her “not very bright”. What kind of cogent argument is that? They are all sore losers throwing childish snits.
TBS, pls note that I didn’t say that she was nominated.
Well John McCain and Lindsey Graham were sure all over the airwaves carrying on over something. Maybe Lindsey Graham’s panties were in a twist, but I’d peg McCain as a boxers kind of guy.
“She was attacked because that is all Republicans know how to do these days. They lie. They make up stuff and they demean people because its the only way they get their way. McCain called her “not very bright”. What kind of cogent argument is that? They are all sore losers throwing childish snits.”
Tell me you honestly believe that the only liars in politics are Republicans. The only side that demeans people are Republicans.
As for Rice being “not very bright” i would have to agree. Only a person who was not very bright would put forth the statements made by Rice regarding the Benghazi attack. The youtube video at the time of the attack had less than 300 views. How many of those views were from Libya do you think? The Libyans were saying it had nothing to do with the video. Do i think she lied? No, she repeated the talking points that were given too her.
I’m a registered independent so that should tell you all you need to know about what I think about political parties. I think the Republicans only do that. That doesn’t mean I think the Democrats never do it.
and show me your doctorate … I can show you mine. So can Boston Boomer. and So can Susan Rice …
I’ll take your “not very bright” comment seriously after I’ve searched your CV for signs of life.
“and show me your doctorate … I can show you mine. So can Boston Boomer. and So can Susan Rice …
I’ll take your “not very bright” comment seriously after I’ve searched your CV for signs of life.”
Wow, just wow. Hows that for an answer? Are you seriously asking to see my credentials? I can’t believe someone so enlightened with a doctorate would stoop to the level you just did. Lets say for the sake of this argument that i was a high school drop out. That means i should have no discussions with you or Boston Boomer or Susan Rice? Intelligent
conversation and disagreements can only be had here if one has a doctorate? I think you are misguided to say the least. Talk about division, class warfare, and an overt belief in the superiority of social status. You just spoke against everything liberalism stands for.
I’m just saying all I can judge from at the moment are a bunch of wild ass assumptions made from nothing but other people’s comments so I have no idea how you can judge that Susan Rice isn’t bright. I’m just looking for some inkling of something other than you being just another person with an unsupported opinion.
You certainly implied it
“I wasn’t too happy about his selection of Rice”
I wrote the post. I believed she was on the short list. If you have problems jumping to conclusions based on what I wrote, then take it up with me. That’s a quote from me. I wasn’t keen on her being put into the ambassadorship and I wasn’t rooting for her for SOS. I don’t like how she played political attack dog in 2008 but I don’t agree that she needed to be witch hunted for trumped up charges about a MTP appearance. Clear enough for you?
“I don’t agree that she needed to be witch hunted for trumped up charges about a MTP appearance”
What is clear is that there were questions about why she made certain statements on MTP. We now know that she made them because the intel reports she was given were edited. Im trying to figure out why no one here has a problem with someone changing the talking points and sending a black woman out onto the Sunday talk shows with false information. Why does no one care about that? Who will be held accountable for editing the intel and throwing Ms. Rice to the wolves? Everyone here is worked up about McCain and Graham wanting answers. No one cares about why Rice, a black woman mind you, was sent out there with info that our President and top national security people knew to be false.
That’s the question and it leads back–most likely–to the CIA. I don’t think that McCain and Graham are looking for that answer. I think both of them are still upset that she said nasty things about McCain in 2008. I don’t think she needs to be scapegoated and I don’t think she needs to be witch hunted. I want some one to go after the intelligence community because that seems to be the heart of the problem and no one appears to be looking there.
No, it would not lead back to the CIA. Petraeus testified that the talking points sent by the CIA specifically mentioned terrorism and not the video. It would have to be someone in the Administration that changed the talking points. Most likely the Director of National Intelligence, i believe thats who provided Rice with the talking points she used on all the Sunday shows. Now how many people are asking the important question of who sent the black woman out with bogus talking points? Who changed them?
You’re mentioning a Peter King talking point there who is a most unreliable source of facts. There seems to be some controversy around interpretation of what Petraeus actually said and it depends on which member of which party you speak to about it … Petreaus said there were two tracks. There’s too many competing interpretations to assume that.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15216937-petraeus-thought-at-the-outset-that-benghazi-attack-was-terrorist-act?lite
Frankly, there’s more testimony required from State and other places before jumping to conclusions on who zoomed who …
John Kerry? Really? So. . . what. . . Our new diplomatic strategy will be to bore other nations into compliance with our wishes? It is possible that being forced to listen to Kerry’s monotonous drone could be considered a hostile act.
But Ralph, Theresa can provide the ketchup products for State.
I can’t recall: who was it in 2008 that got the ire of Hillary supporters, was it Rice or Samantha Powers? There was some sort of dustup back then.
Mainly Power if I remember right. Called her a monster or something like that,
It was both. Powers for calling Hillary a “monster” and Rice for saying that neither Obama nor Hillary could handle the “3AM phone call”.
Interesting! Especially the comment about neither one being able to handle the 3AM call! I think HRC put the lie to that one. 😉
wow this moves surprised me i thought for sure obama would stick this one out . he could have side i fought for women and my the people , message . . and let it go though the senate and the confirmation hearings . he could have said the he fought for women minority’s and the people . but those evil republicans stopped me from. did not want more women in power and minority’s . and lest tried .
then nominate kerry or who ever and get it over with . .
Well Rice was never nominated, so its all bullshit to begin with. She was under “consideration” for the post, as is Kerry. If anyone thinks that Joe Public would have supported her after confirmation hearings they need their head examined. Her name was floated to see how much backlash there would be. In the end Obama made the right move.
You’re really worked up about this, aren’t you. BTW the only “backlash” came from a few Republican crazies.
I’m worked up because everyone is talking like she was nominated and she wasn’t. She was floated and everyone including her saw that confirmation hearings may have swayed public opinion in a negative direction.
And the backlash actually came from pretty much every Republican.
No one here has said she was nominated. If you have seen that stated by a credible news source, please post a link.
This whole post and its comments are centered around the assumption that she was or would have be nominated. I never commented on “credible news sources” regarding her non-nomination. Issuing a challenge to post a link to something i never stated or implied is somewhat amusing.
Susan Rice learns what it’s like to be Hillary Clinton, Garance Franke-Ruta
The street goes both ways dear. There was another woman named Rice who was attacked by the other side relentlessly. Thats the way it works in politics. Neither side deserves any credit for being civil.
Don’t call me “dear,” sweetie. We require civility at Sky Dancing, so either follow our rules or run along to some right wing blog to spout your nonsense.
I second that …
Didn’t realize “dear” was an insult.
It’s patronizing.
Civility? As in
” I say ‘Fuck you McCain”
As in not attacking other posters here … McCain doesn’t post here.
I was trying to be nice by using “dear” if you can twist that into an “attack,” well i don’t know what to say about that. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
Most women find that very patronizing.